And what do you think Hopkins was for the majority of his career? You do realise that in the good old days of same day weigh ins these guys could not safely rehydrate and would all be fighting at light heavyweight most likely? They are all the same god damn size. Skills pay the bills.
Sorry but you are just plum wrong. Do you think that Hagler for instance could have dived up to LH on a whim and taken a shot at a p4p ATG?...no, I don't either. If they are all the same size why didn't Nard slip down to the more acclaimed weight (160) and take the titles off of Pavlik?
1) Hagler was 5' 8", he made middle easy and stayed there. Pavlik is 6' 2" and fought at catchweight against Taylor. 2) A prime Hagler didn't have a 43 year guy who'd lost his last fight and was a natural middleweight at 175 to tempt him. He had Micheal Spinks who was natural light heavyweight and in his prime. FWIW I think theres every chance a prime Hagler would beat last nights Hopkins at 170.
Hagler could have moved up and been successful, but he didn't need to. He was also much shorter than Pavlik. Come on, the guy is 6'2 and skinny as hell. Do you look at Hopkins/Calzaghe/Pavlik and seriously conclude any is much bigger than the other? Even the commentators thought Pavlik looked bigger. Complete red herring. The guy lost 12-0 and it ain't **** to do with weight. Pavlik could have put on 30lbs and got his ass whooped. By your logic Calzaghe might as well not have fought Pavlik, since he'd just be fighting a middleweight. Also, presumably Calzaghe's win over Hopkins is magnificent since he stepped up and beat a much bigger man. I don't know when people will learn all this weight bull**** is a non issue the majority of the time except for extreme cases. Only fighters that rely on physical strength come unhinged completely because they put on a few lbs (or rather didn't sit in the sauna for 10 weeks).
Before friday I thought that Pavlik would be a monster at LH. Having seen him at the weigh in he just looked like a MW with a gut, no conditioning, no **** all....its no excuse but I am afraid he just didn't look the part....hell I would look better at 175 (dim and distant memory) and I would be half starved. I don't agree about Hagler, if he could have stepped up, he would have if only for the kudos of beating Spinks.
It's nothing to do with conditioning or size if you can't throw a punch. Pavlik didn't throw a punch all night. He wasn't even tired. That is just distance management, Hopkins breaking down his rhythm by keeping himself unpredictable, keeping him gunshy with counters. It's intelligence and superior skill. Hopkins jumped up 15 lbs to face Tarver and outboxed his sorry looking Hollywood ass. Calzaghe jumped up 7 to beat Hopkins himself. Mayweather has titles at 5 weights. De La Hoya has more belts than I've had girlfriends. James Toney is a fat lump of lard and can still compete with heavyweights and cruisers. Weight means ****, please!
Thats just how Pavlik looks, at 160 he looks like a middleweight with a gut. He's just not a "cut" guy. Hagler was making good money at middle (better than Spinks was making at 175) why would he step up given the physical disadvantages? Pavik stepped to 170 against a man who was a natural middleweight and who he was of a similar size to. The 5' 8" Hagler had a prime 6'2" Michael Spinks who was a natural 175lber, a totally different proposition.
The difference is that when taylor beat hopkins, hopkins was not considered to be as much past it as he was when he fought joe, and taylor didnt take half as much stick for his victory as joe has, when taylor beat hopkins, despite it being close it was considered more of a legit fight then calzaghe hopkins, which was considered to be calzaghe fighting a past it legend to boost up his CV, surely its perfectly logical now that calzaghes win is worth alot more now given hopkins performance over pavlik, its just common sense surely?
exactly, you will notice to these people that moving up a weight doesnt matter when its someone they dont like e.g calzaghe moving up to fight bernard, but if pavlik moves up and loses, its all about weight then.:good
Lets get one thing clear, Hopkins schooled Pavlik on saturday without a shadow of a doubt, it was a complete masterclass from a virtually complete master. Despite what the wrestling fans on the general forum think I also consider that Calzaghe, although tight, beat Nard fair and square. Having said that...... You say that weight isn't an issue, you may be right, but I have had a quick trawl through and other than Dick Tiger and Hopkins himself I cannot find one decent middleweight since the war who has jumped directly from 160 to take on someone of Hopkins class at essentially LH and who has won. There has to be a reason for this.
I simply think that Pavlik got completely bamboozled by everything that Hopkins did, and showed him to be the one-dimensional banger I thought he always was. Once the power was taken out of the equation by an iron chinned opponent, the 0 was on it's way. The right hand lead gave him fits. Bunce made a point quoting Calzaghe, that Hopkins takes something away from you - he took everything away from Pavlik, totally disarmed him.
But Hopkins was a middleweight himself. I don't know whats so hard to understand about that. He fought at middleweight for over a decade, and came in as much as 4lbs under the 160lb limit. This reminds me of the bull**** I heard on here when Hatton lost to Mayweather the "bigger man", despite Mayweather starting off at junior lightweight. I've already given you an example of how Hopkins himself jumped up 15lbs to beat Tarver. They have both spent most of their career at middleweight, one is 43 years old and one is 17 years his junior, one was a massive favourite and unbeaten one was coming off a loss, you better not get your ass kicked and think weight is a valid reason.
No - especially bearing in mind how much we have heard from the Pavlik camp about how difficult it is for him to make 160. Having said that so often, you can't just to a complete U turn and blame the weight. Different to Hatton in many ways, who has always made 140 no problem.
You are arguing on your own...I am fully aware of what Hopkins was, and what he did against Tarver, thats why I wrote: Just because an exceptional fighter like Hopkins can step up two weights doesn't mean that lesser athletes can do the same, in fact if you check you will find that history backs up my argument.