I definitely am arguing on my own because you just went and proved my point. Good fighters can do it, average ones can't, especially ones that rely on physical advantages and I would put Pavlik in that category. Pavlik is an inferior fighter, that is the top and bottom of it.
:happy :happy thank **** for that.....thats precisely what I do mean. Hopkins is an exceptional athlete , Pavlik is not, and probably never will be.
Rephrase that, he most certainly won't ever be :yep But then I'm not sure where weight comes into that.
Me neither anymore, i'm old, confused and losing the will to live Back to the original question posed in the thread title "what does Bhops win mean for Calzaghe"-- it means that JC sneaked an SD past a significantly below par Hopkins, and in the rematch he would have his arse handed to him on a plate by Bernard :yep :deal :hey
You are too hung up on age - Hopkins rated higher P4P, proven at the higher weight and a proven world class operator. Pavlik's "prime" has nothing to do with it if Hopkins past prime is still superior.
So Hopkins was below par because otherwise Joe would've never beaten him? Hopkins beat Pavlik because of advantages in hand/footspeed. Advantages he didn't hold over Calzaghe. I know Joe isn't easy to like but come on!
What on Earth does 'prime' have to do with it? A guy who is number four P4P but a decade past his prime is still a better fighter, and a more impressive win than a guy who is number ten P4P and in his prime. Hopkins isn't top four P4P after taking his age into account. He's just top four P4P. The only possible black mark against Calzaghe's win was that maybe Hopkins was no longer performing at that level due to his age. And that's the question mark that was conclusively removed this weekend.
If you read my original post (which was cut), I state that I don't think Pavlik is that good, but had the potential to be good (I actually bet on Hopkins because I thought he would win). He may yet go on to do great things. Joe did not beat Pavlik, 43 year old ATG Bernard Hopkins in his twilight boxing years pulled something out of the bag and beat Pavlik! He himself had already picked up two losses to Taylor, and a SD to Calzaghe - he is not what he was in some departments. Bernard beat Pavlik, Joe wouldn't take the dangerous fight against the young contender - remember! Joe beat Hopkins in a contentions split decision - a good win non the less, but a 43 year old version who had already picked up two recent losses to Taylor. It was a good/great win nothing more, nothing less. Tarver totally shut out Clinton Woods after losing to Hopkins - did that make Hopkins win over Tarver that much greater (no not really). Against Dawson it was clear Tarver was gone. Hopkins is going to fight another fight - he could well lose that one. As I have always said Joe's win over Hopkins was a very good one, but personally I wouldn't go too over board about it (even if you remove the age factor it was still far from a convincing win, imo) - just as I have never said Hopkins was shot - Roy Jones is shot - Hopkins is not, and this win just goes to prove it. At the end of the day it was Hopkins who took the risk, and pulled something out the bag for an amazing victory - well done to him.
It works out well for Calzaghe, it shows that Hopkins struggled not only because he was old but because of the pressure Calzaghe put on him. Pavlik didn't apply pressure, he stalked forward and couldn't even get the jab going. Calzaghe may have been sloppy, but he didn't let Hopkins close down his offense for a second. Calzaghe also made Hopkins work incredibly hard, something Pavlik wasn't prepared to do. Hopkins usually makes opponents stop throwing shots by landind crisp and sharp counters every time the other guy gets aggressive. Thus he nullifies their offense, and using his defensive acumen, gets the rounds under his belt. He couldn't do this with Calzaghe, coz even though he's a more skilled fighter, he didn't count on Calzaghe pure heart and determination. Even when he got knocked down in the first round, Calzaghe just kept on coming, and that was something that Hopkins found really hard to deal with. Hopkins age didn't help him against Calzaghe, but only because Calzaghe forced Hopkins to fight for every minute of every round. Pavlik didn't do that the other night, Pavlik didn't even put Hopkins under pressure with the jab! let alone any real power-shots. Very dissappointed in Pavlik, I think he was always a bit overrated but I didn't expect him to be schooled like that.
You aren't digging yourself out of the hole that well, even after Cobbler explained it to you in the simplest terms. Your comparison with Tarver/Woods is awful. Clinton Woods is not Bernard Hopkins, period. He's never had that capability, he's just a solid fighter, so it wouldn't be likely to add anything to anybodys win. Of course it is well done to Hopkins, he comes out with the most credit since he did the fighting. However, it also served to prove Hopkins is in great condition, is still a great fighter, and is still a top 10 p4p fighter easily. Hence the lingering doubts over Calzaghe's win should have been put to bed...but apparently not. You are one of the people Hopkins was looking to when he faced the press row after the fight as if to say "how many times do I have to prove myself?". Age means nothing to this man. He's not prime, but he's still great.
Aye, I pretty much say the same things as you just stated there - if I'm in a hole you must be in too. I have always said it was a good win for Joe, and Hopkins was not shot.