Pavlik/Hopkins: Why and Why Not

It's great for Hops if he wins. But doesn't prove much for Pavlik if he beats Hops, a 43/44 past his prime fighter.

 

You can't say he's better than Calzaghe cos he beat Hopkins easier (if that happened). Pavlik and Calzaghe have completely different styles.

I think in this fight Pavlik will have a hard time, Calzaghe couldn't land many meaningful punches on Hopkins and Pavlik is a much more Orthodox a fighter. If Pavlik wins i'd be impressed as it would be a great win for him. Hopkins may be an old man but he's still a top fighter - a crafty and awkward fighter who's stylistically difficult for Pavlik in my view.

 

Winky is such a ***** its untrue. He's fast on his way to becoming my most disliked fighter.

 

But he's such a hypocritical **** too. He always whined when he was an upcomer that nobody would give him a fight. Now the roles are reversed he doesn't want any young hungry contenders, unless he gets a fee completely disproportionate to his draw.

**** Winky.

 

I don't need to answer your points, I think the fight is fine from a boxing point of view (although unfortunately with the downside of being as boring as all Hopkins fights in the past decade or so). But I can say that without appearing hypocritical as I thought Hopkins was a valid opponent for Calzaghe too. I think the fight will be close for 6 rounds and pose Pavlik a number of problems he hasn't seen before. I expect that he can overcome those and will give him due credit if he does so.

You just look silly pointing out Hopkins P4P standing or Ring magazine rating to justify the fight when you derided him as an opponent for Calzaghe when he was ranked thus and had beaten Tarver and Wright, which you now appear to regard as achievements again.

Once again you mistake 'Pavlik-hating' (does anyone actually do that? He's certainly one of my favourite current fighters) for irritation caused by his more one-eyed nut huggers.