I don't understand your logic. Because Pavlik is known as a puncher, and because his power is his greatest asset, he must punch harder than Robinson? Maybe the reason Robinson is considered the greatest fighter of all time is because he had so many other great quality's aside from his power? Maybe he's not known purely as a puncher because he had so many other facets to his game, unlike Pavlik. Because Pavlik KO'd Taylor he would be able to KO Fullmer and LaMotta? Pavlik should be considered a more effective puncher than Robinson despite Robinson having more impressive KO's against better opposition with better durability than Pavlik's? The **** is wrong with you?
LaMotta rumbled with some very rough and hard-hitting lightheavyweights when in the twilight of his career and more than held his own with them. Irish Bob Murphy and Danny Nardico were two guys who could knock you dead if they landed their best shots on your chin, and Jake took plenty of leather from both without going down save for the Nardico fight in which he was way over the hill. Pavlik doesn`t hit as hard as either of these two guys, so what makes you think he could stop Jake? And you did not address my earlier post in this thread, why is that? Jake was not some mindless brawler who looked to block punches with his face, his defensive prowess is actually very underrated as he could prove a difficult target to hit solidly if he set his mind to it. If Jake could make Ray miss and swing at air knowing how fast and accurate he was, what the hell makes you think that the slow as molasses Pavlik will be hitting Jake with everything but the kitchen sink when Robinson and other far more accomplished and better fighters than Kelly couldn`t do so? And you conveniently overlook Pavlik`s galring defensive liabilitys as he has a very leaky defence, and with Jake`s accurate hands he will be landing plenty of leather on him. You will probably say to that that it doesn`t matter as Jake wasn`t a puncher, but do not let the low ko percentage fool you, Jake could bang. However as a volume puncher he rarely planted his feet to punch, but when he did he could really hurt his man and punched with considerable authority. Add to that his very effective bob and weave defensive style and renowned physical strenght in close quarters I really don`t see what Pavlik brings to the table here to make you so certain he would decisively defeat someone of Jake`s pedigree.
Jake also took the best of and defeated one of the hardest hitting Heavyweight bangers of the era in Bob Satterfield, and by stoppage no less.
LOL, I've already addressed the power debate and I'm done with that one but your asking me how do I think Pavlik would win. Ok i'll give you my reason why. First of all, Lamotta might have underated defense, but he ain't no masterful boxer either. He's gonna try and Back Pavlik up and come right at him and I don't see him doing that, regardless of what anybody in here thinks.(Pavlik is much bigger and stronger the fighter Lamotta was fighting) Pavlik would be one of strongest fighters Jake fought and one thing that Pavlik has better than Ray is a a good consistent Jab. That's where most of his fights are won. He may not be as fast Ray or a better boxer, but he also has underated defense, which compliments his style. Only reason why you guys are saying he's easy to hit cause what Hopkins did to him. Well hopkins hit Tarver at will, and Tarver has a good defense. Hopkins will do that to anybody once he has them fighting his fight and frustrates them. Taylor has more handspeed than Lamotta and Pavlik did a good job defensly against him, so he has a better defense than you guys are saying. The fight would look a little bit like the Miranda fight but more competitive, with Pavlik stopping him in the late rounds. Only way you beat Pavlik is by giving him angles, lateral movement, countering punching, and a good defense, which Hopkins showed but Jake couldn't do what Hopkins did and he ain't gonna fight Pavlik like that. Pavlik takes this one. You asked and I gave you my opinion on the fight.
You just flat out don't know what you're talking about. I high-lighted all of the things that were completely off base. I'd remark on them further if I was willing to waste further time. But you simply lack the knowledge and open-mindedness to take in stride what we're educating you on anyway, so it would be pretty worthless to go into detail on again.
No, I just see it differently than you do. And Taylor does have more handspeed than Lamotta, get off these older fighters dicks for a second and quit being ****in nostalgic. And Pavlik would be the biggest middleweight he fought, who's more like a lightheavyweight. Lamotta moved up in a weight to fight those guys. And if you can prove to me what other fighter besides Hopkins beat him with another gameplan, I liked to see it. It'll be interesting.
Taylor did have more handspeed than LaMotta, that wasn't what I was remarking on when I highlighted that bit. That was more to do with how incredibly simplistic your comparison was. LaMotta moved up in weight, but he was still the same size, as he generally had to cut large amounts of weight to make MW anyway. He's fought and beaten not only bigger, stronger fighters, but harder hitters and much more skilled fighters as well. No other fighter has beaten Pavlik aside from Hopkins, so I obviously can't prove it outright. The fact that you're actually arguing that is the only way to defeat such a limited fighter really shows your unbelievable ignorance on the subject though. The subject of boxing as a whole really. I'd pick any truly elite MW's, regardless of style, to beat Pavlik. Brawlers/punchers like Tiger, Fullmer, Benn, Barkley, McClellan, Jackson, Trinidad, etc etc would beat him. Boxer-punchers like Toney, Hopkins, Robinson, Cerdan, Zale, McCallum, Giardello, etc etc. Slicksters like Kalambay, Eubank, Archer, Nunn, etc. He's a mediocre fighter in comparison to the true greats(and less than greats) of the division.
Yeah, you see it differently. You see it exactly the opposite, actually. He sees it right, you see it wrong. You're wrong. Just plain ****ing wrong, and too dense to understand why.
Co-signed. Canibus you have a right to think what you want and I do not hold it against you in any way, but you should take note of the fact that you are the only person in this thread that holds the opinions you do regarding this matchup, perhaps there is a reason for that don`t you think?
I'm one of the very few people in this forum that think Hopkins beat Calzaghe and people call me crazy for saying that. People can say what they want, I like the way I think and call me stubborn but I change my own mind on things. Nobody is gonna change my mind when my mind is made up, not even the so called experts. It's opinion like you said, so it shouldn't matter.
Lamotta walked through the punches of explosive LHv's like Bob Satterfield yet Pavlik ko's him? Jake by Dec.
I ain`t trying to change your mind, not at all, but your right when you say that you are stubborn as you seem to completely dissmiss any opinion that does not reflect your own thoughts on how this matchup would unfold, even when faced with evidence that shows that your opinion on how this fight would play out is flawed. No matter though, if you think Pavlik beats Jake thats fine with me, I won`t lose any sleep over it, agree to disagree on this one.