Just rewatched this fight. Sure, bhop circled a little and used some feints, but basically he won the fight by beating Pavlik to the punch and being the naturally stronger more physical guy. The point is some posters who support Pavlik (I guess I'm kinda a Pav supporter myself...) cite bhops technical wizardry and claim noone else would be able to execute a similar performance against 'the ghost' - I disagree; Hopkins just had faster hands, a wider array of punches and just beat the brakes off Kelly... :think
Kelly was really flat that night he had a bad one but I dotn believe that there was any signifiant size advantage thats horse****
It was a masterclass but you're right in the sense that he did exploit weakenesses that any good boxer could also exploit.
Doing all that to an undefeated champion is a technical masterpiece. Sounds simular to Mayweather vs Corrales, without the knockdowns and stoppage.
For Kelly or bhop? To me bhop was clearly the bigger, stronger man. Kelly, although tall, is a natural middleweight and doesnt have the frame to move up in weights. Bhop, on the other hand, was absolutely shredded at 170. ANyway, this isnt too relevant...bhops handspeed was what looked to be the biggest difference in the fight.
How do you define technical then? In the OP I mentioned that some fans think it was the sort of performance only bhop could perform, while I adisagree. What do you think?
I just believe that technically he did exactly what he needed to do to win. He didnt make any mistakes, and capitalized on all of pavliks. The fact that it was a very dominating win made it a masterpiece for me. Do I think it is a performance only B-Hop could do? I dunno, until someone else does the same we cant say.
Handspeed!? And Hopkins was 43 or so for this fight. Brilliant fight for Hopkins, especially with some expecting Pavlik to roll over the old man.
Bhops was also 43 years old, and poor widdle Kewwy Pavwik had just destroyed Edison Miranda and Jermain Taylor. Don't try to detract from BHops master performance. It won't work.
No, he's not the only one. Archie Moore could have done it the same way, just as technically and intelligently, but damn few others.
I always thought calling it a masterclass was a bit overboard. Calzaghe vs. Lacy, Mosley vs. Margarito, Mayweather vs. Corrales those are masterclasses. Hopkins vs. Pavlik was just a slow tactical win with some great flurries, if Hopkins were younger he could have had a greater output.
I see your point but the fact that at no point did Pav, a fighter that had been devastatingly knocking people out even become a threat. Remember, how people were saying Pav could be the first guy to knock out Bhop and after the Calzaghe loss the expectation was so great. It was slow but Bhop just worked Pav so well that Pav was blank the whole night.
certain aspects of the fight are over rated & certain parts are under rated over rated - pavliks "health" going into the fight - bhops technical superiority under rated - pavliks lack of "being in the fight"... he was in the fight in the first 2-4 rounds.. then bhop took him out of his fight - bhops ability to control the space the 2nd to points kind of contradict themselves.... overall bhop gets a lot of cred for this fight... deservedly so... but it was mainly because he controlled space so well.. not much more than that...