Oh, that is what it is then...a wind up. Great way to start off being a new member, you know..trolling an all. Dumbass.
Of course that is correct and I should have been more clear with that post. What I meant was, I always see the detractors bitching about the Hagler vs. Pavlik threads, etc.. as some sort of proof that all Pavlik fans are ****-tards. As you said very well in your post, these kind of match-ups are silly because we have the whole picture of a Ring Legend vs. A Kid whose not even made his first defense of his first title.
Indeed, using what we currently know about each one couldn't argue. It would be far more fair to have this discussion in 4-5 years though, when Pavlik's had his chance to create his own legacy.
Taylor WON the belts. Pavlik beat Taylor. How does that make Pavlik "overrated"? What rating system do you use? atsch
160 was not the best weight for Hearns: his height/reach advantage wasn't as pronounced as it was at the lower weights, but he would outbox Pavlik in the extreme. Much, much better footwork, movement, virtually everything. Pavlik's a hell of a fighter, but he's nowhere near Hearns' league.
He was a far superior boxer to Barkley, as well. The wild card with Hearns was never his skills- which were always world class- it was his chin, which wasn't; likely due to how he was built and how skinny his neck was. If Pavlik doesn't stop Tommy, I don't see any reason not to pick a Hearns UD or stoppage win. But Pavlik's got enough of a punch to make me not want to bet on this, if it were to happen. Too live an underdog to take the risk on.
Quote: Originally Posted by corrales is god do you relize wat da **** you are sayin. pavlik beat an overrated taylor and a brawler in miranda thats it along with 30 other nobodys . your obvisously not da fan you think you are. DISGRACE Well, maybe that is what he meant when he said, "DISGRACE".