Gerald McClellan vs Kelly Pavlik @ 160

TS must hate Pavlik.

I think your one of the most overrated posters on here. And you are a pathetic fanboy of McClellan, who was one of the worst human beings in boxing history.

and the g-man already had the brain clog in his brain by then, no body mentions that No he didn't. It was actually after the first Julian Jackson fight that McClellan started having problems. lol Julian was 17-0 after his first loss to McCallum, the reason he was beat by Quincy Taylor, was because Mcclellan brutal knocked him out twice and ruined him for good. Jackson didn't look that great in his previous fights, going the distance with Tate, and looked horrible afterwards, unable to KO journeymen such as Eduardo Ayala and Leonardo Aguilar, and losing to Quincy Taylor. He had already fought for 12 years with a style that was most certainly not made for longevity. Now McClellan could possibly beat even the best version of Jackson but having only one good name on your resume, a 33 year old Julian Jackson, hardly makes you a great fighter.

g-man pretty much beat guys in 3 rounds, kelly takes a little longer. Both terrifying middleweights.

'm not sure if you have any knowledge of what I'm talking about. Jackson's diminishing eyesight surely did him no good against a puncher like McClellan. There's a reason why he was losing to the likes of Quincy Taylor not soon after and was forced to retire. Griffith and Napoles were 5'7 welterweights (in Napoles' case a former lightweight) in their mid 30's going up against a prime, over 6 feet tall big middleweight in Carlos Monzon. lol Julian was 17-0 after his first loss to McCallum, the reason he was beat by Quincy Taylor, was because Mcclellan brutal knocked him out twice and ruined him for good.

McClellan=one of the most overrated fighters of the last 20 years. I think your one of the most overrated posters on here.

you just seem like a hater, no one beats anyone in their prime anymore there's somethin up all the time, you people have to stop bein such idiots and just face facts, this guy was'nt this good/as good against this other guy maybe because this other guy is pretty good himself, god damn people, is there sucha thing as givin someone full credit nowadays? I'm not sure if you have any knowledge of what I'm talking about. Jackson's diminishing eyesight surely did him no good against a puncher like McClellan. There's a reason why he was losing to the likes of Quincy Taylor not soon after and was forced to retire. Griffith and Napoles were 5'7 welterweights (in Napoles' case a former lightweight) in their mid 30's going up against a prime, over 6 feet tall big middleweight in Carlos Monzon.

McClellan=one of the most overrated fighters of the last 20 years.

McClellan wins by 1st round KO.

Not a fight, G man by Decapitation, and i actually beleive there is a pretty good chance Kellys head Does leave his body!

What sort of sick person dreamed this one up? Moby wouldn't last 10 seconds.moby? .

hahahaha what a joke Gman would have had the ambulance backing into the ring in the 1st round to remove Pavlik on a stretcher. Once again you're right and you have an explicit talent for ALWAYS cracking me up on these threads.. Same goes for IRONLUNG... Regards MM

G-Man would destroy him. Hell, I had him winning against Benn going into that horrible 10th round.

It's the truth. Jackson was a great win for McClellan at the time but KO'ing a diminished Julian Jackson doesn't make you invincible. Some people act as if McClellan was one of the great middleweights but he was not. Any objective boxing fan should be able to see that Napoles and Griffith were not great wins for Monzon. They were older and smaller. Monzon's best wins were over underrated prime middleweights such as Rodrigo Valdez and Bennie Briscoe. You could argue all day which were better wins the tricky, crafty ring genrels griffith and jose, or the brute powere punching valdes and brisco

Machine i have noticed you can take away a fighters win with some story or something about the beaten fighter, you done it with monzon, if thats the case no fighter in history has beat a 100 percent fighter, if its not injuries it there past there prime thats all you ever say. It's the truth. Jackson was a great win for McClellan at the time but KO'ing a diminished Julian Jackson doesn't make you invincible. Some people act as if McClellan was one of the great middleweights but he was not. Any objective boxing fan should be able to see that Napoles and Griffith were not great wins for Monzon. They were older and smaller. Monzon's best wins were over underrated prime middleweights such as Rodrigo Valdez and Bennie Briscoe.

Jackson was good no doubt but at that point of his career he was near blind and was never known for having a particularly sturdy jaw. McClellan did take his punches very well though and he got hit with a lot of them. Pavlik would likely hit the canvas if hit with those kind of punches. Pavlik has fought Hopkins, Taylor (x2) and Miranda, McClellan fought Jackson (x2), Benn and Mugabi (who was shot). There isn't a big difference in the competition they fought. Machine i have noticed you can take away a fighters win with some story or something about the beaten fighter, you done it with monzon, if thats the case no fighter in history has beat a 100 percent fighter, if its not injuries its there past there prime thats all you ever say.

Toodaloo Pavlik!

Gerald beat the better fighter in julian jackson, than any of pavliks wins. G man would walk the ghost down Jackson was good no doubt but at that point of his career he was near blind and was never known for having a particularly sturdy jaw. McClellan did take his punches very well though and he got hit with a lot of them. Pavlik would likely hit the canvas if hit with those kind of punches. Pavlik has fought Hopkins, Taylor (x2) and Miranda, McClellan fought Jackson (x2), Benn and Mugabi (who was shot). There isn't a big difference in the competition they fought.

To be honest he didn't and he also managed to lose to much worse fighters than Pavlik but based on everything I've seen of the two I'd have to pick McClellan at this point. Pavlik would walk right into his punching power. Gerald beat the better fighter in julian jackson, than any of pavliks wins. G man would walk the ghost down

You gotta pick Gerald McClellan as he faced better fighters than Kelly Pavlik ! To be honest he didn't and he also managed to lose to much worse fighters than Pavlik but based on everything I've seen of the two I'd have to pick McClellan at this point. Pavlik would walk right into his punching power.