Pavlik is not small

Agreed.

But when Toney was smacking aroung Rahman a couple months ago, that was James at his best.

 

well put it this way, if pavlik can't carry 170 and do well then there is something wrong. obviously height is not the only criteria and hearns was nearly 2 inches taller than tyson. however one only need to look at both hearns and tyson to determine who is the hw and who should be light middle (or even smaller). also recall that hearns fought all the way up to cruiser after he could no longer starve himself to make the real low weight. someone 6'1 or 6'2 shouldn't be fighting at welter, but they do b/c of advanatages.

pavlik is a solid 6'2 and if he can't be nearly as effective at 170 as 160 then it probably comes down to a lack of talent/skill.

 

i thought he was bigger than BHop actually :huh

 

If one loss was always such a crippling effect, we'd never have Muhammad Ali, Lennox Lewis, or some of the other greats. Source: Wallace

 

If one loss was always such a crippling effect, we'd never have Muhammad Ali, Lennox Lewis, or some of the other greats.

 

Tupak? Sorry nice attemt at clowning ,But that line was used wayyyyy before TUPAC said it..lame

 

He is bigger dip****..Noticed i said taller

 

Pavlik is not small, he is tall
Pavlik is not short, he is large :yep