Big Rumours of Hopkins Vs Stevenson Going Around

First topic message reminder :

Lot of rumours that this fight will be announced very shortly, supposedly in Montreal, don't know whether it'll be on PBC or HBO.

Thoughts?

I think Hopkins should retire, but if someone has been dedicated enough to have one last crack it's probably him, but man... He's in his 50's!!

Stevenson didn't fancy Hopkins 18 months ago. Hopkins and Goldenboy bent over backwards to try and secure that fight. Hopkins really felt he could beat the one armed puncher easily and wanted to do it in Canada.

Kovalev - Hopkins negotiations took no time at all after Stevenson backed away from both fights. This is pretty well documented by several sources

Hopkins is a brave man. But I do think he should think of retiring. His brain is 50, even if his body doesn't show it.

Jones is even worse. The man is getting dropped left, right and centre. He should not be allowed a licence.

I think Hopkins needs to go out on a high. He won't retire after his one sided defeat to Kov. Stevenson and Golovkin are tough but more competitive fights for him.

One armed puncher or not BHop.. Stevenson isn't Pawlik. For all his faults he's not wasting himself away with booze.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That doesn't really hold up as an argument, Kovalev racially abused Stevenson, that is specific to him.

They are both unpleasant people that have both done unpleasant things in the past.  That is specific to both. And doesn't excuse SuperDuck who has no moral high-ground to take whatsoever, despite Kov's 'attack' being personal to him.

It has nothing to do with who has the moral high ground, the moment Kovalev racially abused him he lost all right to the payday. I for one hope he continues to avoid and frustrate him.

I heard they get along very well outside of the ring, as do Stevenson and Hopkins. Problem is Stevenson sells out decent arenas with good TV money against anyone. His promoters guiding his career the same way Hearn guides Brooks

Ward being at LHW should spice it more. The question is. Can he beat Kovalev?? Will ring rust harm him?

Think Ward beats him. Won't be easy as Kov as shown he can box sensibly and use his reach and strength to his advantage as well as bang. But can't see Ward losing to anyone to be honest

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:If B-Hop has anything left I'd back him to beat Stevenson by a UD. If Krusher couldn't KO the Alien, I don't see Stevenson KOing Hopkins either.

Fighting thirty seconds a round...

He'll stink the place out.....

What's new?

He has the ability to beat anyone. It's a great fight and clash of styles. I think it's going to be a big year for boxing.

Thought his fights with Murat and Pascal were exciting. But each to their own

Love Hopkins or dislike him, nobody can deny his greatness. I know great fighters don't always make great trainers. However I think Hopkins would make a great trainer.

Man Hopkins will fight anyone, really wish he would retire, he has nothing to prove.

If he wins then what, fights Kovalev again?

Re ward kovalev... I knew hbo were lining it up and that ward had asked for a warm up (Barrera) first.

I noticed that duva, when talking about Stevenson kovalev falling through, mentioned they couldn't fight later than June...  as they had an agreement with ward. Obviously, some obligations in place. Sounds like it's set for November, unless there's mishaps in their tune ups.

Stevenson would have been a high risk warm up for kovalev. My bet is his next opponent is a safer option. If he had done Stevenson and ward in the same year, you'd have to have handed it to him.

Bit like saying Quigg is a warm up for Frampton. .

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That doesn't really hold up as an argument, Kovalev racially abused Stevenson, that is specific to him.

They are both unpleasant people that have both done unpleasant things in the past.  That is specific to both. And doesn't excuse SuperDuck who has no moral high-ground to take whatsoever, despite Kov's 'attack' being personal to him.

It has nothing to do with who has the moral high ground, the moment Kovalev racially abused him he lost all right to the payday. I for one hope he continues to avoid and frustrate him.

Right to the pay day? Since when did Superduck become Floyd Mayweather??

SuperDuck doesn't offer pay days, he doesn't bring any great money to the table, if anything Kov is the draw as he is the most respected and considered the best in the division.

And this moralistic argument is still complete BS. Pathetic excuse, nothing more.

On the subject of Hopkins. I am interested were he places on an all time list. The man has fought everyone and beat most.

How many times has he stepped up and put on a clinic when the underdog? He did it to Trinidad, he did it to Pavlik and he did it to Tarver. Hopkins has a few losses, but only the Jones and Kovalev losses were really convincing.

I admittedly haven't the greatest grasp of all the old time fighters, but is there a case of at least having Hopkins top 20-30??

I believe Jones is a better fighter at his peak and won a strap at Heavy, but I have to rank Hopkins ahead overall. His career has been fascinating. Maybe his recent fights haven't been the most watchable, but the guy is 50, and has did what he had to do, to win.

He's lost to every top level fighter he's fought, pretty much, so don't think he'll rank super high. Throw in the manner of his wins/longevity which may harm his placing.

Bit of a ledge, yes, but not an ATG (IMO).

Tito was a super win and Pavlik a clever clinic (albeit upon a righter I always felt a little over-rated) but that's about it. Lost of good journeymen, divisional gatekeepers etc on his CV. Lost to Kov brutally, JC, Dawson (twice, IMO), Taylor twice and RJJ.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Bit like saying Quigg is a warm up for Frampton. .

Indeed that was my point. You don't normally take a big fight when you're pre-contracted to another.

Beat RJJ at a time when the latter was faded as much as Bhop was green and inexperienced in their first meeting...

With you on the ATG although he does deservedly get mentioned in positive light due to his longevity. Won't miss watching him fight as wasn't exactly exciting.

Rubbish. Your RJJ hatred knows no bounds......

TopHat24/7 wrote:He's lost to every top level fighter he's fought, pretty much, so don't think he'll rank super high.  Throw in the manner of his wins/longevity which may harm his placing.

Bit of a ledge, yes, but not an ATG (IMO).

Tito was a super win and Pavlik a clever clinic (albeit upon a righter I always felt a little over-rated) but that's about it.  Lost of good journeymen, divisional gatekeepers etc on his CV. Lost to Kov brutally, JC, Dawson (twice, IMO), Taylor twice and RJJ.

Harsh assessment. He lost to Jones when both were prime (some would argue he was a little green for that and truss amongst others would disagree)... I'm in the, 'not green but probably still had stuff to learn' category. Not sure it would have made a difference and no shame in losing to prime Roy. The other defeats were all at an age where most would be retired and all except kov were close/contentious.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That doesn't really hold up as an argument, Kovalev racially abused Stevenson, that is specific to him.

They are both unpleasant people that have both done unpleasant things in the past.  That is specific to both. And doesn't excuse SuperDuck who has no moral high-ground to take whatsoever, despite Kov's 'attack' being personal to him.

It has nothing to do with who has the moral high ground, the moment Kovalev racially abused him he lost all right to the payday. I for one hope he continues to avoid and frustrate him.

Right to the pay day? Since when did Superduck become Floyd Mayweather??

SuperDuck doesn't offer pay days, he doesn't bring any great money to the table, if anything Kov is the draw as he is the most respected and considered the best in the division.

And this moralistic argument is still complete BS. Pathetic excuse, nothing more.

He does earn more than Kovalev Toppy, it's a big benefit of being a Haydon fighter, respect doesn't earn you money.

Hoppo for me just got a puzzle he couldn't solve like Toney. ..

Not sure how more experience against lesser fighters prepares you..

Jones is the most talented fighter I've seen since Hearns and Leonard..

milkyboy wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:He's lost to every top level fighter he's fought, pretty much, so don't think he'll rank super high.  Throw in the manner of his wins/longevity which may harm his placing.

Bit of a ledge, yes, but not an ATG (IMO).

Tito was a super win and Pavlik a clever clinic (albeit upon a righter I always felt a little over-rated) but that's about it.  Lost of good journeymen, divisional gatekeepers etc on his CV. Lost to Kov brutally, JC, Dawson (twice, IMO), Taylor twice and RJJ.

Harsh assessment. He lost to Jones when both were prime (some would argue he was a little green for that and truss amongst others would disagree)... I'm in the, 'not green but probably still had stuff to learn' category. Not sure it would have made a difference and no shame in losing to prime Roy.  The other defeats were all at an age where most would be retired and all except kov were close/contentious.

I don't think Taylor or Dawson were contentious, from memory, only JC was close. Agree with you on RJJ.

Wasn't trying to be harsh, I'm just talking about whether he's looking at Top20 or Top50 ATG - which should have a pretty high bar.

I would argue Floyd is more talented with overall skills, at least were defence is concerned.

Though Jones was that good at his pomp, nobody could touch him. In a mythical p4p match, I would favour him over near anyone at his best.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That doesn't really hold up as an argument, Kovalev racially abused Stevenson, that is specific to him.

They are both unpleasant people that have both done unpleasant things in the past.  That is specific to both. And doesn't excuse SuperDuck who has no moral high-ground to take whatsoever, despite Kov's 'attack' being personal to him.

It has nothing to do with who has the moral high ground, the moment Kovalev racially abused him he lost all right to the payday. I for one hope he continues to avoid and frustrate him.

Right to the pay day? Since when did Superduck become Floyd Mayweather??

SuperDuck doesn't offer pay days, he doesn't bring any great money to the table, if anything Kov is the draw as he is the most respected and considered the best in the division.

And this moralistic argument is still complete BS. Pathetic excuse, nothing more.

He does earn more than Kovalev Toppy, it's a big benefit of being a Haydon fighter, respect doesn't earn you money.

Acually fair point, forgot SuperDuck was a Haymon fighter, hence why he's becoming such a joke.

If you only care about money and don't give a sh!t about your career, standing or respect - sign with Al Haymon!

Hopkins wouldn't make a top 20 but he's inside the top 40.

As game as a badger with some top wins: Trinidad, Pavlik, Tarver and Pascal against losses to Jones, Taylor (twice), Calzaghe, Dawson and Kovalev.

His light heavyweight exploits look less impressive over time but he was lineal champ at 160 and 175 - and he whupped Pavlik, Taylor's successor into the bargain.

A specialist in disarming one-dimensional punchers, he struggled with fighters who had a bit more to them (and didn't scare).

I'd rate the likes of Monzon and Hagler over him despite his light heavy exploits.

His longevity is the key to his ranking. I don't rate Giggs as United's greatest, but many do because of longevity.

Does he rank as high as Manny??

Pick Hopkins to beat Hagler...

More to Hopkins than you give him credit for...Haz

No grey areas with you...If you like a fighter you're relentlessly positive and if you don't vice versa..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Pick Hopkins to beat Hagler...

More to Hopkins than you give him credit for...Haz

No grey areas with you...If you like a fighter you're relentlessly positive and if you don't vice versa..

Nope, I'm even handed all the way through - you should try it some time.

Hopkins probably would beat Hagler considering he's way bigger (day before weigh ins mean today's middleweights were yesterday's light heavies). There's a pic of them side by side and Hopkins dwarfs him. If they were the same size, Hagler would have way too much for him. If Taylor and Calzaghe could outhustle him, Hagler would, too. He'd outbox and outfight him. Levels.

AdamT wrote:His longevity is the key to his ranking. I don't rate Giggs as United's greatest, but many do because of longevity.

Does he rank as high as Manny??

He's in the argument with Pacquiao, for sure.

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:His longevity is the key to his ranking. I don't rate Giggs as United's greatest, but many do because of longevity.

Does he rank as high as Manny??

He's in the argument with Pacquiao, for sure.

I would rank Pacquiao higher, but Bernard couldn't be too far behind. Love Floyd or hate him, he has to rank higher than both.

Remember your Oscar article..Haz....Every close decision he won was a robbery and every close decision he lost was a schooling....

No credit for anything......

If you like a fighter he's God.............If you don't he's Satan.....

Getting it now with Fury..

You'll grow out of it..

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:His longevity is the key to his ranking. I don't rate Giggs as United's greatest, but many do because of longevity.

Does he rank as high as Manny??

He's in the argument with Pacquiao, for sure.

I would rank Pacquiao higher, but Bernard couldn't be too far behind. Love Floyd or hate him, he has to rank higher than both.

Yeah, agree with that. Close, though.

Think Pac's Mexican wins are better than anything Hoppo did. Also covered a greater horizon of weights.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Think Pac's Mexican wins are better than anything Hoppo did.  Also covered a greater horizon of weights.

Definitely agree with that, also the excitement and weight jumping.

Also, unless Hoppo fights again, for all his 'longevity' plaudits, his career will only have been about 4 years longer than Manny's.

Funny thing is if you said thirty years ago that a 50 year old would be fighting for a title....You'd be thought of as crazy...

Hopkins shows the lack of depth in Boxing these days.........

He's no better than the Leonard...Norris beat the crap out of and he was 34 !!...(119-104...120-104.....)

Shows the tragic lack of talent......and his continual presence is a bad thing..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Remember your Oscar article..Haz....Every close decision he won was a robbery and every close decision he lost was a schooling....

No credit for anything......

If you like a fighter he's God.............If you don't he's Satan.....

Getting it now with Fury..

You'll grow out of it..

Well you have a poor memory - I'll go fish it out for you (obviously Alzheimer's kicking in):

https://www.606v2.com/t61387p100-who-is-the-most-overrated-boxer-in-the-last-30-years

I seem to remember making points that you couldn't compute. You take every criticism personally because he was American!

I wish I could say you'll grow out of it!

I have to agree. No matter how remarkable he is, no 50 year old should be fighting for a title. Also Floyd and Manny are head and shoulders above most guys and they're near 40.

That is crazy and unheard of in other physical sports.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Funny thing is if you said thirty years ago that a 50 year old would be fighting for a title....You'd be thought of as crazy...

Hopkins shows the lack of depth in Boxing these days.........

He's no better than the Leonard...Norris beat the crap out of and he was 34 !!...(119-104...120-104.....)

Shows the tragic lack of talent......and his continual presence is a bad thing..

Stop hating on the modern guys!!

Does anybody have Hoppo near Manny ??

Manny is around 15 in my ATG list.....

Wonderful career ......No matter how "surprising" it is to see 21 year old Flyweights moving up and stiffening 140 pounders with one punch !!.

15 is really high. I was thinking maybe 20-25. There have been some amazing fighters the last 100+ years.

Floyd top 10-15 for sure. On talent alone even higher.

what kind of fighters do you have 15-20...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Does anybody have Hoppo near Manny ??

Manny is around 15 in my ATG list.....

Wonderful career ......No matter how "surprising" it is to see 21 year old Flyweights moving up and stiffening 140 pounders with one punch !!.

Yep. All three outside a top 20 for me. 20-40.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:what kind of fighters do you have 15-20...

well a lot of fighters I have only seen clips of and read much about.

Hagler, Langford, Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Tommy Hearns, Chavez, Arguello to name a few could rank higher, or around the same.

Easy to chuck out numbers.....Haz/Adam.....

I have an idea of my top 20.....

You can't have Hagler above Manny.........Adam.......

Always tricky rating Hopkins accurately, largely because he's such a unique case. The sheer longevity and slow-burning nature of his career makes comparisons between him and other great fighters almost impossible and we have to adapt our way of rating him, usually contradicting how we'd usually rank a fighter. Needless to say he's a bonafide great, though. All-round fantastic fighter with a record that speaks for itself and needs no too passionate a defence.

To me, he's a top five Middleweight of all time, and straight away that gives him a pretty decent foundation to secure a spot inside the top fifty of all-time pound for pound, or thereabouts. I think it's what came at 175 once he was ousted from his Middleweight title which makes his precise placing more difficult.

His record at 175 is a lot more patchy than at 160, but given he didn't make his debut as a Light-Heavyweight until he was forty-one years old any loss or sub-par performance at the higher weight was automatically always going to have a legitimate caveat attached to it in some degree, and that's not to mention the fact that Hopkins, by modern standards at least, is not a natural or thorough Light-Heavyweight by any means.

Those caveats mean that, generally speaking, any losses he's accumulated in the last decade have been written off as being inconsequential to his all-time standing in varying degrees. Question is, if you're going to give him massive praise for the series of excellent victories he's also had in that span, is diminishing the losses in turn really fair? Yes, Hopkins has been an old man for all of this span - but he's an exceptional old man. Given how exceptional he is and how much praise he's had heaped on him for his victories, wouldn't it also be fair to question if he's maybe got off a little too lightly for some of the defeats as well?

Bit of devil's advocate on my part there, but worth pondering. If you were a harsh critic of Hopkins you could argue that his overall Light-Heavyweight career doesn't necessarily improve his standing all that much. Personally, though, I'd take a more positive look and say that the good in his Light-Heavyweight exploits definitely outweighs the bad. The Dawson defeat is the only one on Hopkins' record that really leaves a slightly sour taste in the mouth, for me, because it wasn't close enough or simply down to Hopkins tiring enough to make me think that he'd definitely have won the fight had it happened ten years earlier, ala the Calzaghe fight, and because Dawson just wasn't a bad mufugga wrecking machine who was likely to trounce any converted Middleweight who was knocking on in years, ala the Kovalev fight.

But even with that disappointing loss to Dawson, what Hopkins has done as a 175 pounder embellishes the fantastic work he did at 160 in my eyes; the comparatively young whippersnappers such as Froch and Dawson couldn't match the job he did on Pascal for 21 out of the 24 rounds he fought against him, nor could Martinez make Pavlik look as bang average and clueless as Hopkins did (albeit Pavlik was dipping his toes higher than Middleweight for the first time there). I think that puts it in to perspective just how bloody good Hopkins could be even in his mid forties. And now, another few years on, we still can't bring ourselves to say that an athletic, big-punching champion some thirteen years his junior and likely with a few lb on him come fight night will definitely trounce him in to dust, when everything points to that being the sensible thing to think.

Hopkins, all things considered, would be somewhere around the 25-30 mark for me in an all-time sense. In the last two decades the only names I'd put ahead of him would be Floyd, Roy and Manny.

Agree with Chris excellent summation......

Hoppo behind those three and Whittaker......who are in between 10/20...