I think Taylor was pretty tough for Pavlik the second time around at 166 pounds. I think the straight hard punches of Pavlik would cause Froch porblems. Froch is not really hard to find. I'm not sure who would win, Froch is impressive and his resume is growing.
Froch I think is too tough for Pavlik. The guy has concrete for a chin and he showed in his last fight that he can box a bit when he wants to. Those lanky arms of his and that long jab make him a hard fight for Pavlik. That combined with his own power and sheer balls make Pavlik crumble. I have no doubt Pavlik will land, and do well with his straight right but to be honest I don't think he is as effective at the higher weight. At 160 he is bigger, stronger and harder hitting than everyone. But at 168 this simply won't be the case. Froch is used to dealing with much stronger fighters than pavlik and his resume is way, way stronger. Froch has met all styles and won all the fights he has had against top names bar the Kessler fight which was very competitive. Pavlik's biggest wins are Taylor, and...Miranda? Just no. I like Pavlik. But Froch is just better than him, and unlike Martinez who was also better than Pavlik, Froch is also stronger, tougher and a natural supermiddleweight. Bad fight for Pavlik.
I don't buy this notion that Pavlik would be able to locate Froch easily. Froch isn't pretty but he's a pretty slick boxer. He does little subtle things to keep his opponents off balanced. He's good at maintaining distance. His fight with Kessler was very close but i thought he landed the harder, cleaner blows and just boxed better. He's an underrated boxer. Pavlik is truly a slow, plodding, one dimensional one-two fighter. Froch would outclass him and take him out late.
If Froch isn't that hard to find, how come AA couldn't land ****? Kessler didn't land too many clean shots either.
B/c AA is a stinking midget. Are you trying to tell me Froch is a defensive fighter? And Kessler landed enough punches to win the contest, so...
My point is that you said that Froch is an easy target to locate. If that's the case, why couldn't AA land anything? Surely, Froch had to be doing something to make AA miss or not get into his attack. And please, if the fight was in Nottingham, Froch would've won a UD. It was super close but i thought Froch landed the cleaner and harder shots and he looked better in the fight. He just didn't do enough for some reason.
This is what I think too. Froch looked better every time he was active but he just wasn't active enough. Frustrating fight to watch if, like me, you're a big Froch fan. I think he is a better fighter than Kessler but he just didn't do enough. I have no issues with Kessler winning though because it was a good, close fight but even if I scored it for Kessler, I'd still say Froch is the better of the two. I think he looked overconfident against Kessler and it cost him. The desire that he showed against Pascal, Taylor and later Abraham, just wasn't there.
Carl is bigger and stronger and has more variety than Kelly. I think Kelly hits harder, but it would not matter. Carl would no doubt win on points.
It was the only fight that he has ever done that. You want to use that 1 fight? AA is 5'8 has a low work rate and works out of a shell.
i'm only responding to this post b/c its been repeated in this and other threads.... if froch were to win...its NOT b/c he's bigger and stronger than kelly. kelly is taller, has a longer reach (barely but still) and will weigh just as much if not more than carl on fight night. and yes, kelly does hit harder b/c, for all his flaws, a well put together straight right hand isnt one of them. this notion that kelly is moving up into a division where he will be on the smaller side is just plain wrong. he will be just as big and just as strong.
Exactly. Kelly was killing himself to make 160 and rehydrates to well above 168. He was so tall at middleweight too, he won't be quite as big at SMW but it's not like Froch is any bigger than him.
