If it's early-to-mid 80's Hagler I'll say stoppage. Hagler was heavier handed than Martinez, and 130 yr old Hopkins. Like the Hagler that fucked up Tony Sibson. Yeah, I'd take that version to stop Pavlik in 10 or 11.
Hagler would ruin Pavlik. Pavlik would come straight in and get countered to death by Hagler. Prime Hagler isn't a 400 year old Hopkins...Pavlik is stopped somewhere around rounds 6 or 7.
Dunno man...I don't see why we have to go by today's bullshit weigh-in rules when comparing fighters from different times. If Pavlik actually had to be a middleweight when fighting Hagler, he would be destroyed. If we go by today's rules...the extra size might help Pavlik a bit, but he's still getting beaten up and stopped. The gulf in class is too much for extra weight to matter much. What's funny is that if it's Hagler vs Pavlik, the extra weight gained from today's rules is seen as an advantage as it's a middleweight against a light-heavy. But if it was Michael Spinks vs Pavlik, some of the responses would be something like, "not fair, Pavlik is a blown up middleweight".::
I think Pavlik could take Hagler. Marvin looked good vs Sibson and Antuofermo...short white bums with lead feet, paper skin, rudimentary skills, no real huge power. Marvin was smallish dude himself, 5'9" or so. Kelly needs to stick his jab, and look for heavy single rights through that lefty guard. Interesting matchup, its possible Hagler would be too slick, but Hopkins was a 6'2" MW who could go all the way to 175, plus 166 was never Kellys territory really. 160...close fight.
He does, but he's reaching a bit more and Kelly does have power. Marvin could be hit. Of course, its Marvin all the way unless Kelly land something big. Truthfully, needing a KO is the worst way to go in vs Hagler. Cal-Slappy has the method, Pavlik does not.
