Pavlik vs. Duran at 160 -- Who wins?

I'll take Pavlik..IMO Duran had his better days at lightweight and WW...He was a great boxer at MW but h2h Ima favor taller bigger man in Pavlik...Kelly has more reach and if he fights tall I think that could be a big factor in the outcome of the fight..Kelly by KO

 

If the best Duran showed up, such as the version that faced Hagler, or even the version that beat Barkley, I'd say he takes a comfortable UD over Pavlik. Far more skilled, even at MW.

 

The one thing I always noticed about Duran which always stuck out to me was if he saw any weakness at all he pounced on it. All fighters do this ,but he did it with expertise. If he started to hit Kelly Pavlik at all then he would find the weakness and just exploit it until the fight was over. Kelly just seems to be a guy who brawls too much for a guy like Duran. Duran would find the weakness. You would think Kelly's height would not let Duran win ,but Kelly fights a little too robotic for a guy like Duran to lose to. Duran losses more to the cute boxers who do not let him set. Duran lost to Hearns who was tall and Hearns did not box, but Hearns had too much speed and power and was great. But Kelly is not Hearns. The guys who did well with Duran did well from the start usually. When he saw blood forget it, usually the fight was over since he knew what to do to win. In a way that is what Hearns and Duran had in common. If they found a weakness they usually exploited it quick. Not saying Hagler and Leonard did not ,but they did not master it like Duran or Hearns.

 

I dont like making the argument that beating this fighter would beat that fighter. I think it safe to say that Hearns had been in is fair share of wars and a guy like Barkely who had a lot of power would be kryptonite to a guy like Hearns with a weak chin. Kellys physical advantages are alot to ignore. Remember how Hearns backed Duran up in there fight. While Kelly isnt Hearns he does have some of those same physical advantages, a long reach, power and high work rate. That could be trouble for Duran if he didnt come into the fight 100% serious as he tended to do.

Who? I dont recognized any of those names.

 

You would have to base this match on Duran's best form at 160..When he came in focused and in shape against Barkely and Hagler.

Those guys were top contenders of their time..better than Zertuche, Rubio and Lockett by some margin.

 

The Duran who fought Hagler would beat Pavlik. If he can take and avoid Haglers punches, he can do the same with Pavlik. Duran via UD.

 

you do realize how stupid you sound..ken buchanan only had 5 championship fights:deal dejesus was no better the fact that duran lost to him shows how ovverrated duran is today.

are you trying to say ken buchanan and esteban de jesus were better then diego corrales, floyd mayweather jr, jose luis castillo, steveie johnston, and shane mosley...I mean talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel..you duran fans are funny

if duran couldn't beat robbie simms a d level fighter how is he going to beat a beast like pavlik at 160.

duran isn;t even top 50 all-time at 160, he beat barkely and never defened the title..talk about lame.

duran's career is alot of myth:

at 135--top 10 atg (based on title defenses..but very weak comp)
at 147--top 75 atg (no title reign, tkoed by leoanrd in rematch)
at 154--top 100 atg (no title reign koed by the best at 154 in hearns)
at 160--top 100 (won a close fight agianst barkely..that's it)
at 168--no comment

pavlik tkos duran within 6 easily

 

Lets see your top 10 ATGs.

:rofl:rofl:rofl

****in noobs.

 

I agree about Kelly being able to beat Duran:thumbsup

BUT YOUR ATG LISTS ARE ALL MESSED UP...DURAN WAS TOP 3 AT LW ATG!!!HE WAS A BEAST AT ALL WEIGHTS...!!! AT WW HE HANDED SUGAR RAY LEONARD HIS 1ST LOSS!! :deal

 

I dont even know where to begin..hands down one of the worst posts Ive read on ESB and thats saying a lot considering some of the trash that is written here.

One of the most transparent examples of a person whos knowledge of the sport is next to nothing outside of boxrec.

I know Ill be wasting my time trying to convince you about the magic of facts over bull****, which is clearly more important to you. But Ill have a go anyway.

Against some very good fighters..He record is extremely good with wins over Watt, Ortiz, Hernandez, Laguna, Navarro, Malave to name a few .Any spastic can easily see this, some of the greatest fighters ever never even won a title so how championship fights they had is meaningless when you truly look at the quality of opposition beaten.

Anyone who has seen footage of Kenny and Esteban would not be saying this, so clearly you havent and clearly you fail.

I didnt actually say that..but at lightweight they are as good and better than most of those guys.
I was talking about the division today, hence the statement "any fighter around now". Ken and Dejesus would just about beat all the fighters in the 130-140 fighting TODAY.

What does it matter who he lost to when he was clearly out of shape and unfocused.
Fact is he beat a guy comparable to Pavlik at the age of 37 and gave one of the greatest middleweights ever a good, competitive fight a few years earlier.
Simms was not a D level fighter..he arguably holds two wins over DeWitt, he challenged Kalambay for the title and he actually stopped a young Barkley.


So you consider Duran top 10 at lightweight when most consider him 1-2 or at least top 5? Based on the fact you think he fought weak opposition..well actually maybe research and watch some film of those fighters before you make yourself look like a dick again.

Roberto beats the consensus no2 alltime welter and another top 50 alltime welter both near their prime but cant even crack the top 50?

Again at 154..He badly beat Moore and Cueves, holds wins over Minchillio and Speedy Gonzalez but barely cracks the top 100. Where do these others rank? outisde the top 200? You have to be kidding yourself.

I think its irrelevant where he ranks in each division alltime..Fact is he beat some very, very good fighters in all the divisions he campaigned in proving his ability over a wide range and showing the kind of fighter he was..a great one.

Im not even saying Duran destroys Pavlik or anything. If Kelly keeps winning at middle I could well say in a few years that he definitely beats a 160 Duran. But based on current results the Duran who beat Barkley and gave Hagler a good fight would beat Kelly. Anyone who says Kelly "easily" beats this version of Duran is either ******ed or super-******ed, take your pick.

 

yeah but he lost the rematch and quit before he was going to get knocked out :deal. Most people do not realize this. Watch the rematch and see how Ray was starting to land to the head and body more in round 8. Then Duran quits. He knew he might get stopped and didn't want it. He probably did the right thing. That did save his legacy a little. When he was stopped by Hearns it did not hurt his legacy that much since everyone knows Hearns is a legendary puncher. But had he been stopped by Leonard it would have been worse.

 

I'VE SEEN JUSS ABOUT ALL LEONARDS N DURANS FIGHTS...LEONARD IS 1 OF MY FAVORITE FIGHTERS ALL TIME AND IS A TOP 10 ATG...IM ONLY SAYING THAT DURAN BEAT LEONARD SO HE SHOULDN'T AND THE WRITER OF THE OTHER THREAD IS NOT GIVING HIM MUCH RESPECT! I'D GIVE NE MAN WHO BEAT A PRE1987 LEONARD ALOTTA RESPECT!:good

 

So it's agreed. ATGs like Duran, Leonard, & Hearns would defeat less talented guys like Pavlik, Calzaghe, etc.

 

Nice try to slip that one in there

Duran doesn't take more than 4 rounds off of Calzaghe at 168.