Bernard's win over Pavlik overrated?

BHOP took a nice fight and a good 1 in fighting Kelly..Kelly was undefeated and he had beat the man x2 that beat him......I thought BHOP would win regardless cuz Kelly isn't the same fighter over 160 from what I seen when he fought JT the 2nd time...Excellent victory over a young undefeated fighter when he was 44 years old!

 

It's overrated because Kelly came up in weight and didn't turn on that night. At the same time it is not because it was a perfect fight from Hopkins and it is not his problem that the other fighter is not as his best. Hopkins Tito is overrated for me. I mean the difference in size was so big. Finally it was not Hop problem that they were no good MW by this time.

 

Bernard said himself, Kellys mistake was taking the fight at 168.

 

You had a good post going here, and I thought you were summing things up very concisely. Then you refered to "a case of the sniffles." When did doctors start prescribed intervenous antibiotics for "the sniffles?"

 

way ovr rated pav was sick he had a messed up elbow also he was fighting way out of his weight

 

Location: Akron, Ohio.

Yeah ok. I didn't see you Pavlik fans making excuses about weight or illnesses BEFORE the fight. All you guys were busy talking about was KOing Hopkins. But AFTER he gets completely taken to school, the excuses start flying.

Did you enjoy hearing Leow say, "Kelly, you have to double the jab" in every round?

 

Before you talk anymore trash, do me a favor bro. Call Thomas Hausser, and tell him he is a liar who makes **** up.

 

Ur full of ****. Your boy got schooled, get over it.
No shame in getting schooled by old Hops :rasta

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

So, are you claiming that Thomas Hauser, possibly the most respected journalist in boxing, makes things up just for the fun it?

 

No, but i think what some or most of us fans are thinking is that if Pavlik's illness or injury was THAT serious, he would've postponed the fight. He chose to go in the ring that night.

 

Boo, I know you put a lot of stock in this Hauser article, but let's not act like any of us know him personally and can vouch for his integrity. I'm not saying he made anything up, but only in his article did I read all of the details about Pavlik's various ailments and injuries. Hauser scopped every other writer and newsperson covering the bout? Even the local guys who had been following Pavlik around for weeks leading up to the fight? Pavlik was almost on death's door and no one else knew about it?

For context's sake, you should know that in 2001 Hauser wrote an article in which he did the same kind of thing: diminishing Hopkins victory over Tito by making all kinds of excuses for Trinidad, including saying that Tito was mentally affected by 9/11. I'm not saying Hauser is making stuff up, but I'm also not going to take what he wrote as gospel. Writers are just people, with their own set of biases and favorites.

 

Totally agree! Jack Leow, Miguel Diaz, and Mike Pavlik Sr all tried to get Kelly to post pone the fight. The dumb ass wouldn't hear it. However, look at it from another angle. If KP was 100% that night, this thread would not exist. Hopkins would hold a clear decision win ( my guess is 8-4, or 8-3-1 something like that) over a sharp, young, strong champion who put up a hell of a fight. That would do more for his legacy than the win he has. The main thing that impressed the hell out of me was Bhop's footwork. I said long ago that is the main thing you need to beat Pav, and BHop was brilliant.

 

great performance by hopkins.have pavik career set,he good but his not very good.arbram would beat him

 

Bingo.

This was a masterclass exhibition, and there is no way it could be overrated. It was a legendary fight that will stand the test of time.