Arthur Abraham VS Kelly Pavlik

I'm gonna keep talkin about it, just how ppl kept talking about Guzman!

 

He made'em quit like a ***** and beat him from pillar to post a few weeks later.There is nothing to talk about.
And it's a different situation

 

He beat up on a 37yr old dude who he greatly outweighed on fight night, WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!

 

Ever heard of mandatory?Nmae a better opponent other than Pavlik he can fight?
Sturm?Refused.

 

Was Hopkins a Mandatory?

 

What?Explain?

 

Hopkins wasnt a mandatory, but he fought Hopkins, & we all see how well that worked out for Pav. Theres still better opposition out there for him, but those opponents are his size, & no way does Kelly wanna face someone his size & young!

 

Do you even know I was talking about Abraham and even you were and now you just moved to Pavlik with no reason?

 

I can say the same about AA, his mandatory is weak also, but I guess you gotta do what ya gotta do to keep your belt

 

Nowadays this is a business not a sport.All fighter fight fights against questionable opposition for diffrent reasons.It's just as it is nowadays.

 

Yep, its all about holding onto a belt forever & ever. Look at V Forrest, dude is treating his belt like its his 401K

 

Not necessarily,whatever makes money.
And what's wrong with Vernon?He fought Baldomir to get it,then defended against Picirillo and Mora who he went 1-1-.He is past it and he knows it,what you expect him to do?

 

Abraham would knock Pavlik out but odd as it sounds, I think Taylor has the style to beat Abraham. Not by knockout but he would outbox him.

 

Dude is trynna sit on his belt & keep it forever without defending it. Dude is afraid to make a mandatory defense. I know he's old, if he was smart he would be milking the game for all its worth until he loses again, he aint gettin younger

 

He's not afraid of making a mandatory defense,maybe a optional one.If it were a mandatory and he wouldn't accept it they would strip him.