Hopkins vs Dawson

Can't believe they are putting on this joke of a fight, Dawson wins easily, BHop didn't want none of Chad last time, he will get out-boxed bad again. Does anyone really want to watch this fight? I would rather watch Charles Barkley golf at the Masters.

WHY care? Did people watch ALI vs HOLMES?

     We never got to see Hopkins in the later rounds You are probly young, when you get older your body takes time to warm up and believe me when Hopkins gets past the 6 round you will regreat your words, then he may get robbed by the judges. GD luck.

I am looking forward to this one for 2 reasons, one is too see if bernard can pull off another upset and 2, to finally see him get his ass kicked, which in reality he kind of deserves for all of his bullshit comments that he has made over the past few years. I am  a fan of bernard but his interviews over the past little while have been starting to piss me off, I will always respect him inside the ring, but I am starting to dislike him outside of it.  

i think hopkins will be a +170 and dawson -200.

i am a big b-hop fan but i believe that this fight could go down similar to norris/leonard. not a complete shutout but a convincing and dominating win for dawson with b-hop in survival mode(mosely/paq) in the later rounds.

You might be right the only problem is that if BHop is down big on the scorecards, he doesn't have the power to finish the show and Dawson will just run like De La Hoya vs Trinidad, BHop at this point is just to slow, old to beat a young fast, slick boxer. I am a BHop fan, but he was out of his element in those 2 rounds, but like they say in football (that's why they play the games). BHop does deserve credit for not ducking Dawson, when he probably should. This could be the end of an era.

This fight better not be on PPV.

I'm a b-hop fan also...I never doubted him in the past but the shit he talks now is a smoke screen. He will lose this big!!!

B-Hop is an absolute legend.  He has carved a niche in this sport that will surely make him a hall of famer.  He has beaten some extremely talented fighters (at the pinnacle of their careers), so his skills go unquestioned.  Hell, that dude was fighting for a belt in 1991.  Being in my late 30's I appreciate an older guy still making noise (in the ring that is), and I do like the pushup deal in his last fight.........that brought bhop alot of "entertainment value points".....but damn, he is such a jerkoff....so he gives those points right back.  As soon as he loses competitiveness in the ring, he will have no value whatsoever, in my opinion.  Put him in the hall of fame, but boxing is better off without that dudes beak running.....

My first lean would be for the fight to go the distance.  Hoping that BHop shows up in shape, because Chad is no joke.  Bhop will lean w/ his head, grab and hold, and lose points a possiblity, to go the distance, and have a window of "opportunity" to tell us how he won the fight.

When is BHop not in shape?

He will be in shape, it won't matter, Chad wins 8-4 atleast, boring fight more than likely based on the first fight.

dawson is -310!

Dawson is -310, seems high, but then again does Hopkins even have a chance, I would say he should be more like -800, he will get soundly outboxed, he might have to retire after losing this fight. Dawson -310 all the way.

Hopkins will pull some bullshit again  Load up on Dawson 

The problem here is size. Chad is a cruiser weight fighting as a light heavyweight. Dawson has also fast hands. I think he cruises to a points win..Bad matchup style for B-Hop here

hes also coming off a seperated shoulder, the same type of injury that ended sweet peas career.

sweet pea proclaimed after the fight that the same shoulder was giving him problems in training.

hard nard is too proud to pull out of a fight if his shoulder problems persist in camp.

 

Hopkins is the play 

No friggin way Hopkins wins here.

NO FRIGGIN WAY 

Anyone entertaining a bet on Hopkins needs their boxing handicapping license revoked. The line is now exactly where it should have been the first time. In fact, it would have been much higher had Dawson not fought Pascal. That a fight he would have come on strong down the stretch, but the location and the personal trouble Dawson was experiencing around that time was the perfect storm of circumstances.

bro I like to live dangerously  , hence the play on the Executioner. 

-500 now

Mack05: Many of the points you make seem to sound exactly as I analyzed them myself. Glad to see you posting more often again as it is rare to get what I consider in-depth important factors.
I posted similar that fighters with solid fundamentals, fast and active, also hit hard or of larger size have cause Hopkins problems. Taylor won with pure athleticism and gave Hopkins no time to rest or adjust. Calzaghe also deceptively fast and he is the type of fighter that when you watch the video, he appears to have a style that causes fighters out of their game plan as he appears to have an awkward yet effective style. Even though he was larger than Kessler, he also was more accurate and anticipated Kessler easily. Dawson because of the loss to Pascal, went from a top 10 pound-for-pound to being considered way over-rated. It's not like he was destroyed, and every fighter has an off-night, and some are lucky and get the hometown decision while others are not.
I watched Dawson for a long time and thought many years ago he would dominate that weight class for as long as he wanted. He seems to improve with each fight. For a fighter his size, he has quick hands, and thus a consistent work output. That is the exact formula which cause Hopkins problems. This is the one opponent that is much bigger than Hopkins as he was used to being the bigger guy more than not. Oscar fight Hopkins was a joke. Pavlik I thought I was seeing things with +400, and I even got to play around a little getting +650 for Hopkins by decision.
I won't totally count out Hopkins, but at age 47, being the much smaller opponent, also slower hand speed and against a southpaw fighter with an excellent jab... if Hopkins attempts to win and not play survival after a few rounds of being dominated, any attempt on his part to open up offensively make it hard for me to see Hopkins making it to the final bell. More than likely he will play survival or try some foolish antics and get DQ'd.
People wonder at what age does Hopkins start to decline. He has been, but he is so great at technique and the wizard of defense, he relies on technique. His inability to cause a major offensive threat to Dawson leaves him more exposed than usual as he is the much older, slower and extremely the much smaller man.
Dawson now at age 29 is maturing muscularly and his frame has filled out quite a bit since four years ago against Tomasz Adamek.
Not including his last bout (the circus fight), 6 of his last 10 bouts went to decision, he lost that 11th round TD to Pascal, and scored two mid round knockouts. Although his style has changed and now more of his offense works off the jab, I feel confident he will start getting more mid-to-late stoppages as he now a big light-heavyweight and in his prime.
You key point: he is a cruiser-weight fighting light-heavyweight (and has good hand speed). Like almost all fighters, as they age, they go up in weight as metabolism slows and the extra calories turn to muscle. I remember a study and results showed that even though men peak testosterone levels at age 25 (they say athletes prime is 28 years of age), they did a study on highly trained athletes and age 40 showed a peak. Bodybuilders can verify this through their muscular density. Although longer years of high activity training produce more muscle, they claim that even though they can't lift some of their highest weight output performances, they seem to increase in density and areas that were always slow developing.
Boxing shows this theory to hold true, and previously people claimed it was due to steroids. That is ruled out now as we use athletes that are under constant testing for even non-steroid performance enhancing supplements.
With a boxer, his genetics, what age he started training, was he thrown to the wolves at early age and in so many toll-taking body fights, that by age thirty they are considered ancient. Many people talked like this about the great Julio Cesar Chavez when he was 31 and lost to Randall. Speed, reflexes, old bad habits get worse, many fighters get more conservative, etc, all decline at a certain point. Ali in 1964 was so fast after his forced layoff, when he returned he wasn't even close to the fighter he was previously. Hopkins was always a defensive fighter, and it wasn't until age 40 he started to become more offensive. This was mainly due to mis-matches in technique and class that the public overlooked, and he was able to open up without having to fear getting hurt.
Back to Dawson, overtime he will lose speed, and it will become more difficult for him to make weight at 175lbs. The cruiser-weight division hasn't been exciting since Holyfield vs Qawi, and with no big money to be made, fighters are forced to be big light-heavyweights or small heavyweights.

My point regarding that Mayweather would not fight Manny for several years after his return plays in to the role I mentioned above. Manny relies on more physical elements and athleticism, and although Floyd has great athleticism he relies more on technique. He is one of the most solid all around technique fighters in the past 30 years.
Manny Pacquiao turned from a terrible technique, with bad footwork, one handed, no offensive or defensive strategy was taught at a late stage (maybe 5% of fighters make the type of adjustments at a late stage that he did...I think 5% is generous of a number). At age 26 he was all physical athleticism and lost to a ring master called Erik Morales, who broke down the one-handed, no footwork, lacking basic fundamentals superman. Almost within 1 year he improved drastically, then after another year he was like a new fighter.
The reason Mayweather wants this fight at the latest stages of their careers is once the gap of speed, stamina, power, etc.. is now closer than it was (or appeared), now the fight is practically dictated by technique. I believe Mayweather would beat him at any point, but he takes very few and very small risks. Making the Mega-Fight a total joke.

Possible value play!
I was looking at odds and I see so many more ways that this fight ends in less than 9.5 rounds and at +400 it is a possibility I'd have to consider.
I don't consider this fight like Mosley playing survival against Pac and Floyd. Mosley still was a threat if he constantly chased because of his natural speed and power and a terrific counter puncher.
Hopkins lacks this as Dawson will walk him down. At age 47, I don't see enough movement using footwork from Hopkins as it was never his method. Dawson's jab alone will cause problems as will his size and strength as a southpaw! I'd have to look into this a little more, but it peaked my interest as a very high +EV. People think that just because Hopkins hasn't been stopped as a professional in 24 years that he will automatically make it go 12 rounds. All the elements are different, including the fact that he is 47. No one was considered a killer until they killed someone!

Good idea Zouk, if they have a clash of heads, Dawson is winning big and their is a cut or just some bs like last time, you win, sounds good for a small play.

Also, because it's not a prop and it is a straight wager, most places allow you to do cross-sport parlays.

You could do it just with any other straight wager that is standard -110 juice and make $855 Total on $100 wager.

I like doing an open parlay(s) when I have a +400 underdog, this way if I find maybe two or three more even money picks to even a +250. If I liked the under I would do 3 open parlays (meaning I have until a certain time period to choose the additional piece to my parlay. I'm not a fan of parlays, so I will go for two-team parlay with decent odds, and a rare three-team.
Back to +400 and finding 3 plays. Say my BR is small and I want to make small bets, then doing two-team parlays using underdogs on money line is a quick builder and the vig is neutralized through handicapping and finding +EV situations.
If I had $2,000 BankRoll, I'd then rank my play on the odds of it winning from 1-5 using half units increments. I'd also consider what the real odds should be an get a +EV edge and combine it and get a rank and rate it.
For example: The Under 9.5 Rounds +400 Hopkins-Dawson, I would maybe do 3 two-team parlays and stagger the wagers $75, $50 and $25. For now to make it simple, let's just say I decided to make them all $50 plays. To repeat once again, open parlay means you picked the amount, and at least one part of the wager, leaving you to fill in a play by a certain date that your site designates.
1. Two-Teamer $50:Part1 is +400 & Part2 is -110 = $427.27 (x8.55)
2. Two-Teamer $50:Part1 is +400 & Part2 is +175 =$637.5 (x12.75)
3. Two-Teamer $50:Part1 is +400 & Part2 is +250 =$825.0 (x16.5)

The goal is to compound the value of a +400 start. So playing anything less than even money, with handicapping included, the vig goes up and +EV goes down. Above you see the lowest payout is 8.5-to-1, then almost 13-to-1, and the highest is 16.5-to-1. The amount of $50 bets were 2.5% of BR for each play.
The reason I originally showed a staggered amount per open two-team parlay was to take advantage of possible large underdogs.
Example would be if I was adding a soccer game to one of the parlay and my team was +550 (knowing soccer, these are rare and at best you get a draw), so although I feel it has a good +EV, I don't think it is as consistent as other plays. I would use the $25 open wager and have +400 & +550 parlayed together, and a win would be +787.50 or 31.5-to-1 odds. I could then use the $50 or $75 plays on even money or small underdogs but more likely to hold consistently.
Now, with all that said, I will go over the first hardcore RULE I had to hear everyday by my great uncle (this was specific and held a stronger value fundamentally to harness racing than other types of gambling) constantly said to me as I went to the track with him or even when he was dying of bone cancer and they said he wouldn't last two weeks, he was in a bed in the original (maternal) family house where they resided and I would visit him daily and have him handicap races with me.
The rule(s) he taught me was simple, but commonly not practiced by even professional gamblers...(this applies to the under 9.5 Hopkins-Dawson +400) was this... always get your WIN bet in first (or straight wager like Under 9.5 Rounds +400) and foremost. We get so sidetracked with an Exacta, Trifecta, Superfecta, Pick 3 (4,5,and 6), Early and Late Daily Double, etc... we forget to put in a +400 wager.
Our greed consumes us, and it is hard enough to pick winners, yet alone with good odds that way to often we start thinking about how much more we would make if we added this and played it this way, etc, etc. GET THE STRAIGHT WAGER IN (OR WIN BET)!!!

Betting on a play that is very live and I see it not making it to the tenth round more than 25% of the time, already gives me a +EV.
If I thought that 50% of the time they fought it would never reach the the halfway point in the tenth round, my +EV is 200% of occurrence. Using my example BR my normal bet $100, but this rating shows I bet $200 on Under 9.5 Rounds at +400.

The above post I typed quickly and I assume it has errors and typos, so if anyone sees an error, just post the corrections or ask questions regarding any confusion... which seems to happen often in my long technical posts (LOL).
GL to ALL!