Recently watched DM's two fights with Richard Hall. Both good fights. I think Hall got screwed in the first fight. Anyway, how do you see a matchup between DM and Kovalev playing out?
DM was past his prime in both Hall fights. In any case, once upon a time I thought Kov, but how Kov's career played out leads me to believe DM wins. I simply don't trust Kovalev's chin and stamina down the stretch against DM. He's more fragile than I expected him to be. Not that DM was a murderous, Bob Foster-like puncher, but he had good power, and very good stamina... the latter of which Kov lacked. I think DM by late stoppage is the most likely outcome. I don't necessarily like saying that, but it's what my brain says.
I'd pick Kovalev. Darius was just so hittable that the sharpest version of Kovalev would slice him (obviously the boozing version would not)
I could see that happening. The Kov who beat Cleverly, I mean. DM was definitely the more hittable, and less athletic of the two. But DM was also the tougher, and longer lasting of the two. What's Kov gonna do if it's round 6-7 and DM is still coming forward behind that heavy jab? And once again, while DM didn't hit like a Foster/Spinks, he certainly had enough power to badly damage Kov's mediocre chin.
Longer lasting doesnt means anything when you only fights stiffs (bar a few exceptions) in your prime.
You do realize that minus Ward (cause I think Kov won the first fight) that DM actually beat better guys than Kov?
No, absolutely not true. Id take Pascal, Alvarez, Cleverly and Alvarez over Virgil Hill, Rocchigianni and Griffin (and i dont really count this as a win).And bar these guys his resume is absolutely barren. Most other guys werent even top10 in a very very weak division.
High regards?? Cause i i think he was better than never was Rocchigianni and pretty much at the same level as "no more than decent" hill and griffin??? Though to be honest, i think Hill was probably better than him, but the difference is pretty marginal. (Hill was more consistent but unlike Pascal, he never beat an arguable top5 p4p (in fact did he even beat a top20 p4p? I guess Maske and Tiozzo qualify, but im not even sure))
Absolutely ridiculous. But then, ridiculous statements are pretty much your "marque de commerce". You can lamaoo all you want, fact remains that Pascal has a much better victory than Hill has
Edge in single victory perhaps goes to Pascal, but Hill was in the top-2 of his own division much longer and he had more good performances after his prime too. At the fight time Hill was clearly the better victory and he ranks higher all time than Pascal
There is no perhaps here, Pascal victory over Dawson is clearly a better victory than any victory Hill got. But yeah, i did say Hill was a better fighter than Pascal, but let's not pretend there's a chasm between them. That's simply revisionism. I'll also say that for all the flack Pascal get for drawing and losing to Bhop, Hill defeat against Hearns is much much more humiliating. And did Hill really performed better after his loss to DM than Pascal did after his loss to Kovy? That's very arguable imo. Anyway Pascal is just a small part of the argument here
I think there's reason to question Dariusz's chin too though, or at least how well it would hold up against big punchers. Rocchigiani rocked Dariusz several times in their 1st fight and basically convinced him to quit. After that, I think Dariusz's people were very careful about matching him with someone who could test his chin (they waited another 4 years to give Rocky a rematch, by which time he was nearing 40). I think Hall was the only notable puncher that Dariusz risked his title against. I view Dariusz similar to how I view Jose Torres - they were both good fighters, but probably achieved more than they should've thanks to some well-timed and selective matchmaking.
I don't think that's a distinctly bigger win (if bigger at all) than Hill's over Maske or the Tiozzo rematch.
