Pavlik waives Martinez rematch, moving up to 168.

yes. but how did you make sense(or did you) of your assessment prior to the second Bute fight? did you also then think that Bute was a bum?

seriously. think back to the time between the first and second Bute fight. what did you think about each fighter, Andrade and Bute.

my guess is rather than going back on your judgement that Andrade was a bum, you came to believe that Bute is lousy. either way, you probably rushed to judgement, and you probably did so in such a way as to minimize the degree to which you would have to come to terms with having been wrong.

 

I dont have the motivation or time to go through the archives all day, but I definitely remember you saying it.

 

oh. well if you definitely remember it, then it must be true.

 

I think we can just all agree he said it.

 

In fairness, the manner in which Andrade broke down Grant, Mack, and Stiegltz has shown that he can break down most outside, and one or two inside, the top ten at 168...Andrade vs Bika would be fun, as would Andrade vs Miranda

 

REED Came to the Conclusion that Bute was a Guy that Probably HADN'T Been PUSHED for 12 Rounds B 4 & his CONDITIONING Failed him in a Controversial "Win" Over Andrade...

But @ NO Point Did REED Think Andrade was the SUPERIOR Fighter...Sorry, but Getting THOROUGHLY DOMINATED for 11 Rounds DOESN'T Illustrate that...If Anything, Andrade & his SPONGE-like Defense Got LUCKY in the 1st Fight & this was PAINFULLY Illustrated in the RE...

Andrade is a Face-First, DefenseLESS Gatekeeper...The Type of Fighter that U HABITUALLY Seem to Gravitate To, for Whatever Reason....



REED:kidcool:

 

nevertheless, it's no surprise that since Andrade was beaten by Bute and Kessler, dumb posters think he's a bum.

calling a fighter a bum risks nothing after he's lost. if confronted with evidence to the contrary, the dumb poster can simply say, "well he lost to so-and-so, so he's a bum." likewise, should the "bum" go on to beat a good fighter, it's easy then to simply claim that fighter was no good (otherwise, how could he have lost to a "bum.").

now, declaring a fighter as good is more bold because if he goes on to lose, he will suddenly be a bum in the eyes of the dumb poster, and anyone having said otherwise is now proven wrong.

the dumb poster forgets that he's watching a sport and that in all sports, competitors win and lose. in fact, it is the stupidity of the dumb poster that feeds the myth of there being such a thing as an unbeatable fighter.

there are unbeaten fighters. there's no such thing as an unbeatable fighter. and the longer a fighter stays unbeaten, the more we can be sure he has manipulated circumstances to stay that way.

 

whatever. i can see that it's impossible for you to describe your opinion about Andrade without referencing his second fight with Bute. that tells me all i need to know.

 

Ok Double.... I checked the archives. Apologizies to you. I couldnt find anything of you picking him over Dawson. Musta been some tard on the ESB forum who said that. You did say he might push Hopkins into "Taylor mode" however, and you said he could push Calz to the limit.

 

Not only did I not say he would beat Dawson, but I didn't say he would beat Calzaghe either.

And I don't think it's a stretch to say he'd push Calz to the limit either. Byron Mitchell pushed Calz to the limit, as did David Starie, Woodhall, Bika and a bunch of other less that great fighters.

Calz has wins over a 40 year old Hopkins, a 37 year old RJJ, and Kessler, who everyone's now sure was never any good, and he's a legend.

Okay.

 

None of the guys you mentioned took Calzaghe to the limit, you should have mentioned Robin Reid. Woodhall was competitve but overwhelmed, Mitchell scored a flash knockdown and was stopped seconds afterwards (granted prematurely), Bika made it rough but was no more successful than Salem-it was never in doubt, Starie was a bad night at the office but it was not questionable. Calzaghe's legacy rests on two young pretenders (lacy and kessler) and two old lions (eubank, hopkins), its a very good one but you don't hear many call him a legend :dunno:

 

point is, it's not some outrageous claim to suggest that Andrade could've pushed Calzaghe to the limit. i think if someone thinks it is, then he's over-rating Calzaghe.

 

Speaking of "Dumb Posters", what's YOUR Take on a Poster that would BOLDLY PICK WHOlio Gonzalez to BEAT Roy Jones Jr.???...



REED:mj:

 

I'd say it is just very wrong, Andrade is the kind of fighter even a disinterested calzaghe would sail comfortably by..doesnt make calzaghe an all time great, its just a horrible styles matchup for andrade

 

How Can U NOT Take the RE Into Consideration???...If EVERY Fighter Could CONVENIENTLY Exclude a DECISIVE KO Loss from their Record, we've had to RE-Assess the Vast MAJORITY of those that have EVER Fought...

You're RELUCTANT to Take the RE Into Consideration Because it SHITS on your UNFOUNDED Lust for Andrade...



REED:mj:

 

Someone who is picking with their heart and not their head.

What would you say about a poster who thinks he's being clever by bringing up a prediction that another poster made 8 years ago?

 

no. you've lost sight of the point. the question was, what was your assessment of Andrade following the first Bute fight. you couldn't answer the question without referencing the rematch. that tells me all i need to know.

 

For the REEDing Impaired...

REED Came to the Conclusion that Bute was a Guy that Probably HADN'T Been PUSHED for 12 Rounds B 4 & his CONDITIONING Failed him in a Controversial "Win" Over Andrade...

But @ NO Point Did REED Think Andrade was the SUPERIOR Fighter...Sorry, but Getting THOROUGHLY DOMINATED for 11 Rounds DOESN'T Illustrate that...If Anything, Andrade & his SPONGE-like Defense Got LUCKY in the 1st Fight

If THAT Doesn't Answer your Ridiculous Question, TooFUCKINGbad...


REED:mj:

 

Who's the 1 Throwing the "Dumb Poster" Label Out There???...Choose YOUR Words More Carefully...ESPECIALLY when U've Got Some "Dumb Ass POSTINGS" w/YOUR Username Attached...



REED:mj:

 

he lost. not in a fashion that would lead me to believe he loses 9 times out of 10

 

Pavlik was never great. He was just a good fighter who did as much as he could with the little talent he had. Hopkins embarassed him, Martinez butchered him, he's got nothing left.

At 168, its alot worse IMO. Ward and Dirrell would box circles around him, Bute would brutalize him, Kessler would stop him late.

I give him a shot against Abraham because AA just stands there and throws one punch at a time.

He would also have a chance of beating Froch because of Froch's lack of defense, but in this case the foreign fighter might actually be TOUGHER in this case so thats no guarantee.

He would probably stop Green but its no guarantee. Allan has the punch to put him out as well.

KP's career is only downhill from here on. He was a major letdown.

 

I think that this is a very good move for the ghost. Hell he only lost once at this weight class and it was his very first fight there against an all-time great. Not to mention he wasn't 100% according to Double L. Question why is it that in boxing a fighter is counted out after 1-2 or even 3 L's but in MMA guys lose all the time but they are never counted out? And for those that think that Kelly would lose in the super 6 I disagree. I think had he joined he would have revitalized his career. I'll Holla 5000

 

Boxing and MMA are two different sports. For one thing you don't get to handpick your opponents like many boxers do. Secondly it's much easier to lose in MMA. In MMA you are given no chance to recover. For example in the Taylor fight, Jermain would have been allowed to jump right on top of Pavlik (literally) and ended it.

Upsets happen much more often for that reason and is also why losses aren't considered as bad.

Secondly how Pavlik does @ 168 is an unknown. I think on a good night be certainly could beat 1 or 2 of the guys in the tournament, but win the whole thing?

No.

 

Stupid move he should stay at 160 for one last fight(vs. Martinez) then move up win or lose..

 

If he really is having that much trouble making weight it would be a stupid move to stay @ 160.

It could be just an excuse, and not the first time we've seen guys move up and blamed making weight on a recent loss.

I'm not saying Martinez only won because Pavlik was dehyrdated. However if it has affected his perfomance at all it wouldn't make sense for him to leave it all in the gym. Then go through another beating?

 

Then he should offer Martinez a fight at 168. I'm sure he'd oblige.

 

I believe Martinez promoter shot that notion down. Pavlik wanted a catchweight I believe. Why fight at 168 if he's the Middleweight champ?

 

I'm hearing different things about Pavlik moving up in weight. Some reports say 168, others say 175. I don't like the 175 idea, but 168 is fine. He should be matched up with an Andrade type, someone who doesn't use the ring that much and is there to be hit. Faster fighters like Dirrell, Ward, and Dawson would be the worst type of matchups for Pavlik.

Come on L. What else would a Welsh ref do? Help Andrade?

http://fightbeat.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28874&page=4

 

You can turn that around though. For example, in boxing, you get knocked down three times, and generally the fight gets stopped. Not so in MMA.

Also, boxing is 36 minutes of fighting. MMA is 15-25 minutes.

 

Rut-Roh!!!....B-B-B-BUSTED!!!....



REEDopcorn: