Rocky Graziano VS Kelly Pavlik...

Not great fighters, but this could be an interesting and perhaps great bout?

 

Pavlik kills him.

 

Pavlik kills that primitive bum.

 

Ramonza would probably take Gene Tunney to beat Lennox Lewis.

 

And youd take Tyson to babysit your kids and take your grandmother grocery shopping.

Aint hyperbole grand?

 

Pavlik KO 3

 

Yes, Id tend to agree. If Graziano could climb inside, Id rate him a chance --- he could hit and he was fearlessly, even stupidly, aggressive (which can sometimes work for you, especially with a guy as seemingly mentally fragile as Pavlik), but I dont think he would.

 

I know this next point will be lost on you and your co-horts, but I'll say it anyway...youre all thinly-veiled hypocrites for your allegations of bias toward old-timers when youre just as partial of MODERN boxers (despite the fact Boxing has REGRESSED, not improved, in the past fifty years), but because its your opinion, its not bias toward modern boxers, its just, "fact."

Please.

 

Graziano could hit like a bastard with the right hand but that was it. His chin was garbage.

Furthermore, he'd be about 20 pounds lighter in the ring

 

Even in losing and getting schooled at times, Pavlik still tried. His mental fragility is outside the ring.

Graziano is not going to provide anything close to what Martinez (let alone Hopkins) did.

In a fight that can be nothing more than an a war from the opening bell the bigger, stronger and harder hitter is going to win.

That's Pavlik.

 

I would have liked to hear the rationale behind the 'boxing has regressed in the last 50 years' comment.

 

it has in the last 15

 

:scratcher:

 

Agreed but 50?

 

Graziano gets destroyed

And I'd rather have the current version of Tyson do those things than any version of De La Hoya

 

Oscar is not a kiddy fiddler.

Pavlik stops Graziano. One way or the other.

 

If McGirt was around right now cdogg would be talking up boxing as being the best it's ever been.

 

:giggle:

 

definitely not, especially from the standpoint of a free-swinger like Graziano

And his time is really 60 plus years ago

But I'd say Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Willie Pep, Harold Johnson, etc. had a lot more technical know-how than the best guy under 30 years old today

I also think fighters at the elite level were, in general, far more willing to go for broke if they had to 50 years ago then they are now

Overall 1948, for an example of Graziano's era, is a hell of a lot better than 2012 is

The problem with Ramonza's statement is that it makes it seem as though there was a steady decline from, say, 1950 onward... That is, of course, insane... I don't know if there was ever a better decade than the 1970s, for example... The 1980s was fantastic as well...

To me, I don't notice a decline until the later 90s