A Question Regarding Kelly Pavlik Vs Bernard Hopkins

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by walk with me, Oct 8, 2009.


Page 1 of 3
  1. walk with me

    walk with me Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    21,066
    47
    Nov 17, 2007
    I Know there was a lot of commotion about this fight and kelly's supposed "sickness" and kelly not being at his natural weight..

    my question is regarding this fight is....

    how much did the 10 pounds have to actually deal with the fight? i mean I have never had to weight drain and do all that other stuff so i personally wouldnt know... but wouldnt it be almost an advantage for kelly to be able to come in with those extra 9 or 10 poudns? because i doubt 160 is his walking aroudn weight.... at 169-170 atleast i feel like he could have just stepped right into the ring at a natural weight..

    anyone who can shed some light on this ..

    thanks
     
    walk with me, Oct 8, 2009
    walk with me, Oct 8, 2009
    #1
  2. Pavlik is Champ

    Pavlik is Champ PDub is RUNNING scared Full Member

    1,466
    0
    Aug 4, 2009
    do u ever stop trying to get at pavlik any way you can? its kinda like you are tying to convince yourself that willimas is going to win the fight.
     
    Pavlik is Champ, Oct 8, 2009
    Pavlik is Champ, Oct 8, 2009
    #2
  3. cubex

    cubex Boxing Addict banned

    7,207
    1
    Sep 12, 2009
    The extra 10 lbs didn't do anything good for him.

    IMO they made him perform even worse,he was slower,sluggish,lost speed,seemed to hanve no pop in his punches,moved slower.

    I always thought Pavlik can't carry weight well.Maybe he could be a good SMW but a LHW?Nope.
     
    cubex, Oct 8, 2009
    cubex, Oct 8, 2009
    #3
  4. juanitoboxing

    juanitoboxing Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,010
    1
    Jul 28, 2008
    Nothing against Pavlik but PW is going to win, Pavlik was exposed and is all downhill from here.
     
    juanitoboxing, Oct 8, 2009
    juanitoboxing, Oct 8, 2009
    #4
  5. TommyV

    TommyV Loyal Member banned

    32,127
    41
    Nov 2, 2007
    I think Hopkins had the perfect style to beat him anyway, but I do think it affected Pavlik. After all, he wasn't all that impressive against Taylor in the 166 catchweight rematch. I think it slowed him down a bit and made him a bit more flat-footed. I'm not sure what his walking around weight is, but I don't think it's all that much. He's a pretty skinny guy, he just strikes me as having high metabolism and being quite thin at all times. My guess is south of 175 anyway.
     
    TommyV, Oct 8, 2009
    TommyV, Oct 8, 2009
    #5
  6. TommyV

    TommyV Loyal Member banned

    32,127
    41
    Nov 2, 2007
    Exposed? Since when did PW have the experience, ring IQ, defence & discipline of Bernard Hopkins? Make no mistake, he's a very good fighter is Williams, but very, very few people in boxing today would be able to replicate that Hopkins did to Pavlik, and I doubt PW is one of them.
     
    TommyV, Oct 8, 2009
    TommyV, Oct 8, 2009
    #6
  7. cubex

    cubex Boxing Addict banned

    7,207
    1
    Sep 12, 2009
    You're right.

    I read some time ago his walk around weight is 176.
     
    cubex, Oct 8, 2009
    cubex, Oct 8, 2009
    #7
  8. booradley

    booradley Mean People Kick Ass! Full Member

    39,848
    16
    Aug 29, 2006
    booradley, Oct 8, 2009
    booradley, Oct 8, 2009
    #8
  9. walk with me

    walk with me Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    21,066
    47
    Nov 17, 2007
    so the 10 extra pounds did affect him negatively?

    i mean not that i have trained or had to weight drain or anything but it seems to me like fighting with 10 extra poudns (closer to your natural weight) would do nothing but benefit you... not even in reference to this fight but just in general..


    wouldnt you be more stronger, hearty, quicker, more aware with the extra weight? since it is indeed your natural weight... its not like he's eating steaks or something trying to put on 30 poudsn or some crazy ****

    man please....

    check my history... i dont make "bashing threads" and if i wanted to i would flat out make a thread saying how i felt.... i'm asking a question about weight
     
    walk with me, Oct 8, 2009
    walk with me, Oct 8, 2009
    #9
  10. calpnut

    calpnut P-NUT Full Member

    102
    0
    Oct 7, 2009
    weight didnt play a factor.....kelly just got his a..s kicked...hopkins is just a better fighter. they could have fought at any weight and kelly would have still lost.
     
    calpnut, Oct 8, 2009
    calpnut, Oct 8, 2009
    #10
  11. marauder1999

    marauder1999 Champion Full Member

    1,994
    1
    May 3, 2007
    IMO Walking around weight is not the same as "training" weight. Training weight you have more zip, more stamina. Walking around weight would do nothing more than make you slower and sluggish. I think it was one of many factors in the loss to bernard. If you recall, Loew stated that Kelly fights better at 60. We will soon see him back at his "training" weight and will see the outcome very soon. Fight of the Year IMO.
     
    marauder1999, Oct 8, 2009
    marauder1999, Oct 8, 2009
    #11
  12. cubex

    cubex Boxing Addict banned

    7,207
    1
    Sep 12, 2009
    The weight affcts you negatively when a big part of your game is impposing your size againt your opponent.

    Whereas with Hopkins it didn't work.

    But after watching the fight I feel Bernard would have beaten him regardless.
     
    cubex, Oct 8, 2009
    cubex, Oct 8, 2009
    #12
  13. walk with me

    walk with me Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    21,066
    47
    Nov 17, 2007
    loew would obviously say that... but this pretty much answers my question.... i still think walking around weight would be better... you would be more natural comfortable with your self physically....

    well i guess another thing is

    what is walking around weight though

    cause walking aroudn weight for some might = i am not training right now
    or
    walking aroudn weight might be = im training 365 days a years but im not cutting weight

    get what im saying
     
    walk with me, Oct 8, 2009
    walk with me, Oct 8, 2009
    #13
  14. kirk

    kirk l l l Staff Member

    70,998
    27,582
    Jul 26, 2004
    But doesnt that go for just about every fighter that has to cut weight?

    Its obvious that there are certain weights certain fighters are best at.... and when they fight above that weight, sometimes they are slower, sometimes tire faster, ect, ect.

    Nobody would argue that they have to truly try and make their usual weight... but even when they dont have to 'weaken' (because thats what people think happen when one has to boil down to a weight right?) and can come in at a more natural weight, they dont look as effective *usually.

    i find that a weird phenominon. One would think their better performances would come at a weight they dont have to drain themselves to get at.

    Now is that due to differance in training, or the added weight, who really knows....
     
    kirk, Oct 8, 2009
    kirk, Oct 8, 2009
    #14
  15. walk with me

    walk with me Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    21,066
    47
    Nov 17, 2007
    yeah thats what im trying to find out.... i was just watching pavlik vs hopkins and i thought about it....

    maybe someone who fights or trains can answer the ??
     
    walk with me, Oct 8, 2009
    walk with me, Oct 8, 2009
    #15
Page 1 of 3