Better Fighter

For me it's Mancini and it's not even close

 

This for me too

 

Mancini, for sure.

 

I'm surprised Mancini is getting the vast majority of the votes I feel like Pavlik gets highly underrated nowadays.

Pavlik went 34-0 before losing his first fight to the great Bernard Hopkins and that was at Light Heavyweight. Pavlik only lost one fight at Middleweight and that was to a prime Sergio Martinez who could be considered a borderline low tier great Middleweight.

I think people forget how good Pavlik was in his prime when he destroyed Edison Miranda and then KO'ed Jermain Taylor he was highly rated. Unfortunately Pavlik had demons outside the ring with his heavy drinking but I would say Pavlik was better than Mancini prime for prime.

 

Why may I ask ? Kelly Pavlik was the number 1 Middleweight for a good few years and went 34-0.

 

Pavlik and it's not even close.

 

Mancini.

 

Pavlik he threw away part of his career because of alcohol and issues but when he was good he was better than Mancini.

 

Mancini

 

I've got Ray but I really like Pavlik as well. The difference is level of competition and how they carried themselves.

Ray was always in shape and hell for everyone he fought. Kelly was a little more one dimensional and had substance abuse issues outside of the ring that kept him from being the best that he could be. Kelly was such a big middleweight, his sheer size was one of the reasons for his success where Ray's work ethic and conditioning was his.

 

Pavlik was by far a better fighter than Mancini.

Mancini has always been horribly overrated on this forum. He's gotten far too much mileage off of his loss to Arguello.

Fact is, Pavlik's performance in the first Taylor fight is better than any Mancini win, including the Ramirez fight, where JL Ramirez barely tried to win and fought like he was just there for a check.

Pavlik was more talented, more skilled, and more accomplished.

If Kelly didn't have his prime cut short by alcoholism, this wouldn't even be a question.

Mancini was a very good fighter, don't get me wrong, but he's simultaneously VERY overrated.

 

I was a fan of Pavlik. I met him after his fight with Jermain Taylor. But, Mancini was a better boxer, and, a more complete fighter. And, Mancini was always in incredible shape. If they were the same size, I have no doubt that Mancini begins to beat Pavlik down late for a clear UD.

 

Please explain to me how Mancini was more "complete" than Pavlik.

Pavlik had a better jab, threw straighter, more compact power punches, had a more diverse offensive arsenal, was more defensively responsible (neither was a defensive wiz, but Pavlik was better at blocking and parrying) and imo Pavlik had a much higher ring IQ.

So explain Mancini being more complete, because I don't see it at all.

 

Pavlik had the potential to become a top 100 atg. Mancini, however, while perhaps limited, did all he could do with his talent range. That tips it for me.