Bernard Hopkins has destroyed Pavlik's career.

Sven mutherf***ing Ottke

 

Just a question. Can we get you on record here, stating a healthy Pavlik would habe beaten BHOP? Because if not, the excuses are pointless.

Pavlik can come back and should come back, but he better stays away from another guy in his division who has a great chance of knocking him out.

There are two types of boxers who give Pavlik problems: The technical, slick defensive specialists as we have seen, but the other type is a counter-puncher with superior chin and superior punching power, mental toughness and we all know who fits this profile. If he doesn't alter his style against AA, he might find himself in deep water. The Kelly Pavlik pressure fighter depending on accumulation punching and taking big risks in the process is tailor-made for AA.

 

In calm boxing fans' eyes I dont think anything has changed. Was Hopkins' carreer shattered becaus he lost to RJJ when he as in his mid-tweenties?

Yes, Pavlik may have lost more rounds, but he did not get a beating - far from it. He got a tactical lesson, but Hopkins threw far too few punches to call it a beating at all.

Pavlik also has valid excuses for his defeat whereas Hopkins had no valid excuses for his defeat.

Pavlik went up two divisions and in his first fight there faced a p4p fighter who was recorded as outweighing him by 13 pounds in the fight! Hopkins on the other hand was used to the division when he fought Roy and Roy was no bigger than Bernard.

If Hopkins who just lost to someone from the same divisions went on to do great things, why wouldn't Pavlik who went up and met a much bigger fighter and a p4p be able to go on to do great things?

At the time Hopkins lost some people were also saying that he was exposed and was a national level fighter at best. This idea followed him eventhough he did well and it took him beating Trinidad before people took notice.

 

Good post:good

 

You've presented me with two things I can consider:

1) The historical and current facts;

2) Your opinion.

Sorry son, I'll stick to the facts. If you can point out a single error in what I said, perhaps I'll reconsider.

 

Nobody really knows, only time will tell :yep

 

Your tying yourself up in rhetorical knots here, Boo, and consequently are oblivious to the salient facts of the case.




Fact: I told you before the fight, how it would unfold.

Fact: It unfolded as I predicted, but even more one-sidedly so.

Fact: Making excuses, that even the fighter himself has the class to avoid, is weak and grasping.

And as for

This content is protected

Robinson lost a close competitive bout to Lamotta. He didn't get embarrased.

Ali lost a close competitive bout to Frazier. He didn't get embarrased.

Leonard lost a close competitive bout to Duran. He didn't get embarrased.


All of the forefoing earned a rematch and prevailed, some more than once.

Pavlik did nothing to merit a rematch with Hopkins.

Your comparisons are borderline pathetic.

Kelly is no Sugar Ray (either one) nor Ali.


You are embarrassing yourself now, lad.

 

The fight was fixed, Pavlik was orderer not to trow jabs just follow Hopkins and make him look good, Pavlik must be happy with all the money Golden Boy gave to him, he didn't lost nothing.

 

But you have not pointed out anything in my recitation of historiical facts that qualifies as an excuse. The original poster claimed that BHop ruined Pavlik's career. I simply pointed out that many other fighters lost fights, and came back to virtually erase all memories of those losses. How many times have you consider the FACT that Hopkins lost his first pro fight? When was the last time you considered Haglar's loss to Bobby Watts while assesing Marvin's career? How many fans could even tell you who Ernesto Marcel was? Great fighters have lost fights to opponents who were not fit to shine BHop's shoes, and came back to accomplish big things. How in the hell does pointing that out qualify as making excuses?

The premise of this thread has no basis in fact. The facts would seem to indicate just the opposite of the OP's claim. It's not like Kelly never lost before. He lost nine times as an amature, and came back just fine. Taylor beat seven shades of **** out of him in that infamous 2nd round of their first fight, but Kelly came back in the very next round as if nothing ever happened. He will handle this ass whoppin' just like he did the others. Anyone who tries to claim his career is over is delusional, and you are a smart enough poster to know that!

 

Thhe "Ghost" looked like a "Zombie" in that fight.
I see him coming back, big, though.

 

Of wht relevance is that ? Losing yoir FIRST fight is hardly the same as losing your 33 rd, when you're at prime.

The 'making excuses'point was not related to that.

It was in reference to your making excuses (health related) for Kelly's loss to Bernard.

Most folks would consider THAT as making excuses for Kelly's performance.

I would certainly never claim that his career is over. In fact, he probably has a prety good career ahead of him at middle wt.

But it has been shown clearly, that he is not at the level of a Calzaghe or a Hopkins.

At least not at this point in his career.

 

I predict that your prediction will fail horribly:good

 

Good one.