Final Prediction: Jermain Taylor vs. Kelly Pavlik

Taylor will win. unfortunately.

 

I just read where Bob Arum said that Pavlik is the best puncher he's ever seen in the MW division, including Tommy Hearns..

:: ::

Everyone is delusional about this guy I see.

 

uh, put your history book down and consider that Arum's statement is not out of line at all. admittedly, Pavlik is less proven than we'd like him to be for all the hype he's getting. But the guy can fucking hit.

Plus, Hearns, at 160, wasn't the monster he was at 147 or even 154.

some guys i might think hit harder than Pavlik though, are :

McClellan
Benn
J. Jackson

But even with these guys it's debatable.

 

A bit too early to be making that call.

 

yes, and also it was stupid to say "even better than Hearns", as Hearns is not the "previous" all time hardest puncher.

 

Taylor by decision. Taylor has been with world champions and has stood his ground. Pavlik IMO is still untested.

 

I agree with this point 100%. However, one would think that after being in the ring with so multiple world champions that he would be getting better. Not to mention being trained by Stewart. To me Taylor has not improved and will suffer his first "L" via a wide decision. I don't think that he has the ability to change his fight plan. Kelly Pavlik UD over Taylor. I'll Holla 5000

 

he picked taylor.

 

Scary

Jack Lowe used the word on HBO as I described Kelly with as "SCARY" in person.
I will say that I met Jack, Kelly, and the other gentleman and they are terrific boxing gentlemen and it was a pleasure all the way around as we traded boxing stories between former and current fighters.
Kelly has a great team behind him, very professional and goal-oriented.
Pavlik TKO 11.
Karl

 

nevermind.

 

Taylor by split decision

 

your the one always saying how potential doesn't matter and it's all about carreer defining fights. Or do you just say it when it' convenient? ::

Even those close controversial fights Taylor had with Hopkins and Winky are better than anything Pavlik has on his record.

Pavlik's biggest win is against Miranda - the middleweight version of Mayorga.:laughing:

I wouldn't be surprised if Pavlik beat Taylor because he has the tools to beat him. But how can you claim he is already better?:dunno:

The only advantage Pavlik has on Taylor is the power. But he is not faster nor is he a better boxer.

 

When talking about a fighters place in history you talk about opposition, that is the main thing that fighters are judged on. When picking fights that is NOT the only thing to look at. There is a lot more stuff to look at to pick a fight than just who has fought better competition. Pavlik's biggest win that you are laughing at is a fight where most people picked against him BECAUSE MIRANDA FOUGHT BETTER FIGHTERS. :: Pavlik hits harder,is more agressive,keeps a better workrate and has better stamina than Taylor. Not to mention he throws punches more correctly as well.

BTW-Taylor has had his big fights and proven he can't win decisively, let see if Pavlik does something Taylor never could.

 

Are you......



INSANE!!!??

 

seriously. opposition is proof. but we're not fuckin idiots. we exercise judgement. judgement is: pavlik's balls are bigger. simple as that.

 

I'm not even sure Pavlik hits as hard as Tito did at 160 let alone beginning to compare him with Hearns, Benn, Jackson and Mclellan.

There'll be alot of people feeling silly come Sunday morning....

 

who besides arum (his promoter) said he hits harder than those guys?

 

YOU just implied that it was even a discussion.....

 

Exactly!! :doh: :dunno:

I don't understand that rationale...

I pick X because he's fought the better opposition.

If that were the only criteria to predict a fight - or indeed, the only criteria that dictated the RESULT of a fight - well, we'd never have new boxers breaking into the elite levels of the sport!

We are not judging here who is better HISTORICALLY or who has the better resume.

Level of opposition can be a factor - sometimes a big one - but it's not the only thing by a longshot....style, physical attributes, talent, skills, strengths & weaknesses, latest fights...those all play a huge role.

Why CAN'T someone say that the more unproven boxer is actually the better FIGHTER?

Pacquiao was more "unproven" than Barrera was...Benitez was way more "unproven" than Cervantes was....Taylor more unproven than Hopkins...Calzaghe more unproven than Eubank....

And so on.

Peace.

 

Very true...I just hope you remain consistent with this and help me keep these Mythical Matchups "heroes" (you guys know who you are) at bay...because they tend to base the outcomes of MMs purely on that "logic"...

 

I think my track record is pretty objective there. At least I hope so.

 

let not hop down and hide behind that fence of yours:nono:

 

::

Ok...my record IS objective there, damnit!

 

:::laughing:::::

dude's got a picket in his azz

 

Oh and Xplosive..one of the "heroes" I was referring to...GET YOUR ASS back to MMs immediately and check out the latest in the Tito-Duran thread!!!:warning:

 

Agreed on your post. The funny thing to me is while Pavlik hasn't fought great fighters he has fought some tough guys. Guys like Zuniga,Zertuche,Mckart and Miranda had never been stopped until they fought Pavlik. It's not like he has fought all bums who fell the first time they got hit.

 

Damn....you smashed tonight?

 

you have your moments.

by comparison the Horse is certainly not objective within 3 degrees of separation to any arrogant black fighter, so since Roy beat bernard who lost to Taylor, I'd say he's DQ'd from this entire topic

 

::

 

Yes.