Kelly Pavlik v Bernard Hopkins

megadodge

Wahay, nice one.

I wouldn't be a heavy gambler ( I only bet on Betfair), but they're the sort of situations you dream of if you're really into it.

nacho libre

megadodge wrote: »

Good calls from Akindoc and Big Ears.
.

Don't forget raven136, he got it right too. I wanted to go for Hopkins but like most i thought he would fade later on. what i didn't take into account, is against Calzaghe, Hopkins faded due to Calzaghe's incredible workrate and the angles he's able to throw punches from always gave Hopkins something to think about.
It's easier to maintain stamina when you're dictating the pace and picking off your opponent at will which Hopkins was doing in this fight.
In the end it just proves, once and for all, what a great fighter Calzaghe is.

c1979

i got it wrong Hopkins is a true great

slipss

What can I say, I never liked Hop, still don't, too much bull**** in his game, if I was a lot more cynical I'd be screaming Nandralone at the top of my lungs, but that was incredible, credit where it's due, he is a great fighter, not just a good one.

megadodge

Don't forget raven136, he got it right too

Raven136 too

cowzerp

nacho libre wrote: »

yes, does this mean Pavlik was overrated or Calzaghe is better than his critics thought. Cowzerp over to you.;)

I dont think it means either, Pavlik boxed poor by his standards and Hopkins fought at the top of his game, Hopkins was special in this fight no doubt. This fight was all about Hopkins and nothing to do with Calzaghe.

nacho libre wrote: »

In the end it just proves, once and for all, what a great fighter Calzaghe is.

It does not prove anything! different fights and different performances-in the calzaghe fight hopkins boxed negatively in my opinion and was a shadow of himself and still done enough to get the win in my opinion.

against Pavlik he was more aggressive and attacking and looked like the Hopkins that will go down in history as a great, if RJJ can emulate that then its bye bye calzaghe, but i doubt he will.

jayroyal

cowzerp wrote: »

I dont think it means either, Pavlik boxed poor by his standards and Hopkins fought at the top of his game, Hopkins was special in this fight no doubt. This fight was all about Hopkins and nothing to do with Calzaghe.




It does not prove anything! different fights and different performances-in the calzaghe fight hopkins boxed negatively in my opinion and was a shadow of himself and still done enough to get the win in my opinion.

against Pavlik he was more aggressive and attacking and looked like the Hopkins that will go down in history as a great, if RJJ can emulate that then its bye bye calzaghe, but i doubt he will.

shut up talking **** lad

cowzerp

It does not prove anything, apart from the fact that hopkins was not at his best, i blamed age but he's proven he can still do it, jay dont tell me to shut up just because you dont agree with me.

walshb

Tone it down there Jay. Big deal, Paul doesn't see anything special with Cal; so what. Why take it so serious!:rolleyes:

HOP looked good against a Pavlik, who, lets be honest, was still a little unproven.
He looked good V Taylor; but Taylor is hardly legendary. The win by HOP didn't
shock me even though I thought Kelly's youth and stamina would earn him a points win.

It just goes to show how crafty and tough and resilient and awkward HOP is, and how even at this late stage, he can still pose a threat to younger and fresher men.

Pavlik's main problem is his predictability and his slow feet. He looks cumbersome in the ring. Reminds me of Andy Lee a little. This was exposed by HOP who has the better footwork and speed and angles and all round technical ability!

jayroyal

cowzerp wrote: »

It does not prove anything, apart from the fact that hopkins was not at his best, i blamed age but he's proven he can still do it, jay dont tell me to shut up just because you dont agree with me.

You've excuses for everything it gets so boring after a while, i hate hopkins the way he fights but hey it was a masterclass of boxing from such a cute clever guy.I'm not even going to mention super *** name cause it will only start a rant.
Anyway people need to learn to just give some people credit and stop waiting for the wall to fall to say i told ya so.
Anyway well done to hopks he's a true ring legend (god i even found it easy to write that and i'm not a fan):eek:

nacho libre

cowzerp wrote: »

I dont think it means either, Pavlik boxed poor by his standards and Hopkins fought at the top of his game, Hopkins was special in this fight no doubt. This fight was all about Hopkins and nothing to do with Calzaghe.




It does not prove anything! different fights and different performances-in the calzaghe fight hopkins boxed negatively in my opinion and was a shadow of himself and still done enough to get the win in my opinion.

against Pavlik he was more aggressive and attacking and looked like the Hopkins that will go down in history as a great, if RJJ can emulate that then its bye bye calzaghe, but i doubt he will.

So Hopkins went from a past it fighter to one who could still pull off a great win in the space of one fight. Cowzerp, the reason Hopkins didn't fight against Calzaghe the way he fought against Pavlik is simply because Calzaghe is a far better fighter than Pavlik.
Pavlik in a way was made for Hopkins. Calzaghe was not hence why Hopkins had to constantly spoil in order to lower the pace and keep it to a hugging fest because if Hopkins fought offensively he knew Calzaghe's footwork and hand speed would expose him. As it was i give Hopkins credit for winning the first four rounds of that fight but Calzaghe took over then and clearly deserved to win imo.


Funningly enough i believe Calzaghe could lose to Roy Jones. Jones still has great handspeed and he has more power than Hopkins and Kessler. So if he catches him like those two did he could ko him. One thing is for certain if Calzaghe loses to RJJ he won't retire like he says. Also, if he does lose it doesn't mean he's suddenly become a bad fighter. Afterall Hopkins has lost five fights and we are all in agreement he is a truly great fighter.

walshb

Styles make fights and Cal's style didn't allow HOP to dictate the way Pavlik's did. Also, part of HOP's problem V Cal was that he was too damn negative and lazy and OLD! If age didn't allow him to fight at a decent pace, then he shouldn't have been allowed in the RING!

Pav is too predicatble and one dimensional. He is too slow and hasn't got the footwork or speed of Cal.

Now, just because Bernard made Pavlik look ordinary, doesn't mean Cal would make Pavlik look ordinary. Remember, Pavlik was getting hurt V HOP; against Cal, I think he doesn't really get hurt. Again, styles make fights, but Cal would have to be the favorite!

joepenguin

Hopkins was in no better shape against Pavlik than he was against Calzaghe. Calzaghe didnt let Hopkins dictate the fight like Pavlik did, plus his style bothered Hopkins. Punch volume is a factor of course but what use would an extra 200-300 punches be to Pavlik if Hopkins knew what was coming and when they were coming.

Id like to see Pavlik truely cleaning up the middleweight division by taking out the other champions and top contenders. He could do this in 4-5 fights. Sturm, Abraham, Rubio and id say he'l take his mandatories when they come about.

nacho libre

joepenguin wrote: »

Hopkins was in no better shape against Pavlik than he was against Calzaghe. Calzaghe didnt let Hopkins dictate the fight like Pavlik did, plus his style bothered Hopkins. Punch volume is a factor of course but what use would an extra 200-300 punches be to Pavlik if Hopkins knew what was coming and when they were coming.

Id like to see Pavlik truely cleaning up the middleweight division by taking out the other champions and top contenders. He could do this in 4-5 fights. Sturm, Abraham, Rubio and id say he'l take his mandatories when they come about.

He's fighting Rubio early next year. He should beat him fairly easily. I don't think he'll beat Abraham though.