would kessler beat pavlik convincingly?

Kessler is faster, physically stronger. But I am not sold on his toughness. I think he would go into retreat when pavlik is in his face throwing those straight power shots. Pavlik has no real speed but his timing is good and all of his punches are straight and have something on them to make you respect them. Kessler has bad footwork and he is not really a guy that can get out of the way too well. If he got against the ropes against pavlik he is done.

 

^I agree. I think Kessler is quicker and maybe more talented overall, though I'd give the edge in power to Pavlik. Kessler would get broken down over the length of the fight based on what I saw against Calzaghe.

 

I had the same score. Hopkins won hardly any rounds after the first couple. Joe would have kept it up had it gone 15. 116-111 for Joe C. Hopkins is a boring fighter and leads with his head. I'm hoping he retires.

 

People get ripped all the time here for trying that anyhow because there is always some case where it didn't work. I mean the common opponents. Pulling something out of your ass is more acceptable for some reason.:huh

 

The intangables. Pavlik fans live by them, Pavlik haters claim they don't exist.

 

95% certain followed by = don't take this seriously...


sorry that you did....

 

applaud it all you want but can you give a better rebuttal to Pavlik beats Kessler than .....But he only lost 116-112 to Joe C.?????...cause that's all I am hearing.....

How about Kessler won't fight Miranda???:good

 

Marcus Beyer, Liberado Andrade, Mundine, tell me Pavlik would not have taken these same guys and clocked them just as easy or easier than the Danish Pastry.

Now look at Miranda and Taylor Twice and tell me why the Pastry ran from Miranda and is fighting some no name for a paper Tilte.

 

Thats a "**** for brains" question.
**** for brains for asking it.

 

my point was that if there are no common opponents you have to resort to more degrees of seperation, (is it 100% accurate/ideal? of course not)......... it's not pulling something out of your ass but more making the best of what limited information is at your disposal(trying to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear)which takes a little ingenuity ......but at least it is somewhat tangible...and again I would like someone to offer a more compelling rebuttal argument than what was started by 1leHudson.....as to why Pavlik would beat Kessler....

Amazing considering the theme of the thread, that people would get slagged for making the best arguments that they can based on the limited information at their disposal......:-(

 

ok kessler is good .very good we agree. pavlik may be an all time great . i will tell you folks over and over a simple fighter who knows his technique and can execute his plan is a beast at any weight .ido not think pavlik is unbeatable which is also why i think he is one of the best. because i know he won't duck anyone . win lose or draw the opponent will come out knowing he was in a fight

 

oh yea pavlik would break kessler down within 10 if he can't stand the shoeshine from joe the 1, 2 will break him down all day and lets say an uppercut calls it a night

 

Pavlik would have KOed Beyer, but with a little more trouble.

Andrade and Mundine would have beaten Pavlik, Mundine by UD, Andrade by KO in a battle until Pavlik folds.

 

Beating Jermain Taylor was enough for you at 166. The guy who everyone called the undefeated, undisputed, best middleweight in the world before kelly came along. He lost no speed in that fight and probably felt better not having to drop weight.

 

First I would like to say that there are a sh*tload of Europeans living in New York.

No what is ridiculous is saying that Kessler would dominate Pavlik when he is yet to dominate any top level fighter. In fact he has only facted one and a half top level guys and lost to the One but beat the half and not that convincingly that being Calzaghe and Mundine.

Honestly I dont think that Kessler would ever fight Pavlik he couldnt even muster the balls to fight Miranda, and pulled some funny sh*t some time back after calling out Lacy and once Lacy accepted they claimed Kessler was hurt.

Now as far as logic, what is yours??? Saying that Kessler is a better fighter is a **** poor one, being that you have nothing to base that on. That is just your feelings. What it breaks down to is Europeans for the most part think that Kessler will and can beat any fighter except Calzaghe and Calzaghe cant lose to anyone so therefore we are foolish to think that this lowly super slow, weak, no chin having whiteboy from the midwest and that Black kid from Arkansas arent on thier level and cant complete. But it isnt based on anything. What Im saying is Taylor beat Hopkins more convincingly then Calzaghe did, which shows that Calzaghe isnt that much better then Taylor if at all, and therefore cant be that much better then Pavlik if at all. And being that Calzaghe beat Kessler it would mean the same thing about him.

I know that styles play a major role, but Calzaghe is a easy style for Pavlik he throws wide shots and would play right into what Kelly does best. Kessler would actaully be a tougher fight, but I like alot of other people have questions about his heart and toughness, he fell apart fighting Calzaghe. Taylor is the other way I think that he would have an easier time with Kessler then he would with Calzaghe.