Kelly Pavlik v. Tommy Hearns @ 160

They both can crack but based on overall ability I'd go with Hearns.

 

I'd go with Pavlik. Awkward styles match up for Hearns, being in with a tall banger.

 

I think Pavlik by ko in the 9th round.

 

Hearns by KO within 5.

 

hearns by a brutal ko before 8 maybe in the first 4


don't think pavlik's on his level

 

Taylor, who doesn't punch with the speed, accuracy, or power of Hearns nearly had Pavlik out of there. This may be a matchup of "whoever lands with their power first." And Hearns is more likely to connect with a big right hand early than Pavlik is. Plus, I don't consider Pavlik to be a one-punch KO artist. Even at middleweight, I think a single Hearns punch is harder.

I'd take Hearns in 3

 

I'd predict 60/40 Pavlik based on styles.

 

Would you mind explaining?

The way I see it, Hearns has similar height, more reach, similar power, and better boxing skills, jab, etc, with a better single punch(straight right) than any in Pavlik's arsenal. Pavlik can be hurt, and hurt bad, by a decent puncher, as we've seen. Someone as skilled and accurate as Hearns, with the power he has, I feel would be the one landing first, as Pavlik does not exactly have an impenetrable defense. I see Hearns ending this one fairly early.

 

Here's how I see it -

Pavlik is gonna be coming forward in this fight (you can bet the bank on that), and even though his jab is "worse" than Hearns' I think they'll be jabbing on roughly even terms. Pavlik is taller, and his jab is better suited to busting people up as he comes in IMO.

Pavlik's chin is underrated. Taylor, for all his flaws, is a big, athletic middleweight who can certainly bang when he wants to. Pavlik made the big mistake of egging him on (the hands lowered "hit me" bull**** he tried) and he paid the price. What we did see is that he's got a huge heart and good recovery skills. Hearns, on the other hand, has a bona fide glass jaw.

Predicting who lands first is a tough one, but I don't think it really matters in the overall prediction. Hearns won't get up in Kelly puts him down, but I don't doubt Pavlik's ability to (depending on how hard he gets caught). Maybe 51/49 is a better call, it's a close fight that could most definately go either way, but at gunpoint I would have put my money on Pavlik.

IMO Pavlik is more proven against big, tough guys (at middleweight), too. Hearns is a fantastic welterweight (one of my top 3 H2H at that weight) but his definite fragility makes me hesitant to pick him over a durable come-forward guy like Pavlik that throws straight bombs and has proven his ability to both get off the canvas and finish a wounded opponent.

 

Fair enough.:good

 

The key reasons being straight punches and durability.

Hearns will definately want to punch Pavlik out early, he needs to beat him in landing that first big right. If Hearns tries to box, he's gonna have major problems with a guy as big as Pavlik coming right after him with those long punches right up the middle.

 

Hearns does have the bigger reach and the snappier punches though, and the overall better boxing technique, which is why I see him landing not only first, but more often and accurately.

 

Ah, but defence is the difference (as I see it). Hearns' always seemed to be better when he was stalking opponents (as he often did at welterweight) but he will be in trouble when made to go backward. Pavlik's defence, although I think it's better, isn't that much better, but it'd be more suited to the role he'd take in the fight.

As far as Hearns' reach advantage, I think it'll basically be negated by his movement around the ring. Pavlik is gonna be able to extend to past his full reach because he's coming forward.

This is a fight where I think Hearns might be better off thinking his chin is iron and going for broke early. The longer he's in that ring, the closer he comes to getting tagged by that eventual shot, and I really doubt his ability to get off the canvas in this situation (and, if he does, his ability to survive). "Protecting his chin" could quite possibly backfire, both because Hearns' defence was never that great, even when he focused on it, and because straight punches tend to come right through that defence.