Poll: Hopkins v Dawson

Poll it!

I gone for Dawson on points

I went KO. mainly cos i have a bet on it, but also because if the going gets tough Bhop is likely to try some shannanigans to get out of it

I'm absolutely torn when it comes to this fight. Of course, Dawson should win. Virtually everything is stacked in his favour and, when he turns it on, he's a serious operator.

So then, why can't I click for a Dawson win without any hesitation?

I said after he handed Pavlik a boxing lesson I'd never bet against Hopkins again. I slipped back on my word when I put a shifty few quid on Pascal to beat him, so after Hopkins won seventeen of the twenty-four rounds they boxed, I once again said I'd never go against him again, the only difference being I "really meant it" this time!

Something tells me that he may just amaze us all again. Dawson's style suits Hopkins, I think. More to the point, I'm not fully convinced that Chad is the man to adapt in situations where the going is tough and the water deep. He's highly gifted, but has that tendancy to switch off for periods. Hopkins can't fight a full three minute round anymore, but I suspect that he may not need to against Dawson.

I'll concede that Dawson must be the favourite, but I have a feeling from somewhere that Hopkins might just have yet another hurrah left in the tank.

There, I've said it. Hopkins by a wafer-thin, maybe even contentious decision, after a turgid twelve rounds.

Chad can only beat himself in my opinion. I would love BHop to turn it back, but i am going with Chad. Too many things in his favour for me.

This is Dawson's to loose. If he can box clever (at range!) and not be dragged into Hopkins fight, he should win.

Based on fairly good odds alone, I was thinking of putting a little cash on Hopkins for this one.

How unwise that is I could be convinced by this thread...

Have gone for Dawson but as chris has already alluded to betting against Hopkins is pretty much a guaranteed route to looking foolish on a regular basis because everytime you think he has nothing left to offer he amazes. However I just think Dawson is ready to make the mark from good fighter or frustrating talent to the superstar he has long been tipped to be and think this is his time. Think he showed in the brief first fight his plan was to hustle and work Bhop which is obviously the correct tactic and just think he will see it through this time round.

Dawson has all the physical attributes and should be able to nullify Hop from the outside. If Bhop does this, i will never doubt him again though,ha.

Gone for Dawson by KO.

I think this is his to lose and if he doesn't win it, just like Jean Claude Pascal (who I picked NOT to beat Hopkins on either occasion!) he'll end never becoming a great.

As long as Chad keeps up the workrate, throws punches in bunches and utilises his fast hands, man handle Hopkins he'll do it. He just needs to make sure he doesn't get lazy and doesn't get upset when Hopkins tries his dirty tricks. He looked way bigger and stronger than BHop last time out and Hops prefers to be the bigger man, considering his hugely overrated win against Felix Trinidad to consider.

Dawson by KO.

Dawson UD and I think a comfortable UD this time.

Agree with whats being said about looking foolish with B-Hop

but before the last fight i saw a vid of him on the pads and he looked incredibly slow and flat footed with NO snap on his punches

So like last time i fancy a clear UD for Dawson but it will be an ugly fight

Put the first two rounds of their first fight, and Hopkins' apparent reluctancy to fight Dawson in the first place and I'd go for Dawson by way of UD.

Dawson does have a tendency to switch off for periods but fighting a legend and his most important fight to date, should sharpen his focus for the full twelve rounds.

Would dearly love to see Hopkins fight Ward, and it would be one of Hopkins' best ever performances(Dawson is no Pavlik,) if he can break down Dawson. Equally it would be a joy to see someone thouroughly outbox Hopkins.


Hopkins looked shaky in the first couple of rounds against Canadian Jean Pascal, but even then not quite as much for me as he did against Dawson. Will stick to the UD for Dawson but not with any great conviction this time.

Dawson to win a scrappy fight with Hopkins using all the tricks in the book. His time is up though.

Surprised to see that the Dawson by knockout option is fancied by quite a few. There tends to be a pattern with Dawson; the best men he fights (Pascal, Johnson, Harding, Adamek, Diaconu etc) go the distance with him. None of them are as canny an operator as Hopkins; even if he's outboxed, Bernard won't be taking a boat load of punishment. Would be absolutely amazed if there was a knockout either way.

Impossible to call really, Hopkins has to get old and over the hill soon, there's no way of knowing if it will be against Dawson which i'm hoping it will be, no one else out there deserves to have the acclaim of beating him.

He looked at little over the hill last time out to me, granted he's a slow starter, he'll not turn up out of shape and will give himself every chance though. Dawson just looked the boss to me last time out.

The fight didn't really last long enough for me to gauge anything from it, be interesting to see how it unfolds.

The fight lasted 2 rounds, I can't believe people are saying he is past his time, he has been past his time for 8 years now.

Also, what makes people think Dawson will stop him. Dawson isn't a heavy puncher, has no notable knockout victories over good fighters. Hopkins has never been knocked out against guys a lot better and a lot stronger than Dawson.

Dawson looked the boss, come on Hopkins is a notoriously slow starter and adjusts and finds a way to win throughout the fight. Dawson looks very limited to me and doesn't really step it up. Was Mosley the boss of maywetaher wen they fought.

It will be hard but Hopkins is being written off becaus do 2 round where he was rugby tackled

It was more Dawsons posture/confidence rather than what Bernard was or wasn't doing that brought me to my conclusions, maybe if he hadn't jumped onto Dawsons back Wlad Klitschko style he wouldn't have been slammed, just seemed a little desperate to be starting that stuff so early. Made me think he could feel something wasn't right. He knows every dirty trick in the book so was funny to see him crying about it.

The Galveston Giant wrote: He knows every dirty trick in the book so was funny to see him crying about it.

Yes he know every little trick in the book and bends the law at times but its not WWE. He got slammed onto the ground for god's sake...

Not ready to write of Hopkins just yet especially against someone as inconsistent as Dawson. Does he have the work rate to really pressurise Hopkins for 12 rounds and stop him from getting into a rhythm? He'll have to and cant afford to coast for parts of the fight as he usually does. I'd still lean towards a Hopkins UD/SD.

paperbag_puncher wrote:

The Galveston Giant wrote: He knows every dirty trick in the book so was funny to see him crying about it.

Yes he know every little trick in the book and bends the law at times but its not WWE. He got slammed onto the ground for god's sake...

Not ready to write of Hopkins just yet especially against someone as inconsistent as Dawson. Does he have the work rate to really pressurise Hopkins for 12 rounds and stop him from getting into a rhythm? He'll have to and cant afford to coast for parts of the fight as he usually does. I'd still lean towards a Hopkins UD/SD.

Let's get one thing straight, if he hadn't tried to jump on his back which is a foul, he wouldn't have been fouled himself, Hopkins not fouling = Hopkins not being fouled, it's simple stuff. Dawson isn't one of Wlad Klitschko opponents who is just supposed to take it. The original result was the correct one and i respect the ref for it, should never have been overturned. I'm not writing Hopkins off which i've already stated, don't want to keep repeating myself.

Yeah, a poll. My day is complete. Dawson by knockout, but nothing will surprise me in this fight. I doubt it will be a classic (it's Hopkins for pete's sake), but it will be interesting and likely to spawn many a top notch debate on here in the days that follow the fight.

And if Holyfield hadn't used the head a bit too often Mike wouldn't have had to take a lump out of his ear eh? Two wrongs and all that. The refs there for a reason. So stopping an opponent with a non - boxing move and getting a victory is the correct decision? I don't care whether you write Hopkins of or not, was simply stating I wasn't writing him off not accusing you of doing so.

And i was only stating you can't ignore the the fact he fouled in the first place, Dawson was trying to fight, Hopkins was doing nothing.

this should be a comfortable decision for hopkins. cant believe how many people are misreading the 2 rounds from last time. hopkins basically did nothing for 2 rounds and what did dawson do??? if he doesnt pressure hopkins into fighting 12 rounds hes missing his best chance. dawson looked reluctant to attack because he knew hopkins would counter him and did nothing to up the tempo. dawson is too lazy and and too respectful of hopkins right hand. hopkins dictated the pace for 2 rounds. he will start slow, save his energy and come out to fight for the second half.

3/1 in bet365, get your mortgage on it

Sounds exciting, i picked Dawson first time round so aren't just going off two rounds. Hopkins did nothing and what did Dawson do? More than Hopkins, which wins rounds.

The Galveston Giant wrote:

paperbag_puncher wrote:

The Galveston Giant wrote: He knows every dirty trick in the book so was funny to see him crying about it.

Yes he know every little trick in the book and bends the law at times but its not WWE. He got slammed onto the ground for god's sake...

Not ready to write of Hopkins just yet especially against someone as inconsistent as Dawson. Does he have the work rate to really pressurise Hopkins for 12 rounds and stop him from getting into a rhythm? He'll have to and cant afford to coast for parts of the fight as he usually does. I'd still lean towards a Hopkins UD/SD.

Let's get one thing straight, if he hadn't tried to jump on his back which is a foul, he wouldn't have been fouled himself, Hopkins not fouling = Hopkins not being fouled, it's simple stuff. Dawson isn't one of Wlad Klitschko opponents who is just supposed to take it. The original result was the correct one and i respect the ref for it, should never have been overturned. I'm not writing Hopkins off which i've already stated, don't want to keep repeating myself.

Can't believe people are still talking about this like Dawson power-slammed Hoppo or something, maybe Rock-bottomed him or some kind of choke-slam.

And they Tyson example is a poor one. That occured in an otherwise perfectly legal clinch where Tyson's frustrations about a general over-use of the head over-flowed, Dawson's reaction was in the midst of being fouled and was not violent or likely to cause injury. He was just unlucky that Hoppo fell awkwardly, not comparable to biting someone's ear at all.

He basically shrugged him off his back, there was the tiniest hint of a lift when he briefly had his arm round the back of Hoppo's legs but it was nothing like some people want to make out. Hoppo is dirty and that time he got shown up. The whole reason for the rule is for people like him that have form (Calzaghe fight, from memory) and the ref, not being a doctor with a handy mobile x-ray scanner, can't decide whether accidental injuries are fake or not. Correct decision last time round and hopefully the same again.

But how can it be the correct decision if it was a "non-boxing" move that finished the fight? Do you think Hopkins was looking out of the fight after 2 rounds? As I said I've no problem with what Dawson did but calling it as a stoppage win for him is crazy..

Hopkins by SD in a truly horrible spectacle of a fight, I'm done picking against Hopkins only for the old tool to keep winning.

paperbag_puncher wrote:But how can it be the correct decision if it was a "non-boxing" move that finished the fight? Do you think Hopkins was looking out of the fight after 2 rounds? As I said I've no problem with what Dawson did but calling it as a stoppage win for him is crazy..

Because he started the move.

paperbag_puncher wrote:But how can it be the correct decision if it was a "non-boxing" move that finished the fight? Do you think Hopkins was looking out of the fight after 2 rounds? As I said I've no problem with what Dawson did but calling it as a stoppage win for him is crazy..

It may have been an unfortunate result for Hoppo (though I would argue not as he's a dirty fighter and deserve's nothing better) but by the law (or at least my understanding of it) it was correct.

Either that or DQ Hoppo for mounting Dawson, that's not a boxing move either.

If Hoppo hadn't landed awkwardly and had got up (after the usual whingeing and play-acting) it would a simple 'touch gloves and recommence boxing'. But he got hurt, it was his fault, so NC or whatever it was changed to would have been unfair on Dawson who was the one being fouled.

bellchees wrote:Hopkins by SD in a truly horrible spectacle of a fight, I'm done picking against Hopkins only for the old tool to keep winning.

Lost a few bets there Bellchees??

TopHat24/7 wrote:

paperbag_puncher wrote:But how can it be the correct decision if it was a "non-boxing" move that finished the fight? Do you think Hopkins was looking out of the fight after 2 rounds? As I said I've no problem with what Dawson did but calling it as a stoppage win for him is crazy..

It may have been an unfortunate result for Hoppo (though I would argue not as he's a dirty fighter and deserve's nothing better) but by the law (or at least my understanding of it) it was correct.

Either that or DQ Hoppo for mounting Dawson, that's not a boxing move either.

If Hoppo hadn't landed awkwardly and had got up (after the usual whingeing and play-acting) it would a simple 'touch gloves and recommence boxing'. But he got hurt, it was his fault, so NC or whatever it was changed to would have been unfair on Dawson who was the one being fouled.

Fouls are committed in every round of every fight you cant go DQing people for little things. Warnings, point deductions and DQing for incessant fouling is fair enough. But you cant DQ him because he committed a foul in the 2nd round. Even if you know Hopkins is dirty you cant base decisions on reputations and a DQ would have been ridiculously premature and unfair.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

bellchees wrote:Hopkins by SD in a truly horrible spectacle of a fight, I'm done picking against Hopkins only for the old tool to keep winning.

Lost a few bets there Bellchees??

Whenever I pick him to lose he wins and when I pick him to win against the hugely overrated Pascal 1st time round he gets shafted by the judges, perhaps not his fault but I'm still holding it against him.

paperbag_puncher wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

paperbag_puncher wrote:But how can it be the correct decision if it was a "non-boxing" move that finished the fight? Do you think Hopkins was looking out of the fight after 2 rounds? As I said I've no problem with what Dawson did but calling it as a stoppage win for him is crazy..

It may have been an unfortunate result for Hoppo (though I would argue not as he's a dirty fighter and deserve's nothing better) but by the law (or at least my understanding of it) it was correct.

Either that or DQ Hoppo for mounting Dawson, that's not a boxing move either.

If Hoppo hadn't landed awkwardly and had got up (after the usual whingeing and play-acting) it would a simple 'touch gloves and recommence boxing'. But he got hurt, it was his fault, so NC or whatever it was changed to would have been unfair on Dawson who was the one being fouled.

Fouls are committed in every round of every fight you cant go DQing people for little things. Warnings, point deductions and DQing for incessant fouling is fair enough. But you cant DQ him because he committed a foul in the 2nd round. Even if you know Hopkins is dirty you cant base decisions on reputations and a DQ would have been ridiculously premature and unfair.

Exactly.

So if you can't DQ him for jumping on Dawson's back you can't effectively penalise Dawson for shrugging him off and Hoppo falling awkwardly and not giving Dawson the correct result applying the letter of the law, which is what the ref did.

Dawson is as likely to make the leap to superstar as Jermaine Taylor. Dawson is massively over-rated and it makes me cringe to think that people will consider him a modern great when we all know Hopkins would have taken him to the cleaners in his prime. Hope Bernard does the business but hope we don't then this same tripe with Cleverley next.

Bernard Hopkins will not lose to Chad Dawson. Just like he didn't lose to Taylor and Calzaghe. I expect Hopkins to control the pace of this fight and fight the way he did against Calzaghe. What I saw in their first two rounds, I am confident for Hopkins.

What you saw in the firs two rounds? Didn't he lose both?? Pretty sure I had both scored to Dawson.

Dawson on points......never count out old man Hopkins though!

Hopkins is past his prime. No doubt about that. His performances against Pascal were impressive only the context of his age. But you would expect a peak Hopkins to post a wide UD over someone like Pascal and control the fight from start to finish. Instead he just did enough, relying on fighting at half pace and nicking rounds to win. The first two rounds of the Dawson fight didnt bode well either as with Hopkins engine and stamina now he cant afford to be letting Dawson take the early rounds and rely on rallying late.

As long as Dawson isnt tactically naive and allows Hopkins to dictate the tempo then I would anticipate him winning the fight by at least 4/5 rounds. Its going to be a battle of two technicians and I think the key battle will be between Dawsons jabs and Hopkins lead and counter rights trying to cope with him. But youth, speed, timing all favour Dawson and I think he win come out on top in the chess match as Hopkins age catches up with him. .

The reason it's a difficult fight is down to the fact that Dawson knows how to cut off the ring when he's approaching B-Hop. He doesn't fall for B-Hop's feints. It'll be close but I see Hopkins frustrating him and losing a Calzaghe SD type of decision whilst landing all of the effective punches.