Who’s better p4p. Pavlik or Kessler? And why does Pavlik get a freebee?

enough talk about this spoiling. you realize spoiling is just another way of saying he's better than you and you can't do nothing about it.

This needs a bump!

On Taylor, the point is that I'm not rating him on what will happen in the future, thats what those who say he is great do. He has two good wins over Hopkins, but which he didn't look good in winning, and has performed OK to poorly since then. He is a 'world class' boxer who has never turned in a truly world class performance. As for the more general point about 'rating on what will happen in the future', I don't believe this is something I do. What I do rate on is the evidence of my eyes and my opinion of a fighter based on watching them. This is what leads to me to rate Kessler as better than Pavlik, the fact that I think he is really quite a lot more skilled. I could flip the argument around and say that we can't rate a fighters ability based solely on his record, because they can be misleading and ignores the fighter standing before us in the here and now. I guess it comes down to what P4P means. Does it mean "who has the most impressive record and would be the hypothetical champion if boxers competed in a league like structure, accumulating points for wins", or does it mean "who would beat who were they to fight". I tend to favour the latter, but I realise that not everyone does. That's fine. I pretty much just rate on accomplishments, impressiveness of performances and competition faced. Both Kelly and Mikkel have, in my opinion been extremely impressive in their victories to this point so I would probably split that one. In the other two, I rate Pavlik over Kessler. I don't think "who would beat who" is an appropriate p4p measure.

fair enough did u see the damn size of Hopkins against Calzaghe he looked like a CW rather than a LHW Yes, I've commented on this before. As much as his fans don't like to admit it, Hopkins especially later in his career used size to his advantage a lot. Thats not a diss, its a legitimate tactic if he makes the weight, so its just an observation. Anyway, in the Calzaghe fight it helped him a lot I would say, he was quite clearly much bigger and stronger than Joe and thats what made his clinching effective. Hopkins is quite impressive in a way, he sure knows how to try and tip the scales in his favour, by any available means.

You need to stop rating fighters on what you think is likely to happen in the future I think. I don't think you can say "well, sure the Taylor wins make Pavlik's resume look better than Kessler's but over the next few years Taylor will be exposed as a bum and therefore Kessler should be rated higher", which is effectively what I think you are saying. The bottom line is this, whatever way you spin it, the Taylor wins for Pavlik are far and away better than Mikkel's best win which is most likely Anthony Mundine. In a few years Kessler may well be a top 5 p4p fighter and above Pavlik, it wouldn't surprise me. But, at this stage, to have Kessler over Pavlik in the p4p ratings is, IMO, showing considerable bias and not very credible. On Taylor, the point is that I'm not rating him on what will happen in the future, thats what those who say he is great do. He has two good wins over Hopkins, but which he didn't look good in winning, and has performed OK to poorly since then. He is a 'world class' boxer who has never turned in a truly world class performance. As for the more general point about 'rating on what will happen in the future', I don't believe this is something I do. What I do rate on is the evidence of my eyes and my opinion of a fighter based on watching them. This is what leads to me to rate Kessler as better than Pavlik, the fact that I think he is really quite a lot more skilled. I could flip the argument around and say that we can't rate a fighters ability based solely on his record, because they can be misleading and ignores the fighter standing before us in the here and now. I guess it comes down to what P4P means. Does it mean "who has the most impressive record and would be the hypothetical champion if boxers competed in a league like structure, accumulating points for wins", or does it mean "who would beat who were they to fight". I tend to favour the latter, but I realise that not everyone does.

I now Beyer had a better career, but he was shit against Kessler, he looked like he couldn't wait to lie down. As for the Taylor/Calz/Hop thing, I have always maintained that Hopkins was too old to beat Calzaghe and I don't get to excited about Calz beating him. I was very surprised that Hopkins was able to make the fight look so close. I think a key difference is that when he fought Taylor, though his output was low he was still trying to fight like a MW boxer, whereas against Calzaghe he literally put everything into spoiling. Like I said though, the fight definitely raised some questions about how much calzaghe himself has left. fair enough did u see the damn size of Hopkins against Calzaghe he looked like a CW rather than a LHW

Beyer is probably less of a bum than Andrade that guy is useless at least Beyer held the World Title that is true his wins over Hopkins do flatter Taylor but think about it if Hopkins was to old then and that was in 2005 what does that say about his credentials in 2008 against Calzaghe a fight that was very close ? I now Beyer had a better career, but he was shit against Kessler, he looked like he couldn't wait to lie down. As for the Taylor/Calz/Hop thing, I have always maintained that Hopkins was too old to beat Calzaghe and I don't get to excited about Calz beating him. I was very surprised that Hopkins was able to make the fight look so close. I think a key difference is that when he fought Taylor, though his output was low he was still trying to fight like a MW boxer, whereas against Calzaghe he literally put everything into spoiling. Like I said though, the fight definitely raised some questions about how much calzaghe himself has left.

I mentioned Taylors wins over B-Hop in my other post, but yes i agree does seem harsh to describe the guy who ended Hopkins MW reign as poor. However, my honest feeling about that is that Hopkins simply did not have a MW workrate any more, and that Taylor beat him almost by default. I think this is a pretty reasonable assessment too, its not as though Taylor really did anything teriffic in there is it? Taylor's problem for me is that he has this terrible tendency to gas/ lose concentration and also that he really doesn't have a major weapon in his game that sets him apart and really truly troubles his opponent. He's a guy who does a lot of things well, but nothing incredibly. The best part of his game is his jab, but that alone can't win him too many fights. An analogy I thought of recently goes something like this. Byron Mitchell won his world title by beating an aging Frankie Liles and doubtless was regarded as a pretty good young champ with the boxing world at his feet. A while later he lost his title to Ottke (fairly or not I don't know) and then got KOd in two by Calzaghe. His career was effectively over and now America's former SMW champion is all but forgotten. What is to say that thsi won't be the way it goes for Taylor? In eight years or so he might very well be written off as a bum. As I've said before, what top SMW is he actually going to beat? You need to stop rating fighters on what you think is likely to happen in the future I think. I don't think you can say "well, sure the Taylor wins make Pavlik's resume look better than Kessler's but over the next few years Taylor will be exposed as a bum and therefore Kessler should be rated higher", which is effectively what I think you are saying. The bottom line is this, whatever way you spin it, the Taylor wins for Pavlik are far and away better than Mikkel's best win which is most likely Anthony Mundine. In a few years Kessler may well be a top 5 p4p fighter and above Pavlik, it wouldn't surprise me. But, at this stage, to have Kessler over Pavlik in the p4p ratings is, IMO, showing considerable bias and not very credible.

On paper Pavlik's wins over Jermain Taylor are better than any Kessler win, but not THAT much better. Mundine, Beyer, and Andrade weren't exactly bums for Kessler, well maybe Beyer was a bit of one. Anyhow, Kessler has beaten more world champs than Pavlik and defended his belt more times, and the strength of Pavliks resume really rests exclusively on Taylor, who I don't think is that good at all, I mean, what top class SMW is Taylor going to beat in future? I realise Taylor beat Hopkins twice and that is very impressive, but he hasn't looked very good since then so I have to say I suspect those were wins over a guy who was too old for MW and that they flatter Taylor somewhat. Beyer is probably less of a bum than Andrade that guy is useless at least Beyer held the World Title that is true his wins over Hopkins do flatter Taylor but think about it if Hopkins was to old then and that was in 2005 what does that say about his credentials in 2008 against Calzaghe a fight that was very close ?

On paper Pavlik's wins over Jermain Taylor are better than any Kessler win, but not THAT much better. Mundine, Beyer, and Andrade weren't exactly bums for Kessler, well maybe Beyer was a bit of one. Anyhow, Kessler has beaten more world champs than Pavlik and defended his belt more times, and the strength of Pavliks resume really rests exclusively on Taylor, who I don't think is that good at all, I mean, what top class SMW is Taylor going to beat in future? I realise Taylor beat Hopkins twice and that is very impressive, but he hasn't looked very good since then so I have to say I suspect those were wins over a guy who was too old for MW and that they flatter Taylor somewhat. I didn't imply there was a huge difference between Pavlik's and Kessler's win but I feel Pavlik's wins are better than Kessler's.

Taylor as being pretty poor? That is a little harsh for mine. Anyone with back to back wins over B-Hop deserves a little more credit than that I think. It is tough to say how good Pavlik is at the moment. I think he needs to be in against more elite competition before he can be properly judged but, as it currently stands, I can't see how is resume isn't better than Kessler's. I mentioned Taylors wins over B-Hop in my other post, but yes i agree does seem harsh to describe the guy who ended Hopkins MW reign as poor. However, my honest feeling about that is that Hopkins simply did not have a MW workrate any more, and that Taylor beat him almost by default. I think this is a pretty reasonable assessment too, its not as though Taylor really did anything teriffic in there is it? Taylor's problem for me is that he has this terrible tendency to gas/ lose concentration and also that he really doesn't have a major weapon in his game that sets him apart and really truly troubles his opponent. He's a guy who does a lot of things well, but nothing incredibly. The best part of his game is his jab, but that alone can't win him too many fights. An analogy I thought of recently goes something like this. Byron Mitchell won his world title by beating an aging Frankie Liles and doubtless was regarded as a pretty good young champ with the boxing world at his feet. A while later he lost his title to Ottke (fairly or not I don't know) and then got KOd in two by Calzaghe. His career was effectively over and now America's former SMW champion is all but forgotten. What is to say that thsi won't be the way it goes for Taylor? In eight years or so he might very well be written off as a bum. As I've said before, what top SMW is he actually going to beat?

Compare Pavlik's best win to Kessler's and you see that Pavlik's is definitely the better of the two, hence why I have Pavlik over Kessler. On paper Pavlik's wins over Jermain Taylor are better than any Kessler win, but not THAT much better. Mundine, Beyer, and Andrade weren't exactly bums for Kessler, well maybe Beyer was a bit of one. Anyhow, Kessler has beaten more world champs than Pavlik and defended his belt more times, and the strength of Pavliks resume really rests exclusively on Taylor, who I don't think is that good at all, I mean, what top class SMW is Taylor going to beat in future? I realise Taylor beat Hopkins twice and that is very impressive, but he hasn't looked very good since then so I have to say I suspect those were wins over a guy who was too old for MW and that they flatter Taylor somewhat.

I admit it, I don't. He's good at what he does but what he does doesn't look that good to me. I also think that he has benefitted from facing, in Miranda and Taylor two opponents who both suited him stylistically (on fight night at least) and who have even more over inflated reputations than he does. I rate Taylor as being pretty poor and as for Miranda.... I am a heretic. Taylor as being pretty poor? That is a little harsh for mine. Anyone with back to back wins over B-Hop deserves a little more credit than that I think. It is tough to say how good Pavlik is at the moment. I think he needs to be in against more elite competition before he can be properly judged but, as it currently stands, I can't see how is resume isn't better than Kessler's.

Haha, you really don't rate Pavlik. I admit it, I don't. He's good at what he does but what he does doesn't look that good to me. I also think that he has benefitted from facing, in Miranda and Taylor two opponents who both suited him stylistically (on fight night at least) and who have even more over inflated reputations than he does. I rate Taylor as being pretty poor and as for Miranda.... I am a heretic.

Nice points skills-wise. I don't know if I'll agree with you that Kessler should be higher p4p as Pavlik did beat the highly regarded Taylor. But I will say that IF Pavlik is ranked in the top 10 Kessler shouldn't be far behind. Some posters put Pavlik as high as no. 5 and I do think that it's because they dont know better. They've watched Pavlik regularly on HBO and have only watched Kessler against Calzaghe and/or Andrade. I sense a serious yank-bias. And now they've seen Edison Miranda, who they regarded very high, being wallopped by the Abrahammer and suddenly Arthur Abraham enters the top 10! :wtf: And I might add that this could only mean that the yanks still thinks that Miranda is a worldclass fighter.

Compare Pavlik's best win to Kessler's and you see that Pavlik's is definitely the better of the two, hence why I have Pavlik over Kessler.

Just for fun I'll repeat myself. :D Kessler is better than Pavlik P4P by quite a margin. He is much faster and is a much better technical boxer than Pavlik. In many ways he shows Pavlik how an orthodox boxing style should be executed. Haha, you really don't rate Pavlik.

Just for fun I'll repeat myself. :D Kessler is better than Pavlik P4P by quite a margin. He is much faster and is a much better technical boxer than Pavlik. In many ways he shows Pavlik how an orthodox boxing style should be executed. Nice points skills-wise. I don't know if I'll agree with you that Kessler should be higher p4p as Pavlik did beat the highly regarded Taylor. But I will say that IF Pavlik is ranked in the top 10 Kessler shouldn't be far behind. Some posters put Pavlik as high as no. 5 and I do think that it's because they dont know better. They've watched Pavlik regularly on HBO and have only watched Kessler against Calzaghe and/or Andrade. I sense a serious yank-bias. And now they've seen Edison Miranda, who they regarded very high, being wallopped by the Abrahammer and suddenly Arthur Abraham enters the top 10! :wtf:

Just for fun I'll repeat myself. :D Kessler is better than Pavlik P4P by quite a margin. He is much faster and is a much better technical boxer than Pavlik. In many ways he shows Pavlik how an orthodox boxing style should be executed.

It must have something to do with Pavlik being American. I mean Kessler pushed JC quite hard. So why he isnt rated higher must be because he isnt American. Maybe Kessler doesnt deserve to be p4p rated top 10? Maybe Pavlik doesnt deserve it as well. But the fact that he is American does help Pavliks cause. But thats all good for JC. If JC can beat Pavlik, there can be no excuses about JCs legacy.