Pavlik

Calzaghe ain't losing to a guy like Kelly Pavlik, bro.
 
So what do you guys consider ring generalship?

And isnt coming forward relentlessly a skill? Hatton is a simple fighter but I was amazed at his footwork and relentless pressure on Mayweather. I think he comes forward better than Cotto but thats the only thing he does better than him.

Classically ring-generalship is the ability to use the entire ring for both offense and defense, and control of the pace of the fight. If a come-forward fighter mostly follows as opposed to cutting off, then he's not really the one in the lead even if he's winning the battle of hands.

I don't think Hatton comes forward that much better than Cotto necessarily, I think Cotto's slower of foot but he's got the better footwork of the two overall, as he showed against Abdullaev and Mosley, he can fight going backwards very well.
 
Calzaghe ain't losing to a guy like Kelly Pavlik, bro.

You seem quite sure of that, and I'm quite sure of the opposite. It's rare that my opinion of a possible fight is the polar opposite of yours, but I think Joe's ready to be taken, and Kellys the guy to do it. Weight is the sticking point here, and I'm not too sure that it'll happen.
 
Classically ring-generalship is the ability to use the entire ring for both offense and defense, and control of the pace of the fight. If a come-forward fighter mostly follows as opposed to cutting off, then he's not really the one in the lead even if he's winning the battle of hands.

I don't think Hatton comes forward that much better than Cotto necessarily, I think Cotto's slower of foot but he's got the better footwork of the two overall, as he showed against Abdullaev and Mosley, he can fight going backwards very well.

How would you classify fighting going backwards?

Because in the later rounds of the Mosley fight, Cotto was losing rounds primarily because Mosley was dictating the fight. Cotto not Mosley was the one being backed down and having to fight off the ropes. With that said Cotto was better than I thought when going backwards but I think if a fighter can sustain that pressure throughout the fight, Cotto could be exploited. Would you agree?
 
How would you classify fighting going backwards?

Because in the later rounds of the Mosley fight, Cotto was losing rounds primarily because Mosley was dictating the fight. Cotto not Mosley was the one being backed down and having to fight off the ropes. With that said Cotto was better than I thought when going backwards but I think if a fighter can sustain that pressure throughout the fight, Cotto could be exploited. Would you agree?

What do you mean "classify"...? There were those who were brilliant at it, like Azumah Nelson versus Fenech, and those who suck at it, like Miranda vs. Pavlik.

Cotto was losing rounds, because Shane was coming on strong, but who knows what would have happened had that fight been 15 rounds like it should have been. Would Cotto have dug-down and fought back harder? Would Shane have become the tank? This is why I hate 12 rounders only. But you're saying if a Fighter could be Shane Mosley going forward then Cotto could be exploited. Sure, with that hand and foot-speed, he could be. But Abdullaev got beaten stupid for it, and he was at a better weight for him, worse weight for Cotto, and he's a better pressure-Fighter IMO, hence Cotto HAVING to fight him on the back foot.
 
What do you mean "classify"...? There were those who were brilliant at it, like Azumah Nelson versus Fenech, and those who suck at it, like Miranda vs. Pavlik.

Cotto was losing rounds, because Shane was coming on strong, but who knows what would have happened had that fight been 15 rounds like it should have been. Would Cotto have dug-down and fought back harder? Would Shane have become the tank? This is why I hate 12 rounders only. But you're saying if a Fighter could be Shane Mosley going forward then Cotto could be exploited. Sure, with that hand and foot-speed, he could be. But Abdullaev got beaten stupid for it, and he was at a better weight for him, worse weight for Cotto, and he's a better pressure-Fighter IMO, hence Cotto HAVING to fight him on the back foot.

True,

So you think the hand/foot speed was giving Cotto the most trouble and do you think Margarito can give Cotto problems and back him up or does he lack the qualities that would give Cotto difficulties?
 
So you think the hand/foot speed was giving Cotto the most trouble and do you think Margarito can give Cotto problems and back him up or does he lack the qualities that would give Cotto difficulties?

I think Cotto/Margarito is a toss-up, honestly. Others might disagree, but this is one fight where they BOTH play into each other's hands. Tony will pressure, and work, but he'll swing wide. He DOES have a good uppercut, but it might be slow enough for Cotto to see coming. Cotto will be able to hit Tony, and to get close enough to do his trademark body-work he'll have to take damage, too. It should be a pretty good shoot-out.

But yeah, hand and foot speed CAN trouble Cotto. Paulie took a Hell of a beating, but he did tire Cotto out a bit with his speed and clinching. Corley gave Cotto a little trouble with his speed. However inevitably Cotto's overall skill did beat these guys silly.

IMO the only guys who can win DEFINITIVELY against Cotto are either the calibur of Mayweather AND Fighting a perfect fight, or a monster puncher who can turn his lights out...the Hearns to his Duran.

But who IS that guy for Cotto? Tony's not a monster puncher, but he'll certainly go down swinging enough to do the job. Despite what many people say about Santos and Williams, Tony hasn't been DEFINITIVELY beaten (and never stopped) since he was about the same age as Cotto was when he suffered his last loss.
 
Pavlik is a good fighter, but he's not that good. Certainly not "best fighter in the world" potential.

Look at the list of men who have carried that title:

Ray Robinson
Roberto Duran
Muhammad Ali
Ray Leonard
Marvin Hagler
Pernell Whitaker
Mike Tyson
Roy Jones Jr
Floyd Mayweather
Julio Cesar Chavez

Kelly Pavlik? Hmmm.
Agree.

Pavlik has grit, power, and determination but lacks the ability of other fighters on this list. He can't hit hard at every angle (he's a toe-to-toe pressure fighter). He hasn't displayed great ring generalship (he grinds his opponents down and backs them up). He doesn't put together combinations (he's a bread-n-butter jab-straight kinda fighter).


I really think that if he had a trainer like Emmanuel Stewart he'd shine. He's got potential but that's just not enough.
 
I don't think theres much of a chance of that happening, though a good fighter he looks very beatable to me.
 
Yeah, well, I remember a few people saying the opposite as well. Whats that mean?
 
In all seriousness. All this is what makes Kelly Pavlik interesting to watch. He does so many things that are considered fundimentals so average yet he somehow finds a way to make it so effective.

His style, no matter who he beats, will never put him at the top P4P lists tho. Because he has great punching power and is so long and tall he is able to win with his physical gifts alone. He would have no answer to a guy taller, stronger and faster than him.

I doubt he would have an answer against a guy with no interests in trading punches, no care whether the fight is boring, with great handspeed and a great chin as well.

#1 Bigger, stronger, faster guy
#2 Slick, boring, can take a punch guy.

Thats Pavliks weakness I think. He isnt versatile like a Mayweather who can beat any type of boxer and who relies on more than physical gifts but more-so Boxing skill.
 
In all seriousness. All this is what makes Kelly Pavlik interesting to watch. He does so many things that are considered fundimentals so average yet he somehow finds a way to make it so effective.

His style, no matter who he beats, will never put him at the top P4P lists tho. Because he has great punching power and is so long and tall he is able to win with his physical gifts alone. He would have no answer to a guy taller, stronger and faster than him.

I doubt he would have an answer against a guy with no interests in trading punches, no care whether the fight is boring, with great handspeed and a great chin as well.

#1 Bigger, stronger, faster guy
#2 Slick, boring, can take a punch guy.

Thats Pavliks weakness I think. He isnt versatile like a Mayweather who can beat any type of boxer and who relies on more than physical gifts but more-so Boxing skill.

And please excuse me for saying Boring. I said it in such form for people to understand btw. I rarerly find Boxing fights Boring. I find some exciting and others interesting. "Boring" can actually be interesting to me during because you're so eager to see that slick f**ker get his over the head. Its Boring if Mayweather's, Whitaker's and Jone's of the world dont get hit for 12 rnds but its a montumental moment when they get knocked out.

Teddy Atlas helped me figure this out last Wed night fights when he said this, no exactly direct, quote, "This guy doesnt give you exciting fights but he makes fights interesting".
 
pavlik needs to fight wright and then he got nothin more to prove at mw

after that he should move to lhw and try calz or hopkins i dont see him gettin past either tho
 
Pavlik is a good fighter, but he's not that good. Certainly not "best fighter in the world" potential.

Look at the list of men who have carried that title:

Ray Robinson
Roberto Duran
Muhammad Ali
Ray Leonard
Marvin Hagler
Pernell Whitaker
Mike Tyson
Roy Jones Jr
Floyd Mayweather
Julio Cesar Chavez

Kelly Pavlik? Hmmm.

There is no reason Pavlik can't get on that list. We have no way of knowing how good or great he will be until the end of his career.

Up until this point, though, it's hard to argue that the guy isn't the best at Middleweight. He has done everything needed to carry himself on the upper echelon of Middleweights, stopping the current champ, defeating him soundly in the rematch, and pummeling all other contenders on his way up. He needs more top level opposition, in order to garner the recognition as best fighter now.

Of course I agree that he isnt on that list yet, but it is ludicrous to say that he doesn't have the potential to make it on the list (based on his current run).
 
Of course I agree that he isnt on that list yet, but it is ludacris to say that he doesn't have the potential to make it on the list (based on his current run).

LOL. Sorry, I had to.
 
There is no reason Pavlik can't get on that list. We have no way of knowing how good or great he will be until the end of his career.

Up until this point, though, it's hard to argue that the guy isn't the best at Middleweight. He has done everything needed to carry himself on the upper echelon of Middleweights, stopping the current champ, defeating him soundly in the rematch, and pummeling all other contenders on his way up. He needs more top level opposition, in order to garner the recognition as best fighter now.

Of course I agree that he isnt on that list yet, but it is ludacris to say that he doesn't have the potential to make it on the list (based on his current run).

Tyson?
 

That is kind of my point. We can talk of Tyson now, seeing how his career turned out. Then, however, it was fine to talk of his potential.

You can't hate on Pavlik based on what he hasn't done. I'm also not trying to take Tam's opinion away either. I'm just trying to state my own...
 
I remember a few Jermain Taylor fans said that
But those fans never figured in Jermaine Taylor's fragile psyche. Comparing Taylor to Calzaghe is like comparing a rape victim to a spetznatz commando. Taylor is always twitchy, tense, and unsure, while Calzaghe can be summed up in two words - Iron Will.

Look at all of the chances Taylor has had and blown in his career. Zag's never frustrated.

Taylor had the world on a platter and blew. He was making top dollar for fighting scrubs. Pavlik had to knock him out and fight him again just to make money. Taylor is no Calzaghe. He's had his chance and blew it. Every time.
 
Back
Top