Andre Dirrell vs Kelly Pavlik

Agreed.

The consensus is that the movement of Hopkins and Martinez bothered Pavlik considerably. However, Dirrell's movement against Froch (who I'll use for obvious reasons wasn't anything like the movement Martinez and Hopkins employed.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0vjD9GkilM[/ame]

Compared to

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1YuqqrFDnQ&playnext=1&list=PLBBD6FC4E095FE5D4[/ame]

and

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPtnybdxbdM[/ame]

However, there are reasons (with varying degrees of validity) to suspect that Dirrell might have the upper hand. If you suspect Pavlik's middleweight dominance was in large part due to his immense size and reach advantages, that would be mitigated in a fight against Dirrell. Dirrell also will have a drastic handspeed advantage (it should be remembered that Jermaine had faster hands, though I think Dirrell's handspeed is quicker). And perhaps, seeing Hopkins and Martinez working their gameplans may give him some confidence to work it himself because he's physically capable of doing it. He also seems to be a good counter puncher which obviously helped Hopkins and Martinez and to a lesser degree Taylor in the 2nd fight

The downside for Dirrell is he hasn't reacted well to pressure fighters in the past. Who knows if he'll throw himself on the ground, clinch constantly, whine to the ref, etc. He also seems to get winded at times late in a fight and that can be dangerous against Pavlik.

At this point I'd lean slightly towards Dirrell.

 

dirrel cant fight in angles for ****, martinez and hopkins dont run like a cry baby ***git ***** either.

 

Dirrell's footwork is ****in horrible. Not half as fluid as Hopkins nor on the level of Martinez. I do see that Martinez is working on his footwork but Dirrell fights like there's banana peels all over the canvas.