Carl Froch...Most avoided Fighter?? or Overhyped british prospect??

[BattlingNelson]

I know why he did it. Doesnt make it right or credible.

Boxing is a business first. Sport second.

But for the record I'd love to see Froch get a real test soon. I hope the Pascal fight is made or perhaps even another shot at making the Inkin fight. Inkin is quite good.

[abadger]

This is very interesting to me, because you guys aren't all nuthugging, America hating fanatics like myself, this is actually the first time I've heard you really talking about how highly you rate these boxers. In particular I'm quite surprised by T's low opinion of Taylor, I had you down as a 'go with the flow' kind of guy, i didn't really expect you to hold controversial opinions, no offense intended at all.

My own view is that Jermain Taylor gets an awful lot of mileage out of his Hopkins wins, though is clearly a credible top level boxer, and as a result Pavlik gets far too much mileage out of his pair of victories over Taylor. I don't know what you guys think, but in particular I find the 'Pavlik is far more proven and has achieved more than Kessler' argument to be borderline ludicrous. At the end of the day its close between them, Kessler was a double world champion ages ago, beating guys better than everyone but Taylor on Pav's resume. One win, over one opponent, no matter how supposedly great (and in Taylor's case this is arguable) is not enough to say one guy is more accomplished than another when that other guy has held more titles, defended them more times and effectively cleared out his division. To think so requires us to view boxing in a distorted fashion.

Another thing about this is that it is not even clear that Pavlik is the best MW. He beat the man who beat the man sure, but its a little different when the original man was getting a bit old for his weight class and the man you beat has at least questionable ability. I would use a similar argument about Calzaghe at LHW, has he really proven himself to be the best LHW? I certainly don't think so. At the end of the day since winning the title Pavlik has defended it once, against a B-level fighter. How does that prove you are the best fighter ina division, especially when somone like Abraham shares it with
you. Abraham was hugely impressive in his KO win over Miranda.

If we're talking about ranking the two guys, I'd insert Taylor anywhere from 2 - 5 at SMW, the only thing clear there is that Kessler is #1. With Pavlik he can keep his #1 rank at MW, but I wouldn't have him in my P4P top ten at all. Beating Jermain Taylor alone is not good enough for that. Look at someone like Nonito Donaire, he handed much decorated and undefeated Vic Darchinyan his first loss and only makes the fringes. The same should happen to Kelly Pavlik until he fights and beats more quality boxers. Beating one opponent is a victory, not a resume.

I know I'll likely get accused of all kinds of bias for this post, but its really what i think, and if you notice, I don't strongly come down in favour of any fighter, my views are actually more of a complaint about doing exactly that.

[Boofdatruth]

He wants an easier fight

That is not a good enough reason to avoid a fight for me. Was money an issue? Why would Taylor take that fight with Froch, is it for the title?

[Boofdatruth]

Nope. It was a business decision. Why fight Froch for change when you can fight the shot Lacy for megabucks. After that fight Taylor can pick any SMW champion he wants and pick up the largest share of the pie in doing so.

If I was Taylor I'd done the same for sure.

I thought so. I haven't been following on who Taylor will fight next.

[T-97]

This is very interesting to me, because you guys aren't all nuthugging, America hating fanatics like myself, this is actually the first time I've heard you really talking about how highly you rate these boxers. In particular I'm quite surprised by T's low opinion of Taylor, I had you down as a 'go with the flow' kind of guy, i didn't really expect you to hold controversial opinions, no offense intended at all.

Addmitadly, I normally am. I can't be bothered with arguing over the internet all the time. But honestly, I don't think Taylor is anything special. He 'beat' Hopkins 2 times (I scored it 1-0-1 to Hopkins), Got a draw with Winky (Again close, I feel Winky deserved the nod), Looked **** against Ouma and only just sc****d a win over Cory Spinks, before being beaten by Pavlik 2 times. Although, I gained respect for Taylor from those 2 fights with Pavlik, I still don't think he is anything great, and deffinatly not a Top P4P Fighter.

EDIT- I also agree about Pavlik being not proven right now, He has 2 wins over Taylor (Almost losing both, showig great heart in the first fight though), a win over Miranda (Hardly a world beater) and the Locketness monstor, Gary Lockett. He has proved he is an elite fighter to me, but he hasn't proved himself big time. I think a win over Hopkins at 170 will be a very good win, and would impress me. I feel Pavlik has a weakness against guys who use angles, which Hopkins is a master of. Beating him, will show he can win even against his "kryptonite" you could say.

[Live Dog]

This is very interesting to me, because you guys aren't all nuthugging, America hating fanatics like myself, this is actually the first time I've heard you really talking about how highly you rate these boxers. In particular I'm quite surprised by T's low opinion of Taylor, I had you down as a 'go with the flow' kind of guy, i didn't really expect you to hold controversial opinions, no offense intended at all.

My own view is that Jermain Taylor gets an awful lot of mileage out of his Hopkins wins, though is clearly a credible top level boxer, and as a result Pavlik gets far too much mileage out of his pair of victories over Taylor. I don't know what you guys think, but in particular I find the 'Pavlik is far more proven and has achieved more than Kessler' argument to be borderline ludicrous. At the end of the day its close between them, Kessler was a double world champion ages ago, beating guys better than everyone but Taylor on Pav's resume. One win, over one opponent, no matter how supposedly great (and in Taylor's case this is arguable) is not enough to say one guy is more accomplished than another when that other guy has held more titles, defended them more times and effectively cleared out his division. To think so requires us to view boxing in a distorted fashion.

Another thing about this is that it is not even clear that Pavlik is the best MW. He beat the man who beat the man sure, but its a little different when the original man was getting a bit old for his weight class and the man you beat has at least questionable ability. I would use a similar argument about Calzaghe at LHW, has he really proven himself to be the best LHW? I certainly don't think so. At the end of the day since winning the title Pavlik has defended it once, against a B-level fighter. How does that prove you are the best fighter ina division, especially when somone like Abraham shares it with
you. Abraham was hugely impressive in his KO win over Miranda.

If we're talking about ranking the two guys, I'd insert Taylor anywhere from 2 - 5 at SMW, the only thing clear there is that Kessler is #1. With Pavlik he can keep his #1 rank at MW, but I wouldn't have him in my P4P top ten at all. Beating Jermain Taylor alone is not good enough for that. Look at someone like Nonito Donaire, he handed much decorated and undefeated Vic Darchinyan his first loss and only makes the fringes. The same should happen to Kelly Pavlik until he fights and beats more quality boxers. Beating one opponent is a victory, not a resume.

I know I'll likely get accused of all kinds of bias for this post, but its really what i think, and if you notice, I don't strongly come down in favour of any fighter, my views are actually more of a complaint about doing exactly that.

I didn't read this but I bet Calzaghe's name is mentioned.

[T-97]

I didn't read this but I bet Calzaghe's name is mentioned.

Actually, it wasn't.

[BattlingNelson]

Addmitadly, I normally am. I can't be bothered with arguing over the internet all the time. But honestly, I don't think Taylor is anything special. He 'beat' Hopkins 2 times (I scored it 1-0-1 to Hopkins), Got a draw with Winky (Again close, I feel Winky deserved the nod), Looked **** against Ouma and only just sc****d a win over Cory Spinks, before being beaten by Pavlik 2 times. Although, I gained respect for Taylor from those 2 fights with Pavlik, I still don't think he is anything great, and deffinatly not a Top P4P Fighter.

EDIT- I also agree about Pavlik being not proven right now, He has 2 wins over Taylor (Almost losing both, showig great heart in the first fight though), a win over Miranda (Hardly a world beater) and the Locketness monstor, Gary Lockett. He has proved he is an elite fighter to me, but he hasn't proved himself big time. I think a win over Hopkins at 170 will be a very good win, and would impress me. I feel Pavlik has a weakness against guys who use angles, which Hopkins is a master of. Beating him, will show he can win even against his "kryptonite" you could say.

You and Abadger say that Taylor's overrated, hence Pavlik's overrated it likely means that Kessler's rated higher on your guys p4p lists. That warms my danish heart

I nearly feel an urge to bump my comparisonthread of Kessler and Pavlik......

[abadger]

I didn't read this but I bet Calzaghe's name is mentioned.

It was about Pavlik and Taylor and how good they are. Calzaghe's name was mentioned as one of Kessler's opponents. I also said he wasn't proven to be the best LHW. You win.

[Gojira]

Nope. It was a business decision. Why fight Froch for change when you can fight the shot Lacy for megabucks. After that fight Taylor can pick any SMW champion he wants and pick up the largest share of the pie in doing so.

If I was Taylor I'd done the same for sure.

its funny how you say that but if someone mentions calzaghe fighting jones over pavlik for money then everybody kicks off.