Advertisement

Mailbag: Fans ready for Pavlik-Hopkins

Yahoo Sports

There were lots of questions and comments in the inbox Monday morning, so I'll get right to them.

As always, I ask you to include your full name as well as your city and state in your letter. My answers are in italics after the questions.

GREAT ARTICLE

I wanted to commend you on your recent column about the Kelly Pavlik-Bernard Hopkins fight. I agree 100 percent. I've always despised Hopkins for his dirty tactics and ridiculous whining after every fight. I know I'm probably in a vast minority, but I believe he is (and has been) one of the most overrated boxers around, not to mention just utterly boring. I hate dirty fighters with a passion and always watch their fights simply on the hope that their opponent will finally be the one to leave them knocked out cold, quivering in the middle of the ring with a few teeth missing. I hope Hopkins goes down hard and is utterly destroyed in the fourth or fifth round. I hope it's not the first round so he can complain that it was a fluke or a flash, but a good, solid devastating knockout that makes him feel 68 years old, something even Evander Holyfield wouldn't be stupid enough to try and come back from.

Dean

Pavlik hasn't fought anyone quite like Hopkins and that's going to make this fight very different for him. He's probably going to be more frustrated at the end of this bout than he has been in any bout since he's turned pro. But for a different perspective, read the next letter.

COLUMN STINKS

Are you that bored that you have nothing better to write about than who will boo hoo after a fight? Boring, uninformative and useless are all adjectives that spring to mind when describing this article. Why can't you write about some of the great up and coming fighters out there, or about the ins and outs of Pavlik's and Hopkins' clash of styles? There are so many positive things that go on in the ring and yet you choose to concentrate on trivial antics.

Jeremy
Los Angeles

We have a full week of things planned for this fight, but I think the column pointed out that the fight is going to be very close and that their styles are such that complaints are inevitable. I respect your opinion and your right to it, but I respectfully disagree.

HOPKINS KEEPS GETTING SCREWED

Hopkins hasn't legitimately lost a fight since 1993, when he was beaten by Roy Jones Jr. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean he isn't right. It's not as impressive as Sugar Ray Robinson because he fought so much, but in the modern era, it's the most impressive accomplishment there has been. Everyone knows the judges are terrible, partly because they don't know anything and are there on ceremony, and partly because the judging system is terrible. If one scored either of those Jermain Taylor fights on a total-fight basis instead of a round-by-round basis, there is no way you could give those fights to Taylor, because the only way he can win is if you give every toss-up close round (rounds that should be scored even in my opinion) to Taylor.

Ben

Ben, my man, if you say I don't like Bernard, you definitely don't know me. I scored BOTH Taylor fights in favor of Hopkins, as well as the Calzaghe fight. But your remarks about the judges are off-base. There are terrible judges, to be sure, but there are plenty of good ones. However, the rules state that the judges score the fights on a round-by-round basis, not as one unit. And so there are many fights in which one fighter wins seven very close rounds and the other fighter wins five very wide rounds. Most fans think the fighter who won the five wide rounds won the fight, but that's not how it works. Rounds should only be scored even if there is absolutely nothing to choose between the fighters and that is very rare. I wouldn't mind seeing the system overhauled and updated, but under the current rules, it's being applied properly.

GIVE VITALI CREDIT

How come you never give Vitali Klitschko recognition? The man just completely dominated the man who was supposed to dominate the heavyweight division. He is not in the main page but on the side column, when his fight was more important than the Antonio Tarver-Chad Dawson light heavyweight fight. Like I always say, Vitali has never been outclassed or overpowered by anybody. The only bad punch he ever took was that uppercut by Lennox Lewis. Other than that, no one has touched him and he has destroyed all his opponents including Lennox. Maybe it's because he is not American or black, which in America are great for marketing. I truly believe that Vitali may be the greatest of all-time. It's true, he never faced the best, but he destroyed Samuel Peter and completely dominated Lennox.

Martin
Gainesville, Fla.

I gave Vitali recognition in the form of two pre-fight columns. In the first line of one, I wrote, "There is no doubt, when he's healthy, Vitali Klitschko is the world's finest heavyweight." In the second, I wrote that "There is no doubt that a fit, healthy and active Klitschko would have no problem handling the best Peter could bring." So I was not surprised. I would have gone to Berlin, Germany, to cover the fight Saturday had I had assurance Vitali's body would have not betrayed him. But it's expensive to fly there and Vitali has pulled out of so many fights, so I chose to cover Tarver-Dawson, which happened to be in Las Vegas, where I live. I think Vitali is an excellent modern heavyweight, but he's nowhere near the best ever. Lennox beat him fair and square. Yes, Vitali was cut, but Lennox was coming on and was clearly in command of the fight at the time of the stoppage. I admire Vitali greatly, but it's a gross exaggeration to say he's even in the top 10 ever. Who is his biggest victory? I don't think he has a victory against one future Hall of Famer. No one that he's beaten has even a remote chance, actually.

UGLY FIGHT

I have some concerns about the Pavlik-Hopkins fight. Even though I'm a huge fan of both, I worry that this fight is going to be ugly. Hopkins made the Calzaghe fight close by not standing and fighting, but by holding and wrestling. I think Pavlik has more power than Calzaghe and could knock out Hopkins if given space, but Hopkins knows that! What are your thoughts and what do you expect to see?

Mitch
Houston

I agree, Mitch. There's more of a chance of an ugly fight in which the fans are booing lustily rather than a memorable slugfest. Bernard is going to do his thing, which is to hold when Pavlik wants to fight, wrestle on the inside, hit on the break and try to slow things down as much as possible and give Pavlik as little room as possible. It won't be a thing of beauty, that's for sure.

TARVER TOO OLD

Your analysis of the Dawson-Tarver fight really sucks. How could Dawson be an elite fighter? Tarver is old; he moved like George Foreman on Saturday, without the snap and power in his punches. Still, Dawson could not finish him off. Given that, how could you praise this guy? Stick to mixed martial arts. That sport sucks and so do you.

Gat
Houston

Dawson didn't just get good overnight, Gat. He has been an elite fighter for several years now. If you didn't realize that, you're simply not the boxing fan you profess to be.

WHAT ABOUT DIACONU?

In regard to your article about the Dawson-Tarver fight, I want to know where Adrian Diaconu stands? Wasn't Dawson supposed to fight Diaconu as a mandatory challenger? How come no one is talking about Diaconu, an undefeated monster in the light heavyweight division?

Yaniv
San Francisco

Diaconu was Dawson's mandatory challenger for the WBC title when Dawson held that belt. Dawson signed for it and was ready to defend it when Diaconu pulled out because of a hand injury. Dawson wanted to fight Tarver, who was a bigger name in the division, than the unknown Diaconu, but was still willing to fight Diaconu. But when Showtime said it wouldn't televise a Dawson-Diaconu bout at the expense of a Dawson-Tarver fight, Dawson gave up the WBC belt and went after Tarver's IBF belt. Diaconu is unbeaten, but he hasn't beaten anyone of the caliber of Glen Johnson or Tarver, Dawson's last two victims.

DAVID HAYE, POTENTIALLY?

Do you think Chad Dawson and David Haye could be a fight that is made in the near future? Both fighters are quick and strong with relatively untested chins. Both think they are world beaters and both have the talent to back it up. I would just like to hear who you think could test Chad, even if it's at a catch weight. Also, I think it's safe to say that Samuel Peter is nothing more than a big puncher with no chance of beating real boxers like the brothers Klitschko. Where does he go for his next pay day? He obviously has all sorts of problems with taller fighters who know how to use a jab.

Mike Muckala
Denver

Mike, because Haye has just moved up to heavyweight, there is too much weight between Dawson and Haye and that fight won't happen soon. The winner of both the Jones-Calzaghe bout and the Pavlik-Hopkins bout would be options. So, too, would the losers, depending upon how the fights went. Tarver wants a rematch and because there is a rematch clause (though not immediate) in the contract, that isn't out of the question. And perhaps Winky Wright, who hasn't been able to find a fight, would be interesting in a move up to 170 again and would face Dawson for the title.