What is with this site and Kelly Pavlik

[kingfrnk]

From reading all the posts about Pavlik...

...he's 26, he's showing a lot of potential and fighting anyone they throw in front of him. It's not hard to get excited on what he can possibly do with the rest of his career.

There was a post about him fighting the best middleweights of all-time on here. C'mon, he's way too young to be talking about that. His career is just beginning and we should all just sit back and enjoy the ride...

i told taeths gay ass that. all he says i who has kelly fought. the stupid retard must want kelly to fight once a month or somethin. Taeth this aint the fukin old days.

STFU, you've been on here two months, and you know nothing about boxing. What I am saying is that you can't overrate a fighter, yet. I am saying who has Kelly fought YET. If he does go on to beat Hopkins, Calzaghe, etc. then I will give him the credit, but as of YET he hasn't done it. As for me being stupid, I am not the one who can't put a coherent sentence together.

Coherent means understandable just incase you don't know what it means dumbass

I don't know, I still don't see the same promise some people do. He could become really good, and he already is, but his potential has a lower pinnacle then some of the other guys out there.

oh and u know everything,oh and ur next post will probably say "i know more than you" and so the fuk wat. and u wanna talk about me putting together a COHERENT sentence let me look around for a bit. oh yea its the fukin internet dumbass. im not gonna get a grade on posts u LOSER.

[Spicoli]

i told taeths gay ass that. all he says i who has kelly fought. the stupid retard must want kelly to fight once a month or somethin. Taeth this aint the fukin old days.

STFU, you've been on here two months, and you know nothing about boxing. What I am saying is that you can't overrate a fighter, yet. I am saying who has Kelly fought YET. If he does go on to beat Hopkins, Calzaghe, etc. then I will give him the credit, but as of YET he hasn't done it. As for me being stupid, I am not the one who can't put a coherent sentence together.

Coherent means understandable just incase you don't know what it means dumbass

I don't know, I still don't see the same promise some people do. He could become really good, and he already is, but his potential has a lower pinnacle then some of the other guys out there.

oh and u know everything,oh and ur next post will probably say "i know more than you" and so the fuk wat. and u wanna talk about me putting together a COHERENT sentence let me look around for a bit. oh yea its the fukin internet dumbass. im not gonna get a grade on posts u LOSER.

Actually Frank fellow members tend to judge & form opinions on some by their post's.I'm not sure but mainly on the front board here....the substance,debate,etc pro & con. ??

[Rantcatrat]

How the fuck can you say Glen Johnson isn't indestructible? He has taken punches from the heaviest punchers in the Light heavyweight division, and he has never gone down once. The only time he got stoped was in the middleweight fight against Hopkins, and I think you should watch that fight because maybe you don't remember the drumbing he took from Bernard who hit him with way more punches than PAvlik would.

Your an idiot for saying Kessler is a two trick pony, He has a great jab, he has a great cross, he biggest weapon is his left hook, and his right uppercut is deadly as well. Not to mention he is a terrific combination puncher, counter puncher, and general ring tactician, he is easily one of the top 10 p4p fighters, and he would destroy Pavlik.

Also did Calzaghe look wobbly at all after the shot he took from Hopkins? Did he get dropped by any of the huge right hands Kessler dropped on him? Pavlik doesn't one punch top end opponents, he isn't Thomas Hearns, and Calzaghe wouldn't let Pavlik physically bully him around. He didn't let a very strong Lacy, or a very strong Kessler bully him around either. Pavlik can't just walk through punches all night, he is more intelligent than that, and Calzaghe won't let Pavlik get off with his punches, it was Taylor's inactivity that allowed Pavlik to win that fight.

This answers two people. Chad Dawson could make 160 if he needed, he is very skiny, and wasn't always light heavyweight, also Pavlik is not a natural middleweight, why do you think he is a foot taller then half his opponents? Guys like him are the Paul Williams' of the middleweight division. Pavlik could easily be natural lightheavy weight, and we will see him up there before long. Whereas a guy like Hopkins fought at middleweight until he was 40. Pavlik will be the bigger man against Hopkins when they fight, and he is almost as big as Dawson naturally. I mean Taylor walks around bigger then most lightheavyweights and he looked smaller then Pavlik.

Also I never said Dawson was that great either, I don't think he would have beaten Glen Johnson five years ago, hell I think Glen had a draw with him, if Johnson didn't win that fight. I also think Tarver might have beaten Dawson 5 years ago. I think that Roy JOnes in his prime would have KO'ed current Dawson in about 3 rounds. I think Dawson has the potential to be very great.

What I ahve been saying is that Pavlik is a fine technical fighter in the style he fights, He does get hit, but so do most fighters coming forward, but he doesn't quite have the Ike Quartey, Winky WRight air tight defense. He throws all the punches well, he throws good combinations. But his flaws are his physical body, Sure he is very tall and strong, but he has ordinary speed, his chin is like Cotto's, its ok, but it isn't where it needs to be if he is going to get hit a lot in a fight by even a decent puncher. I also get the sense that if he got into a brutal fight his body wouldn't be able to take it just like Cotto and Thomas Hearns against Hagler, I see him fighting certain guys like Glen Johnson and them breaking him down. I am just saying don't overhype him because he beat Jermain Taylor, Bernard Hopkins deserved a win against Taylor, Winky WRight deserved a decision against Taylor, even arguably Cory Spinks deserved a decision against Taylor if you are going by effective punching and not who has more power, the middleweight? Or the featherfisted welterweight?

Glen Johnson is a tough fight for anybody, and especially for taller, lankier fighters. With his relatively thin frame, Pavilk would have trouble with Glen Johnson.

Your argument that Pavlik beat Taylor because Taylor's inactivity can be used with equal force as to how Calzaghe beat Hopkins. Hopkins was winning the first half of the fight, it was only toward the end that Calzaghe began pulling ahead. Moreover, his win was controversial. Personally, I think Bhop was tailor-made for Calzaghe because Calzaghe wins by throwing hundreds of punches and Bhop doesn't have the energy to combat highly energetic fighters anymore.

As you can tell, I see some of your points, but you should concede a little too. You warn, "don't overhype him because he beat Jermain Taylor, Bernard Hopkins deserved a win against Taylor, Winky Wright deserved a decision against Taylor." Bhop and Wright are hall-of-famers. If they both lost to Taylor, albeit controversially, and Pavlik beat Taylor, convincingly, doesn't that speak well for Pavlik?

Pavlik definitely has flaws. He only has average, or slightly above average, handspeed. He doesn't have a huge arsenal of punches like other boxers; his defense is leaky. But, what he does, he does very well. Pavlik's continued success depends in part, I think, on good matchups, which is why I assert that Pavlik should dominate at middleweight for as long as possible and then cautiously move up to super middleweight. For example, I think Abraham is a good matchup but I don't think the same for Calzaghe or Chad Dawson. I'm not saying Pavlik wouldn't beat Calzaghe or Hopkins, but Calzaghe throws a lot of punches and may win a decision based on that alone. Dawson for much the same reasons and additionally because he is the bigger man. I think Kessler is a question mark.

Taeth: does a win over Hopkins legitimize Pavlik for you? How do you think he'll fare against other elite middleweights?

[SweetPea]

I like Pavlik, but if I have to watch one more HBO/ESPN segment about how he's just an ordinary guy fighting for the people of Youngstown, I may throw my TV out the window.

Enough already, we get it.

[CFH]

How the fuck can you say Glen Johnson isn't indestructible? He has taken punches from the heaviest punchers in the Light heavyweight division, and he has never gone down once. The only time he got stoped was in the middleweight fight against Hopkins, and I think you should watch that fight because maybe you don't remember the drumbing he took from Bernard who hit him with way more punches than PAvlik would.

Your an idiot for saying Kessler is a two trick pony, He has a great jab, he has a great cross, he biggest weapon is his left hook, and his right uppercut is deadly as well. Not to mention he is a terrific combination puncher, counter puncher, and general ring tactician, he is easily one of the top 10 p4p fighters, and he would destroy Pavlik.

Also did Calzaghe look wobbly at all after the shot he took from Hopkins? Did he get dropped by any of the huge right hands Kessler dropped on him? Pavlik doesn't one punch top end opponents, he isn't Thomas Hearns, and Calzaghe wouldn't let Pavlik physically bully him around. He didn't let a very strong Lacy, or a very strong Kessler bully him around either. Pavlik can't just walk through punches all night, he is more intelligent than that, and Calzaghe won't let Pavlik get off with his punches, it was Taylor's inactivity that allowed Pavlik to win that fight.

This answers two people. Chad Dawson could make 160 if he needed, he is very skiny, and wasn't always light heavyweight, also Pavlik is not a natural middleweight, why do you think he is a foot taller then half his opponents? Guys like him are the Paul Williams' of the middleweight division. Pavlik could easily be natural lightheavy weight, and we will see him up there before long. Whereas a guy like Hopkins fought at middleweight until he was 40. Pavlik will be the bigger man against Hopkins when they fight, and he is almost as big as Dawson naturally. I mean Taylor walks around bigger then most lightheavyweights and he looked smaller then Pavlik.

Also I never said Dawson was that great either, I don't think he would have beaten Glen Johnson five years ago, hell I think Glen had a draw with him, if Johnson didn't win that fight. I also think Tarver might have beaten Dawson 5 years ago. I think that Roy JOnes in his prime would have KO'ed current Dawson in about 3 rounds. I think Dawson has the potential to be very great.

What I ahve been saying is that Pavlik is a fine technical fighter in the style he fights, He does get hit, but so do most fighters coming forward, but he doesn't quite have the Ike Quartey, Winky WRight air tight defense. He throws all the punches well, he throws good combinations. But his flaws are his physical body, Sure he is very tall and strong, but he has ordinary speed, his chin is like Cotto's, its ok, but it isn't where it needs to be if he is going to get hit a lot in a fight by even a decent puncher. I also get the sense that if he got into a brutal fight his body wouldn't be able to take it just like Cotto and Thomas Hearns against Hagler, I see him fighting certain guys like Glen Johnson and them breaking him down. I am just saying don't overhype him because he beat Jermain Taylor, Bernard Hopkins deserved a win against Taylor, Winky WRight deserved a decision against Taylor, even arguably Cory Spinks deserved a decision against Taylor if you are going by effective punching and not who has more power, the middleweight? Or the featherfisted welterweight?

Glen Johnson is a tough fight for anybody, and especially for taller, lankier fighters. With his relatively thin frame, Pavilk would have trouble with Glen Johnson.

Your argument that Pavlik beat Taylor because Taylor's inactivity can be used with equal force as to how Calzaghe beat Hopkins. Hopkins was winning the first half of the fight, it was only toward the end that Calzaghe began pulling ahead. Moreover, his win was controversial. Personally, I think Bhop was tailor-made for Calzaghe because Calzaghe wins by throwing hundreds of punches and Bhop doesn't have the energy to combat highly energetic fighters anymore.

As you can tell, I see some of your points, but you should concede a little too. You warn, "don't overhype him because he beat Jermain Taylor, Bernard Hopkins deserved a win against Taylor, Winky Wright deserved a decision against Taylor." Bhop and Wright are hall-of-famers. If they both lost to Taylor, albeit controversially, and Pavlik beat Taylor, convincingly, doesn't that speak well for Pavlik?

Pavlik definitely has flaws. He only has average, or slightly above average, handspeed. He doesn't have a huge arsenal of punches like other boxers; his defense is leaky. But, what he does, he does very well. Pavlik's continued success depends in part, I think, on good matchups, which is why I assert that Pavlik should dominate at middleweight for as long as possible and then cautiously move up to super middleweight. For example, I think Abraham is a good matchup but I don't think the same for Calzaghe or Chad Dawson. I'm not saying Pavlik wouldn't beat Calzaghe or Hopkins, but Calzaghe throws a lot of punches and may win a decision based on that alone. Dawson for much the same reasons and additionally because he is the bigger man. I think Kessler is a question mark.

Taeth: does a win over Hopkins legitimize Pavlik for you? How do you think he'll fare against other elite middleweights?

Sorry for being anal retentive, but Winky didn't lose to Taylor, it was a draw.

[intoccabile]

I thought it was a convincing winky win -.-;
Winky did the same thing Kelly did.. just doesnt have pavliks power
and didn't get rocked like kelly.

[PRIDE OF BOSTON]

I thought it was a convincing winky win -.-;
Winky did the same thing Kelly did.. just doesnt have pavliks power
and didn't get rocked like kelly.

I also thought Winky won but I'm also a bit bias and only saw the fight that night and was never really to interested to see it again.

[CFH]

I thought it was a convincing winky win -.-;
Winky did the same thing Kelly did.. just doesnt have pavliks power
and didn't get rocked like kelly.

I felt Winky definitely won, but I'm biased. He has only himself to blame though, I still can't believe he took the last round off, especially with his history of controversial decisions (even though I feel he won that round, he should've done more to cement the win).

[intoccabile]

I thought it was a convincing winky win -.-;
Winky did the same thing Kelly did.. just doesnt have pavliks power
and didn't get rocked like kelly.

I felt Winky definitely won, but I'm biased. He has only himself to blame though, I still can't believe he took the last round off, especially with his history of controversial decisions (even though I feel he won that round, he should've done more to cement the win).

Agree'd. Even though he took the last round off i still have him winning the round. But I guess it is what it is and he definitely has no one but himself to blame.

[CFH]

I thought it was a convincing winky win -.-;
Winky did the same thing Kelly did.. just doesnt have pavliks power
and didn't get rocked like kelly.

I felt Winky definitely won, but I'm biased. He has only himself to blame though, I still can't believe he took the last round off, especially with his history of controversial decisions (even though I feel he won that round, he should've done more to cement the win).

Agree'd. Even though he took the last round off i still have him winning the round. But I guess it is what it is and he definitely has no one but himself to blame.

All he had to do was go on the offensive against a badly gassed Taylor, and he blew it. He was pressuring Taylor for the previous 11 rounds and he just decided it was in the bag, so he stopped. And with his history of dropping close decisions... I still shake my head about that fight. Look at how badly his career has gone since then, as MW champ his prospects would've been so much better. I also don't know why he didn't take the rematch with Taylor, but now I'm just ranting...

[Mar]

Sure he is a good fighter, with a solid punch, and an excellent workrate, but why is he the only guy who seems to be able to get any amount of hype, and still receive no criticism by fight fans, I don't get it. He isn't fast, he doesn't have a great chin, he's relatively easy to hit. He does have decent technique, but is it just the blue collar nature of boxing that makes him so appealing to so many of you? Is it because he is the "Great white hope"? I like him now, but I still don't find him particularly exciting because everything he does is ordinary. He has no flash, he doesn't have the timing Hagler did or the personality. I don't know how he earned all this love.

I also think there are guys around his weight category (Chad Dawson, Glen Johnson, Mikkel Kessler, Joe Calzaghe) who will school him, and even Bernard stands a good chance of beating Pavlik on Saturday night.

....shit don't worry about it, just all the more sweeter if your boy can pull it off and prove us all wrong. For me it's simply that the guy is just a fighter and that's it...no fancy ringwalk, no big flashy jewels, bunch of shit talk, or controvercy, he shows up and most of all takes care of buisness in the only place that matters.....the ring. And all his apparent faults are what i like about him most, like mentioned he's not fast, not quick on his feet, not flashy, looks far from very strong etc.......bottom line for me is he's an undefeated champ with no frills...... what's not to like...

[Rantcatrat]

my bad fellas.

[Taeth]

People aren't understanding, I like that people like Kelly, he's an extremely nice, humble guy, I am just saying that doesn't aquate to how great of a boxer he is. People liked Leonard, but that doesn't make him p4p better then Duran. People liked Lamotta, but not Robinson, that doesn't mean that Robinson wasn't the better man in the ring. That was the point I was making because people were stating that Pavlik has a legitimate chance against the 80's middleweights, yet some people on here don't even give guys like Roy Jones Jr, Mayweather, Winky Wright, Bernard Hopkins, James Toney a chance against the 80's fighters. I think its a double standard that isn't based purely on the boxing.

[TitoFan]

Sure he is a good fighter, with a solid punch, and an excellent workrate, but why is he the only guy who seems to be able to get any amount of hype, and still receive no criticism by fight fans, I don't get it. He isn't fast, he doesn't have a great chin, he's relatively easy to hit. He does have decent technique, but is it just the blue collar nature of boxing that makes him so appealing to so many of you? Is it because he is the "Great white hope"? I like him now, but I still don't find him particularly exciting because everything he does is ordinary. He has no flash, he doesn't have the timing Hagler did or the personality. I don't know how he earned all this love.

I also think there are guys around his weight category (Chad Dawson, Glen Johnson, Mikkel Kessler, Joe Calzaghe) who will school him, and even Bernard stands a good chance of beating Pavlik on Saturday night.

Two words come to mind: "results", "humility".

The guy's not a talker. He just beats whoever they put in front of him. Miranda was going to take his head off. He got KO'ed. Taylor was going to expose him. He got KO'ed. And he's humble, respectful, and grounded. With that he pretty much wins me over.

[Hume]

kelly beat my man taylor, but he did it in such a way that it felt like taylor went out on his shield. pavlik is easy going and classy, which when combined with his technique and one punch show stopper, makes for a very likable and exciting fighter.

stop hating and learn to appreciate this wonderful talent.