Kelly Pavlik: "No Surprise if Roy Jones Beats Joe Calzaghe"

[FLY TY]

You seek help to learn how to score fights. Then these discussions won't be so frustrationg.

if the vast majority of ppl disagreed, i'd seek help....for some reason, i don't think im alone.....except or maybe the pavlik fight. i didn't see the spinks fight, that's why i used "i heard". and i "heard" from more than a few ppl, taylor should've lost that fight..........i saw the 2 hopkins fights w/ my own 2 eyes.

[dstew]

dont kno about ouma, but i hear the spinks decision was a "gift." the winky wright fight, i really had as a draw....and hopkins definitely beat taylor twice. i do think tay;or won the rematch w/ pavlik tho.....
but the argument can be made that taylor lost every fight from hopkins on....he gets respect in my book for never "ducking" any1 tho. thats priceless.

Please go watch some of these fights before you comment. Clearly you didn't watch Taylor/Ouma or Taylor/Spinks, which you admit, so if "the argument can be made that Taylor lost every fight from Hopkins on," you definitely shouldn't be the one making it.

Also, while it sounds like you may have watched Taylor/Wright, I doubt you watched either Hopkins fight otherwise you would have to explain how you scored it for a guy who only fought 4 or 5 rounds out of 12 in the first fight and while the second fight wasn't as clear cut, it was by no means a "definite" win for Hopkins. Yet anyone who wants to discredit Taylor (and indirectly Pavlik) has no qualms about reciting "he lost to Hopkins twice" as though it were gospel.

[dstew]

if the vast majority of ppl disagreed, i'd seek help....for some reason, i don't think im alone.....except or maybe the pavlik fight. i didn't see the spinks fight, that's why i used "i heard". and i "heard" from more than a few ppl, taylor should've lost that fight..........i saw the 2 hopkins fights w/ my own 2 eyes.

I can't believe you would make a serious attempt to use "well that's what I heard" to make a point in an argument, as though someone should give any amount of credence to whatever secondhand account (or thirdhand and so on) that you heard.

[Floyd Sinclair]

After calzaghe made up the lie that pavlik didnt want to fight him i would be mad too...i hope they do eventually fight i can see calzaghe leaving on a stretcher. Pavlik will murder that overrated piece of ****...

[garryd]

As the weeks go by, more and more people are jumping off the Joe Calzaghe boat and picking former four-division champion Roy Jones Jr. to pull off the win on November 8 at New York's Madison Square Garden. WBC/WBO middleweight champion Kelly Pavlik holds a big interest in the fight, especially if Calzaghe wins. If he overcomes the challenge of Bernard Hopkins on October 18, and Calzaghe beats Jones - the two of them could end up fighting at some point in 2009. [details]

Pavlic needs to concentrate on the job in hand ! And forget about Calzaghe for the minute as hes still gotta deal with Hopkins as yet!

[Stickman]

if the vast majority of ppl disagreed, i'd seek help....for some reason, i don't think im alone.....except or maybe the pavlik fight. i didn't see the spinks fight, that's why i used "i heard". and i "heard" from more than a few ppl, taylor should've lost that fight..........i saw the 2 hopkins fights w/ my own 2 eyes.

The Spinks fight ******...neither fighter was active, but Spinks spent the fight on his bicycle, so I gave it to Taylor. Ouma...it was probably closer, and I can see a few haters or cumguzzlers seeing a win for Ouma, but I still gave it to Taylor, though neither of these fights were what you could call impressive wins, to put it mildly. Everybody expected more from Taylor, which is why both performances were received with such mixed critiques.

I won't comment on the Hopkins fights, other than to say that I have a very difficult time giving Hopkins many rounds these last few years. Too inactive and a cheating prick (this is my BIGGEST problem with Hopkins), so if I do have to score a Hopkins fight, it's almost more than I can tolerate. I can do it without being biased, but I'll never enjoy watching Hopkins again as long as I live. I will say, though, that I felt that Taylor probably sc****d by with just enough for a win in the first fight, and a bit more comfortably in the second, though I could see people wanting a draw or a Hopkins win in the first....not the second.

Both Pavlik fights, Taylor performed tremendously. Pavlik's activity woke him up in a big way, I think. I'd almost pick Taylor to win a 3rd fight against Pavlik. I feel he'd be in even better shape, and he'd be just that much smarter the next time 'round. In fact, I know I'd pick Taylor to win, though I have to admit that this is in part because I find the kid so likeable and his talent so natural.

[bsrizpac]

I love the way posters put down Calzaghe saying his resume is rubbish but no one mentions Calzaghe trying to get the big name fights years ago but none of the big names would fight him ? I bet at the time the same posters were saying why should Hopkins ( Calzaghe tried getting Hopkins in the ring along time ago ) fight Cazaghe he is not big draw who has he beaten !

Now the shoe is on the other foot and its Calzaghe is scared of Pavlik !

Pavlik should get The 43 year old Hopkins out of the way first ( What will everyone say if Pavlik loses to a 43 year old Bernard Hopkins ? )

You know what I love about crap like this? The fact that Calzaghe fans leave out the fact that Joe never DID ANYTHING to get those fights. Running your mouth does not equal trying to get those fights.

Jesus Joe and his fans are more transparent than the Chinese government.

[Sir Tom Jones]

After calzaghe made up the lie that pavlik didnt want to fight him i would be mad too...i hope they do eventually fight i can see calzaghe leaving on a stretcher. Pavlik will murder that overrated piece of ****...

you got to be kidding. Pavlik wouldn't knock Calzaghe out.

Overrated by some but also underrated by a lot.

[Kris Silver]

You know what I love about crap like this? The fact that Calzaghe fans leave out the fact that Joe never DID ANYTHING to get those fights. Running your mouth does not equal trying to get those fights.

Jesus Joe and his fans are more transparent than the Chinese government.

How is what Joe did to land and sign the fight with Hopkins years ago, any different to what others do to get fights?

Wh don't you criticise Pavlik one bit on the same token? He rarely talks or calls people out, the opposite happens he does nothing.

At the end of the day Joe signed the fight with Hopkins and Hopkins pulled out. He signed the fight with Johnson and got an injury, Johnson wouldn't wait.

What else does a boxer do to get and secure a fight? I think you live in some dream world whereby boxers talk always gets a fight and so must do so, can personally talk it over in an open conversation with a potential opponent, sort the specifics and pot spit, keep promoters out of it, sign the fight and nothing will go wrong - all of the time. Welcome to reality, rarely the case.

[FLY TY]

Please go watch some of these fights before you comment. Clearly you didn't watch Taylor/Ouma or Taylor/Spinks, which you admit, so if "the argument can be made that Taylor lost every fight from Hopkins on," you definitely shouldn't be the one making it.

first off all, bruh, im definitely NOT the type of poster that gets on here and posts "****" just 4 the sake of posting..................second of all, ive seen ALL of the fights to which i'm referencing, with the exception of the spinks fight- which i heard from commentators AS WELL as family and friends who actually pay attention to boxing, that the decision could have and probably should have, went to spinks............i clearly state that i didnt see that fight myself, but when i hear from so many ppl that spinks should've gotten the decision, and i have yet to hear from ANYONE, except it seems from YOU, that taylor "deserved" the fight.....so i think i'll pretty much stick to what i said......

Also, while it sounds like you may have watched Taylor/Wright, I doubt you watched either Hopkins fight otherwise you would have to explain how you scored it for a guy who only fought 4 or 5 rounds out of 12 in the first fight and while the second fight wasn't as clear cut, it was by no means a "definite" win for Hopkins. Yet anyone who wants to discredit Taylor (and indirectly Pavlik) has no qualms about reciting "he lost to Hopkins twice" as though it were gospel.

third of all, if you "watch" the hopkins fights w/ the volume off, and don't pay attention to harold lederman's scorecards, there is no way in hell taylor swept the whole first half of those fights....it was close, but in at least half of those "taylor" rounds, hopkins landed the harder shots. the problem is fans like you are easily fooled, by crowd noise and play-by-play comentators, which usually confuse activity w/ actual effectiveness. yea, hopkins wasn't throwing as many shots as taylor, but in at least half of those rounds, if you actually pay attention, hopkins was LANDING the more effective shots....certainly enough to win him a round or two early on, in fights he clearly dominated down the stretch...............

I can't believe you would make a serious attempt to use "well that's what I heard" to make a point in an argument, as though someone should give any amount of credence to whatever secondhand account (or thirdhand and so on) that you heard.

the point is, i can use an "i heard" argument, when everybody, except you, says the same thing........u dont have to like it, you definitely don't have to agree. but just b/c its "secondhand" info, as you put it, and just becuz you're one of the few that disagree, doesn't make it any less true, buddy. go kick rocks...........