lockett knows what to expect from pavlik!

i kinda feel bad for believing him.

reminds of gomez before his fight with cotto...he said all the right things and looked what happened

i hope this fight isnt like that.

 

edit

 

You have seen Lockett fight, haven't you????

Pavlik is in a different league; the two cannot be compared. That's why myself and others state that all he has is a "punchers chance". U C what I mean?:think

 

No, I haven't seen him fight, just the few second clips HBO is now showing. With 30 wins in 31 fights and 21 KO's, I can't see that he is as bad as I am hearing. If he was bad, somebody would have been able to KO him.

 

:good

Beat me to it.


In fact the man he was beat by was only borderline European level; everyone else were domestic-level sacrificial victims. Although I believe that he did beat Tsarenko in a rematch.

 

You may know your opponent weakness but you need to have the ability to expose it, otherwise prepared to be KKOOOOOOO big time

 

Your emoticon is the only laugh you'll get in this one. :bart

 

Doesn't even spar with world class..... sorry, 4 hours sleep..... coudn't NOT type that.......

 

"People may say I've got a puncher's chance - but is there such a thing as a lucky punch in boxing?

Geez, I kinda like him. I've been beating this drum for a while now. Especially in terms of Miranda. Guy has over 30 fights and must train for a record like his. So, if he wins, people discount it as "luck"? Chance favors the prepared.

 

There is a problem with saying a guy like Pavlik is predictable. The problem is this: Every fighter is to some extent predictable; Clazaghe makes the same mistakes in every fight, but remains undeafeated; oscar will always rely heavily on his left hook, SRL always threw lightning fast combinations; Hearns always relied heavily on his big right hand, et, et. Yes, Pavlik is fairly predictable. A ****ing freight train is preditable too, but knowing that doesn't make it safe to stand on the tracks.

 

"A beat down".



Thread should have started and ended there.

 

There is predictable, but there is also adaptable. Pavlik doesn't have that, unlike many of the above. People talk about him winning on points against Taylor, but to me it was more indicative of Taylor fighting cautiously rather than Pavlik doing anything new, it was same old from him

I've never seen Pavlik adapt. One could argue he hasn't really needed to against his current opposition, but there will come a time shortly against physically matched opponents that he will.

 

Like when Jack Lowe offers to let Enzo win his house back on a 'double or nothing' bet in a Kelly/Joe matchup?

 

Something like that, or any number of various matchups. There are half a dozen names at SMW alone where he would need to fight differently