I don't see how Pavlik is undefeated. All he throws are basic 1-2's

[SkillspayBills]

Many men have fallen victim to this horrendous cliche. So far what Pavlik has done has worked for him, however to be a world class fighter you have to adapt and augment your style to fit every opponent. It's no good saying "I beat Taylor using this method so therefore I'll beat Kessler or Calzaghe or whoever".

Every fight is different. For example Ricky Hatton vs Floyd Mayweather (I don't like using this analogy because the fight is mentioned to often but it's the one that springs to mind) Ricky trained with Billy the preacher Graham. He said he trained in the same way as he did for his other 43 fights. One the main aspects of his training was the "body bag", chasing a chain smoking Billy Graham around the ring hitting a black sumo outfit the size out Butterbean is hardly ideal when trying to mimic one of the slickest fastest defensive fighters in the world. But the method had worked for him countless times before. When questioned on it, Hatton's words were "if it's not broke don't fix it".

That cliche should be erased from the English language. Possibly to be replaced with something slightly less catchy like... "if it has worked before there's no guarantee it will work again, we need to prepare for each fight as if we've never fought before because each fight brings a new fighter, we need to find out what areas need improvement adjustment and tweaking, then we can fix them".

Please tell me how in the hell we are going to remember that quote.

[Thread Stealer]

co-signed, except for the Monzon part. I am not a Monzon fan and don't get the big deal. He is one of the most overrated boxers of all-time. I think pavlik has already defeated tougher competition comparatively in Taylor. I don't think Monzon has ever beaten a fighter as good as Taylor in his entire career even for his time.

Monzon looked so beatable and ordinary, but he got the job done over and over again against the top contenders of his time.

Among those contenders and champs, Benvenutti was no slouch, Valdez was an excellent middleweight. Baad Bennie was a very good middleweight contender.

Napoles, well, he was an ATG at welter, but undersized at middle. He wasn't even a big welter to begin with. Griffith is another ATG, but he was long in the tooth by then.

There's a point when a guy keeps winning over and over again against the top guys around him where you have to concede that he's doing something special, no matter how ugly of a fighter he may be.

[Thread Stealer]

he has a 0 in the loss column. if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Every fighter has weaknesses, no matter how few losses they have.

Tito never had a loss beore September 2001. It doesn't mean he couldn't have stood to work on his footwork more and be less plodding and not load up on shots so much.

Ali never lost before 1971. It doesn't mean he couldn't have tried to "fix" his flawed defense for a left hook and went to the body a tad more.

There's always more to "fix" no matter how good you are. And I doubt Pavlik will reach Ali or Trinidad level.

It's not as if Pavlik has faced a whole long list of top middleweights.

[The Troll]

he has a 0 in the loss column. if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

right

he could stand to add a more effective left hook though imo

[Mickey Gomez]

Please tell me how in the hell we are going to remember that quote.

Yeah pretty impossible I agree. I was being sarcastic though.