Jack Loew: I don't like the Mora fight, Abraham would be easy work.

His two ABC belts are most definately paper titles. However, he did beat the champ for his Ring title. In that sense, he wouldn't be a paper champ.

 

Abraham is definately a paper champ. He only has his belt because Taylor was contractually obligated to rematch Hopkins. I think it's ridiculous to call both Pavlik and Abraham champ when Pavlik beat the undisputed champ to get his titles while Abraham beat some random contender to get his belt. If it makes you feel better, we'll call him a beltholder instead of a paper champ.

 

I'm with BigReg on this one. Pavlik is the middleweight champ. Abraham is a world title holder (paper champ if you will). Same as what most other "champs" in other divisions are. But for Abraham to become the middleweight champion, he has to get by Pavlik or weight for Pavlik to vacate titles and then beat the no2 in the division.

I'd favour Pavlik to beat Abraham ever so slightly, maybe 55/455. UD win.

 

Sorry, but this is false information.

 

Here is what definately isn't false, Abraham won a vacant title. He did not beat a champion to get his belt. He beat some random contender. Here is something else that definately isn't false, Pavlik beat the undisputed champ to get his belts. Pavlik is the true champion in that division. Abraham is a contender who won a vacated strap.

 

You have everything right except using the word "vacated". AA would be a paper champ if the title was vacated. There have been many fighters who have been unfairly stripped. Taylor was not one of them. Dariusz Michelzewski comes to mind, and if memory serves, Graciano Roccoghiani(spelling..I could be wrong). Taylor failed to give Soliman a shot I think...I could be wrong. I have no problem calling Pav the true MW champion even now, but when I hear that AA is a paper champion, that is something I dare not believe. I've been watching boxing too long to believe that a fighter like AA is a paper champion.

 

Taylor was stripped for rematching Hopkins. Although you are right, Soliman was the mando.

 

Taylor could've fought Hop after he satisfied his mandatory. That is why Taylor was stripped. I probably would've done the same thing Taylor did...go after the money in a rematch, but there are contenders out there who are deserving of a shot as well.

 

That's ironic, because Soliman chased after the money himself and fought Wright instead of fighting for the vacant title. All of this is irrelevant anyway. Abraham didn't Taylor or an other champ to get his belt.

 

Ok, Reg, you win lol, AA with his 10 defenses...is a "paper champ"!

 

Abraham is not a paper champ. He only fought for the belt because Taylor gave Hopkins a rematch, he has his belt because he won it in the ring and has defended it successfully every single time. It's not ridiculous to call both Pavlik and Abraham Champions because they are Champions. Pavlik is the lineal Champ, and I have no problem with that, but Abraham is the IBF Champ because when he deserved his shot at the lineal champ, the Champ didn't give it to him, so what's a fighter to do in that situation? Ultimately, you'll call him whatever you feel is right, not what makes me feel better, but I just don't agree with the logic of defining a paper champ because I think it's flawed, for example, if a paper champ beats another paper champ, that makes him worthy of being called a champ, by beating another paper champ? or if a contender beats a paper champ he's suddenly a legitimate champ even though he's holding the same belt the paper champ had? I respect you Reg as a good poster, but I just don't agree with you on this.

 

Clown??

Well,actually,you are the funnny gay here.Miranda is AA's best win,eh? A lot of experts and knowledgeable fight fans certainly disagree with you. I for one think that Gevor was AA's best scalp.
Pavlik knocked Miranda out first,eh! So what! I am not really that sure that Pavlik would have won a point decision with a shattered chin bleeding like a shot pig hunted by Miranda.
A healthy AA tore Miranda to pieces in their rematch.

Apart from Jermain Taylor(who is a better -without any doubt-name than any fighter AA has faced up to now) and Miranda(who twice fought AA) there is really no name among Pavlik's scalps who can really hold a candle to someone like Khoren Gevor,Kingley Ikeke,Howard Eastman or Kofi Jantuah.
Zertuche and Zuniga are pretty decent fighters,but I for one wouldnt bet a single coin on them against abovementioned fighters.
Pavlik has the biggest scalp in his collection,but all in all AA has the better fight record in my opinion.
You are entitled to your opinion and free to disagree with me,but I guess that you are one of those naive young kids who cant stand seeing their great idol critisized.
I like AA,but I am not really sure whether he will be able to be victorious over Pavlik.Could go either way IMO.May the better man win!:good
Dont get upset,kid!:thumbsup

 

Actually, Soliman was the one who earned the shot at the IBF title. Hopkins bypassed him to fight Taylor, and Taylor bypassed him to fight Hopkins again. Soliman then agreed to fight Winky and lost his mandatory position. The next two highest contenders(Ikeke and Abraham) were then pitted against eachother for the vacant title. So Abraham never even worked his way up to the number spot and never had to wait for his shot.

The fact of the matter is, I would have no problem calling anyone but the lineal champ a paper champ. However, with so many belts, that can get too sticky. To simplify things, simply beat a champion and you are not designated as a paper champ.

If I'm not mistaken, aren't you a Cotto fan? That could comprmise your point of view on this subject being that all three of the titles that Cotto won were vacant titles, and also being that Cotto has never beaten a reigning champ. Please be aware that I'm not trying to degrade any fighters. I'm simply giving them labels. Just because you're a paper champ doesn't mean that you aren't a good fighter. Back in the day, there was only one belt and some guys never got a shot no matter what they did. Should they have been given equal championship status as the champ just because they were talented and beat some good fighters?

 

:good

 

Getting back to the topic, Jack is an idiot for thinking that King Arthur would be "light" work for the ghost. He is a tough fight for anyone at 160...much tougher than the latin snake.

I know what he's saying about style match-ups though...on paper the Mora is a bad style match-up for Kelly. But Mora does not have the power that B-hop has to keep Kelly off of him. In the squared circle you can fight at angles all day long, but if you don't have the power to make the bigger man respect you, you will eventually get caught.

King Arthur, on the other hand, is a much tougher fight for Kelly because of his power. Kelly has the obvious reach advantage but is at risk of being countered with something that could seriously hurt him.