Bernard Hopkins: Kelly Pavlik can't even jab.

In terms of boxing skills, maybe.

But he'll be just as talented at 60 years of age. It's the slow decline in physical ability that's hurting him, not a loss of boxing smarts or talent.

I'm talking results, not ability. 4-3 in the last 5 years, no matter who you've fought, isn't the record of a top P4P fighter. No matter how close the decisions were, regardless.

Absolutely they were. He didn't get comprehensively beaten by anyone at all. I just think if he was a bit younger, he probably would have won them all... hence why I don't rate him as highly as some.

I consider Floyd a top P4P fighter. I think talent and ability to win fights are seperate things. The most talented guy doesn't always win.

I don't think Pac is the best P4P guy in terms of pure talent. I do think he's the best P4P figher right now though.

Audley Harrison is one of the more talented heavyweights. Doesn't do him much good though does it?

So do I. If you're compiling your lists for the last 10 years or so, that's fair enough.

But a P4P list in my eyes is in the here and now.

No it isn't. And this isn't a dig at all at Hopkins personally. I think he's a great fighter, and to be as good as he is at his age, is astounding.

But if you're judging P4P fighters, I don't think people should get compensations because they're old. Age doesn't count in a boxing ring.

If Hopkins is saying he's an active fighter Dawson has every right to call him out IMO. It's fair of him to tell Hopkins that if he calls himself a light heavy, to put up or shut up. (And it's probabl not Hopkins complaining about him doing it either).

Firstly, anyone that makes Hopkin a 4:1 underdog in any fight under heavyweight, please call me. I've got some money to put down.

The Tarver win - and how well he did it - surprised me for sure. But that was some time ago, and IMO, is barely relevant these days.

But he didn't fight them at middleweight, that's my point.
Same reason I don't really rate Mayweathers win over JMM at welter.

This all comes across as terribly negative about Hopkins - who as I've said, I think is a great fighter - but more about the way media and people here rank him.

He gets allowances that no other guy on the planet gets. If that's the case, then Holyfield is the best heavyweight on the planet right now right?

P4P is purely, about winning fights. If Hopkins can't beat the best guy from the weight class below him, no matter how close it was, how can he be top 5 P4P?

 

:good

 

This thread will have Pavlik Fan in tears.

 

thats because hopkins took his jab away. everytime he jabs now all he sees is bhop and it scares him... scared him so much he made pavlik call him sir after the fight...

 

bernard doesn't have to degrade him more. As a matter of fact if he says Pavlik was no good, that means his win over him was not that great since the man cannot even jab.

 

True -- and if you combine that with the fact that Pavlik threw more jabs and connected his jabs at a higher rate than BHop -- you get a real What The **** Moment.

There is a ton of stuff Hops could rightly critisize KP for in that fight. Here he is ripping him for the one and only area where Kelly actually out preformed Benrard. Makes no sense at all.

 

Bhop is/was sick of all the hype behind Pavlik and pretty much said what was on his mind!!!

Pavlik is a decent boxer but far from what some fans make him out to be!!

Against any guy with skill and KP will lose!!

 

...The guy who beat BHOP had no skill? :think

 

Two?, try three.

 

There is one thing Pavlik did that Hopkins couldn't however, throw more than 10 punches a round in order to beat Jermain Taylor.

 

Yea he had skill but didn't take Pavlik seriously! Even his trainer Stewart didn't take Pavlik seriously, Even Miranda at the press conference didn't take Pavlik seriously!!!!

That same guy was winning on every score card against Pavlik at time of stoppage!! All it takes is one punch brother!!!!!!

BTW the second time that "guy" fought Pavlik he was tentative!!

 

...And lost...See your logic doesn't hold up. (I won't mention that I scored that fight for Taylor because I'm busy arguing and it would screw my **** up)

 

Hopkins has a very subjective perception of the world. Kelly Pavlik has a crisp, busy, long and effective jab, the very weapon that sets up the big right hand.

But who the hell are we to argue with the only man who made Kelly Pavlik look like a clueless kid without even a jab?

 

Hopkins is the truth.

He was very respectful to Pavlik after the fight, then Pavlik starts running his mouth later on saying Hopkins wasn't special and giving him no credit for the ass whooping he received.

If anyone has no class, it's Kelly Pavlik.

[url]http://www.ringtv.com/video/kelly_pavlik_postfight_interview/[/url]

"it's not that he's that good, he lost to Jermain Taylor twice!, I beat Taylor twice!"

He's a ***git.