Never Bet Against The Old Man: Bernard Hopkins-Kelly Pavlik Analysis

This fall has two premier big name fights that have already captivated the attention of, and drawn criticism from, the boxing community.  The first set for October 11, is Kelly Pavlik versus Bernard Hopkins in a non-title Light-Heavyweight bout.  The second scheduled for November will be Joe Calzaghe's first defense of his recently won Light-Heavyweight world title against Roy Jones Jr.  

Both bouts were announced at approximately the same time, and both bouts precipitated the eye-rolling of boxing analysts and writers everywhere.  "Oh boy." Everyone thought, "After a phenomenal year and a half of boxing, we get to have the stagnant 'money' fights again."

Everyone has pretty much written of Jones and Hopkins as old timers who are there to basically provide a payday to two of Boxing's stars.  As usual, the critics are wrong, on at least one count, and they are wrong for the same reason as usual. 

We are often told not to judge a book by its cover, as well we should not.  Yet, collectively at least, this seems to be exactly what the media and analysts, in boxing especially, seem to do.  

I'm sure the prospect of an eight-figure pay-per-view payday factored into the decision of the Calzaghe and Pavlik camps to take on the two "old lions".  However, if there is one thing that boxing is also replete with, is the story of the old man who shocked the world.  

Jersey Joe Walcott had already lost four attempts to win the Heavyweight championship when, at the age of 37, he knocked out Ezzard Charles to become the new King.  A year later Walcott, at 38, lost his title to Marciano in one of the most spectacular fights in Heavyweight history.  That fight was Marciano's hardest and even though he lost, Walcott managed to Drop Marciano for the first time in his career.  

Three years after that Marciano had trouble with the greatest "old" fighter the ring has ever seen, Archie Moore, who at 43 was able to deck Marciano in the second round before being overwhelmed by Marciano's pressure-style.  Three years after that, Moore fought the greatest fight of his career when after being knocked-down four times by Yvon Durelle, he knocked the challenger out.  

In 1974 a 32-year-old and ring worn Ali challenged the most fearsome man to hold the crown and knocked him out.  Foreman himself is a prime example when he returned at the age of 45 to beat Michael Moorer.  What am I getting at here?  That exceptional fighters are exceptional fighters despite age.  

And Bernard Hopkins is most definitely an exceptional, albeit less exciting, fighter.  Sure, Hopkins lost a less than thrilling split-decision to Calzaghe in April, but let us not forget that it was a split-decision.  Hopkins clearly was running out of gas in round nine and by 12 he was spent, but despite this drop-off, Calzaghe failed to convince all three judges that he had won, and most unofficial scorecards had the fight a draw.  Finally, Hopkins did drop Calzaghe in the first round.

What does this mean for Kelly Pavlik?  Trouble.  I am a Kelly Pavlik fan, I think he has great ability at what he does, and I think he is a great representative for the sport of boxing.  However, he is a somewhat one dimensional fighter.  Jab-Jab-Right.  That's all he's done since busting onto the national scene with a knockout of Zertuche a year and a half ago.  

Since then Miranda, Taylor, and most recently Lockette have fallen to Pavlik's crumbling power.  So if he's knocked these guys out, and he's still the champ, and he's undefeated, why do I criticize him?  Because of the second Taylor fight.  If Pavlik had gone to the body or triple-jabbed, he would have had Taylor out of there in six rounds.  

But he didn't.  Instead he Jab-crossed his way to a boring 12-round decision.  Most troubling is that all Taylor did to neutralize the Pavlik steamroller is hold his hands higher and tighten his defense a little.  I think we can assume Hopkins will do more than that.  

But wait, didn't Taylor beat Hopkins twice?  Yes he did, but you're about to hear the mantra I will repeat ad infinitum throughout this column: styles make fights.  Taylor's hand speed and combinations are what it takes to decision a crafty vet like Hopkins, Kelly Pavlik's jackhammer of a right hand was what was needed to dethrone Taylor, and the artistry and caginess of Hopkins will give Pavlik headaches.  

I am not predicting a Hopkins victory, mind you, but I do accept it as a plausible outcome.  Hopkins made his bones making the other guy look bad and the list of exceptional fighters who got beat by this supposedly old man is a long one and includes Trinidad and De La Hoya.  Hopkins simply is one of those defensive masters, like Moore and Walcott, who has skill beyond age and knows exactly how to give the other guy trouble.  

The one thing Pavlik has that Bernard has not seen before is power, power that comes from size.  Pavlik is 6'2" and will weigh in around 170 lbs, one of the largest opponents Hopkins has ever faced, and probably the strongest.  Pavlik's one dimensional style though, is taylor-made for a crafty counter-puncher like Hopkins. And as an old Boxing axiom tells us:  A fall guy never thinks of himself as a fall guy.  

Which means maybe the rest of boxing has written off Hopkins, but Hopkins hasn't and his dedication to and perseverance in his art match if not surpass Pavlik's.  Whatever you may think, I guarantee you that Hopkins will show up to fight, and that he will draw on all his resources to do so.  

My prediction?  Hopkins will frustrate and neutralize Pavlik for six or seven rounds before his energy begins to drop, at which point Pavlik, out-pointed and behind the eightball, will get lucky and land one of his money punches to turn the fight around.  

So yes I think Kelly Pavlik will win, and yes I will buy the pay-per-view.  However, should Hopkins win, I will see it as no big upset.  

But wait, what about Calzaghe-Jones?  It is indeed for the Light-Heavyweight world championship, bestowed upon Calzaghe by "Ring Magazine" the only organization whose chosen champion I will believe is indeed the world champion, so this is a genuinely big fight.  One which I am unsure if I will be buying.  

Why?  Because Roy Jones, Jr. even in his prime, wasn't that good.  He was flash and bang with no substance and when he finally lost as a pro he lost to a man who had beaten him twice as an amateur.  This means that Roy didn't really get any better between those losses.  His style was based on speed, athleticism, and youth which faded rapidly in his early 30s.  

I also believe that, even in his prime, Roy Jones would have been soundly beaten by the great Light-Heavies of the past like Gene Tunney, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Harry Greb (who was really a middleweight), and Bob Foster.  As for the November money fight, Calzaghe, who is no spring chicken himself, will box and flurry Jones into submission before winning a wide Unanimous decision.  

I know the contents of my article my be somewhat contradictory to the headline, but after all I've got to get your attention somehow.  And while I have picked against both the old guys, believe me when I say that Pavlik may have signed for a big money fight, he'll find he's gotten more than he bargained for.