-
If Pavlik was a heavyweight, would the critics have called him gutless this weekend?
This isn't really a go at Pavlik, more to do with the current hate for the heavyweight division.
Yesterday Pavlik lost arguably every single round against Bernard. He didn't even put up a fight, it was just total domination and Kelly seemed to have accepted his fate by about the third round.
But still people are supporting (as they should) and just saying he belongs at middleweight, he was too inexperienced, Hopkins was superb etc.
I don't disagree with any of this.
But contrast this with the heavyweight division. Tony Thompson for example who looked excellent on the way to his title shot with Wlad was crucified after losing that fight, especially over here by Steve Bunce for having no heart whatsoever, no pride, no fight etc.
Sam Peter was crucified again by Bunce for quitting and giving up and not being prepared to face Vitali.
Sultan Ibragimov was roundly condemned for his failure to make a dent on Wlad when they fought some months ago.
It seems to me however, that with the exception of Peter quitting (which to me was actually pretty sensible) none of these guys performed any worse than Kelly did this weekend.
So why are they all a disgrace to boxing for not going out on their shields yet Pavlik is brave for finishing the fight?
I'm not sure whether in the US the criticism of heavyweights is so strong but over here Steve Bunce wrote off Ibragimov, Peter and Thompson all as disgraces to boxing for their failed title efforts.
Just seems like a cheap double standard to me.
-
Re: If Pavlik was a heavyweight, would the critics have called him gutless this weeke
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
This isn't really a go at Pavlik, more to do with the current hate for the heavyweight division.
Yesterday Pavlik lost arguably every single round against Bernard. He didn't even put up a fight, it was just total domination and Kelly seemed to have accepted his fate by about the third round.
But still people are supporting (as they should) and just saying he belongs at middleweight, he was too inexperienced, Hopkins was superb etc.
I don't disagree with any of this.
But contrast this with the heavyweight division. Tony Thompson for example who looked excellent on the way to his title shot with Wlad was crucified after losing that fight, especially over here by Steve Bunce for having no heart whatsoever, no pride, no fight etc.
Sam Peter was crucified again by Bunce for quitting and giving up and not being prepared to face Vitali.
Sultan Ibragimov was roundly condemned for his failure to make a dent on Wlad when they fought some months ago.
It seems to me however, that with the exception of Peter quitting (which to me was actually pretty sensible) none of these guys performed any worse than Kelly did this weekend.
So why are they all a disgrace to boxing for not going out on their shields yet Pavlik is brave for finishing the fight?
I'm not sure whether in the US the criticism of heavyweights is so strong but over here Steve Bunce wrote off Ibragimov, Peter and Thompson all as disgraces to boxing for their failed title efforts.
Just seems like a cheap double standard to me.
Nice that you have finally noticed the double standards we have in boxing.
Case in point is when Barrera defeated Hamed. People were talking about how great he was. Then he fought Pacman. People were talking that he was already old and that he was caught offguard.I was here since 2004 and have noticed many double standards since then.
This is the reason why I don't easily judge a fighter coz I might just be making some double standard. I like the reasoning of ICB that style makes the fight. That way a fighter like PAvlik who's supposed to defeat Hopkins easily is not put in a very bad light.:cool:
-
Re: If Pavlik was a heavyweight, would the critics have called him gutless this weeke
I think it's a little harder to rag on Pavlik after he stood up to that ass whipping than it is Wlad Klitschko for playing patty cake with Ibragimov. Not to mention it was a lot more entertaining to watch than any meaningful HW fight in years, imo. If there were any HWs out there who could bring what Hopkins did last night all the others would be lucky just to hear the final bell as well if you ask me. Basically, no.... People call HW's gutless because most aren't getting in condition to fight hard or showing any urgency in the ring when it's right there for the taking. Little different when you've got a defensive wizard clobbering you all over the place.
-
Re: If Pavlik was a heavyweight, would the critics have called him gutless this weeke
But when you defending your heavyweight championship you shouldn't quit if you can go full 12 rounds should you?? i think Peter could have completed the fight and at least gone out on his shield.
-
Re: If Pavlik was a heavyweight, would the critics have called him gutless this weeke
Pavlik was not gutless more pathetic.
The guy tried and took his beating like a man, Kelly has a big heart.
-
Re: If Pavlik was a heavyweight, would the critics have called him gutless this weeke
Kelly Pavlik was poisoned!
End of story!
Pavlik got beat up by a man who came into the ring with a walker but it was Kelly who left walking out of that ring with the walker ;D
I had the same look on my face that Kelly had at the end of the fight. :o SHOCKED!
I don't watch the fat boys so I can't talk about the klits or Peter or barney or bigfoot, or any of those freaks.
Thank's to kelly, I got owned by brucelee ;D
:rolleyes:
-
Re: If Pavlik was a heavyweight, would the critics have called him gutless this weeke
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
I think it's a little harder to rag on Pavlik after he stood up to that ass whipping than it is Wlad Klitschko for playing patty cake with Ibragimov. Not to mention it was a lot more entertaining to watch than any meaningful HW fight in years, imo. If there were any HWs out there who could bring what Hopkins did last night all the others would be lucky just to hear the final bell as well if you ask me. Basically, no.... People call HW's gutless because most aren't getting in condition to fight hard or showing any urgency in the ring when it's right there for the taking. Little different when you've got a defensive wizard clobbering you all over the place.
I'm thinking more about Tony Thompson really. This was a guy who didn't turn pro until he was 30 and fought his way to a title shot the hard way, with no publicity, by being the underdog and beating fighters he wasn't supposed to beat including travelling to Germany to do so.
He simply didn't have the tools to beat Wlad but fought until the 11th round. Meanwhile Steve (fat bastard who knows nothing) Bunce labelled him gutless, a disgrace to the sport and typical of the current generation of useless lazy yanks.
I thought it was completely unfair to Thompson who had worked extrememely hard to get to where he was.
Meanwhile Pavlik gives a display as wholly uninspired, he literally did nothing the whole fight and people label him as brave for fighting until the end.
I'm not criticising Kelly I really like the guy, I just hate the double standards.
Which is why I asked the question, if Kelly was a heavyweight and had given that exact same performance against Wlad would people have labelled it an insipid, gutless, heartless display?
-
Re: If Pavlik was a heavyweight, would the critics have called him gutless this weeke
Well Tony Thompson did really take a bit of a dive at the end of day so Steve Bunce is right how he went down in the 11th was daft and he could have got up but didn't.
-
Re: If Pavlik was a heavyweight, would the critics have called him gutless this weeke
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tysonbruno
Well Tony Thompson did really take a bit of a dive at the end of day so Steve Bunce is right how he went down in the 11th was daft and he could have got up but didn't.
Your right he put more effort into rolling around the ring than he did in the fight.
-
Re: If Pavlik was a heavyweight, would the critics have called him gutless this weeke
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by
p4pking
I think it's a little harder to rag on Pavlik after he stood up to that ass whipping than it is Wlad Klitschko for playing patty cake with Ibragimov. Not to mention it was a lot more entertaining to watch than any meaningful HW fight in years, imo. If there were any HWs out there who could bring what Hopkins did last night all the others would be lucky just to hear the final bell as well if you ask me. Basically, no.... People call HW's gutless because most aren't getting in condition to fight hard or showing any urgency in the ring when it's right there for the taking. Little different when you've got a defensive wizard clobbering you all over the place.
I'm thinking more about Tony Thompson really. This was a guy who didn't turn pro until he was 30 and fought his way to a title shot the hard way, with no publicity, by being the underdog and beating fighters he wasn't supposed to beat including travelling to Germany to do so.
He simply didn't have the tools to beat Wlad but fought until the 11th round. Meanwhile Steve (fat bastard who knows nothing) Bunce labelled him gutless, a disgrace to the sport and typical of the current generation of useless lazy yanks.
I thought it was completely unfair to Thompson who had worked extrememely hard to get to where he was.
Meanwhile Pavlik gives a display as wholly uninspired, he literally did nothing the whole fight and people label him as brave for fighting until the end.
I'm not criticising Kelly I really like the guy, I just hate the double standards.
Which is why I asked the question,
if Kelly was a heavyweight and had given that exact same performance against Wlad would people have labelled it an insipid, gutless, heartless display?
Good point about Thompson, but that last bit is really what I was getting at here. He wouldn't have given the same performance against Wlad, no fighter of the same calibre would, because Klitschko isn't capable of doing a third what Hopkins did against Kelly. And if anyone does look that pathetic against Klitschko, unless he becomes Muhammad Ali over night, it most likely would take a pretty gutless effort. That was somewhat what I was saying as far as Ibragimov. He had nothing to offer up against Wlad, but the difference is he wasn't getting clobbered and simply didn't choose to take risks. Pavlik was getting hit with the kitchen sink even when he would try and work behind his guard, jab his way in, etc. If he were to have shown more "guts" in an effort to open up more, Hopkins would just have hit him harder and more often. You can't really fault a guy for hanging tough 12 rounds in a high paced fight, especially considering how good Hopkins output was, it must have really crushed him mentally.
-
Re: If Pavlik was a heavyweight, would the critics have called him gutless this weeke
good post p4pking..
this is the big difference in comparing this fight to HW's.. Wlad is a dominating force in that division, and has a pretty constant size advantage/strength advantage over a lot of his opponents.. So if you're fighting him, and feel his power, you may think twice about taking a risk of trying to get inside(Ibragimov), but to not really attempt anything in fear of getting KO'd, is cowardly..
Pavlik didn't really have to worry too much about Hopkins power, and he was clearly willing to take chances to get hit to land a shot or two of his own.. he was just wayyyyy outclassed, and wasn't able to find Hopkins.. I don't really see the comparison, especially with using Pavlik in the example.. I mean, he's the guy who backed Miranda up, and took his shots all night long.. When people fight Wlad i just see some cowardly fights, which makes a boring fight and bad reviews.. I'm not saying that they don't have a reason to be afraid of Wlad, but they're in the ring to fight, not to be afraid to get hit..
-
Re: If Pavlik was a heavyweight, would the critics have called him gutless this weeke
The main difference is frauds like Tony Thompson were fighting in their natural weight class and put on a poor showing. Pavlik was 10 pounds above his familiar weight class and it was clear it had a big effect on him for the worse.
-
Re: If Pavlik was a heavyweight, would the critics have called him gutless this weeke
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brucelees_vassal
Kelly Pavlik was poisoned!
End of story!
Pavlik got beat up by a man who came into the ring with a walker but it was Kelly who left walking out of that ring with the walker ;D
I had the same look on my face that Kelly had at the end of the fight. :o SHOCKED!
I don't watch the fat boys so I can't talk about the klits or Peter or barney or bigfoot, or any of those freaks.
Thank's to kelly, I got owned by brucelee ;D
:rolleyes:
I definitely did not poison Kelly. No, no, no........
You shouldn't be accusing me of that Danny.
;D;D;D;D;D;D;D;D;D LMAO
-
Re: If Pavlik was a heavyweight, would the critics have called him gutless this weeke
I think Bunce made himself look a bit silly when he said that nobody (Peter) should just give up between rounds. It realy depends what punishment he feels himself taking. Better that than some sort of calamity.
I wonder if he says the same thing about Frazier in the thrilla in Manilla.
-
Re: If Pavlik was a heavyweight, would the critics have called him gutless this weeke
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bilbo
This isn't really a go at Pavlik, more to do with the current hate for the heavyweight division.
Yesterday Pavlik lost arguably every single round against Bernard. He didn't even put up a fight, it was just total domination and Kelly seemed to have accepted his fate by about the third round.
But still people are supporting (as they should) and just saying he belongs at middleweight, he was too inexperienced, Hopkins was superb etc.
I don't disagree with any of this.
But contrast this with the heavyweight division. Tony Thompson for example who looked excellent on the way to his title shot with Wlad was crucified after losing that fight, especially over here by Steve Bunce for having no heart whatsoever, no pride, no fight etc.
Sam Peter was crucified again by Bunce for quitting and giving up and not being prepared to face Vitali.
Sultan Ibragimov was roundly condemned for his failure to make a dent on Wlad when they fought some months ago.
It seems to me however, that with the exception of Peter quitting (which to me was actually pretty sensible) none of these guys performed any worse than Kelly did this weekend.
So why are they all a disgrace to boxing for not going out on their shields yet Pavlik is brave for finishing the fight?
I'm not sure whether in the US the criticism of heavyweights is so strong but over here Steve Bunce wrote off Ibragimov, Peter and Thompson all as disgraces to boxing for their failed title efforts.
Just seems like a cheap double standard to me.
You are wrong, he did put up a fight, the only way he know how ot, just keep walking forward. I didn't really want ot say anything before because it would like like i'm taking something away from hopkins when i don;t want to, he done superb.
The thign is, Pavlik showed the difference between a good fighter and a great fighter. The one big thing, a great fighter can switch it up when they have to, they can adapt when shit aint going their way. Pavlik couldn't change, he still tried to fight. He still put up a fight, if he didn't it would not of gone 12 rounds, he just wasn't able to put up a good one.
What killed him was his jab. Everything he has done in a boxing ring has been all because of his jab, its what keeps his fighters away, its what breaks them down, it sets every single fuckign thing he does up. Right form the start when he tried to throw it hopkins being the cleaver old fox he is and knew all this long before we did took it away from him. The jab cam out, lacking world class speed hopkins smashed him with the overhand right, after a couple more trys pavlik quit using it and couldn't doa damn thing more. It still wasn't and easy fight tho, he is a still a tough cunt and never quit, it took all of hopkins exp and skill to do what he did. but with the jab gone pavlik was unarmed, fucked.
