Calzaghe versus Pavlik at 168

What would Calzaghes plan be? i mean since he preys on weak boxers and old men. Calzaghe wouldnt even enteratain the thought. He would say Kelly is too young and too good.

 

calzaghe schooling

 

you would make this thread. and the tags are priceless.

who would win aint the point. calzaghe called him out repeatedly and then went in another direction.

 

Calzaghe would win every round, totally humilate Pavlik then after the fight, Pavlik would look into his mans eyes and answer "Yes, sir" to everything that comes out of his mouth.

This is a non-contest.

 

Calzaghe had to much movement for Pavlik to deal with.

 

In fairness, one of those 'old men' spanked Kelly like a ******.

 

this is what i dont understand. Where are youre basis of comaprison?? who did he beat that leads you to belive he would have a easy time with Kelly?? he fought a bunch of bums. Any decent pro can look great against bums. i mean if you go look at tape of b-class fighters from when they first became pros, youde think those guys are great and A class fighters. Calzaghe fought nothing but bums then sold out, fought to old men for his biggest pay checks and callled it a career..lmao...a BUM

 

This is surely the question you should be asking yourself.

Calzaghe beat the guy who Pavlik a sustained twatting. And Pavlik's resume is hardly studded with world class fighters.

Now, you just predicted Pavlik to knock out Calzaghe within eight rounds. So, same question to you. Who did Pavlik beat that leads you believe he can knock out Calzaghe who has never been on the floor for more than a couple of seconds in his career?

 

P-P-Pavlik Power baby!!!!!

What up ESB?!!!??

 

Amazing how people are turning to the ABC argument. Guess what? JT decisioned Bhop twice. Kelly, well, we all know...... Come one guys....

 

It took the Calzombies to bring YOU back to life? :think

 

:happy:happy:happy:happyartyartyarty

****in **** man!!!! just like the old days, pipe....you leave for a while, miss all the **** with williams, now come back and were back to pav/calzaghe.

great to see a on here :deal

 

I don't now how the **** else you analyse boxers without looking at who they beat, how they beat them and how those opponents fared against others.

What do you look for in your analysis? Who's got the shiniest baldie head?

"Using the ABC argument" is one of the most often wrongly used phrases on ESB along with "in their prime"

 

Calzaghe would have won a wide decision, making Pavlik look slow, pondering and flat-footed in the process.

What's sad is, Calzaghe had the chance to prove this and, instead, went after an old, shot Roy Jones.

 

Well, don't overlook [url]"An Inconvenient Truth"[/url] in your analysis then.