kessler v froch, if

black panther · Post by **black panther** » 30 Apr 2008, 12:00

I'll hold my hands and say I picked Kessler to beat Calzaghe. Where is all this nonsense coming from that Kessler isnt a good fighter? I mean he dominated Mundine in Australia - Mundine is a very talented fighter. And Joe admitted Kessler stunned him a few times. And Kessler definitely won more than three rounds against Calzaghe - those uppercuts he landed were pure class. Froch definitely wouldnt blow through Kessler - a really good fight but I feel Carl doesnt have the reflexes to fight like he does(left hand so low etc) - but he does have a good chin and power- two things which means you always have a chance in a fight.

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 30 Apr 2008, 14:38

Eraserhead wrote:
Autobarn wrote:
Max Molyneux wrote:Calzaghe beat Kessler 9 rounds to 3 Imo, that was pretty easy.

Plus Haye's not hard to hit and admitted the cut got him to wake up and spark Mac. If Mac had some survival tatics you never know.

If I am a fool, this status must mean godly on this forum.
bollocks, utter bollocks. Joe wasn't up more than 3 on my card. Kessler landed so many clean correct shots.
Agreed. I had Joe winning by two points. 9 rounds to 3? Max was watching a different fight. Joe pulled it out in the second half. Kessler was nailing him at will through six rounds and then gassed - never got his second wind. A more experienced Kessler might have negotiated the second half better and beaten Joe.

Calzaghe had the experience to just nick it. It wasn't PRETTY EASY by anyone's standards. 'Easy' was Haye sparking Max's boy Enzo 'the new Lennox' Maccarinelli. Now THAT was a stroll in the park

And is Max really arguing the legitimacy of Hopkins' KD of Calzaghe? Jesus, I've heard it all now. That was as clean right hand as you can hope to land.

As for the Hopkins kd, If you read my post I said he was hit by right hand clean then pushed forward by Hopkins. I said It was legit because the punch landed.

If you retards read as well, I like Haye and Enzo and I said Enzo's style was simular to Lewis. I thought Haye was weight drained to why I picked Enzo too and how open Haye Is but he won by KO In the end.

Kessler was clearly outboxed, not close at all.

states · Post by **states** » 30 Apr 2008, 18:32

Max, you're on thin ground calling anyone a retard.

WildWaylon · Post by **WildWaylon** » 30 Apr 2008, 19:01

Autobarn wrote:
Max Molyneux wrote:Calzaghe beat Kessler 9 rounds to 3 Imo, that was pretty easy.

Plus Haye's not hard to hit and admitted the cut got him to wake up and spark Mac. If Mac had some survival tatics you never know.

If I am a fool, this status must mean godly on this forum.
bollocks, utter bollocks. Joe wasn't up more than 3 on my card. Kessler landed so many clean correct shots.

This kid is annoying me now and at one time he wrote pretty reasonable stuff. As you say it was quite close and Kessler never gave up.

Maelstrom · Post by **Maelstrom** » 30 Apr 2008, 19:18

WildWaylon wrote:
Autobarn wrote:
Max Molyneux wrote:Calzaghe beat Kessler 9 rounds to 3 Imo, that was pretty easy.

Plus Haye's not hard to hit and admitted the cut got him to wake up and spark Mac. If Mac had some survival tatics you never know.

If I am a fool, this status must mean godly on this forum.
bollocks, utter bollocks. Joe wasn't up more than 3 on my card. Kessler landed so many clean correct shots.
This kid is annoying me now and at one time he wrote pretty reasonable stuff. As you say it was quite close and Kessler never gave up.

I had Joe a fairly handy winner against MK, but what he is saying about the KD is unfathomable. Sorry Max... but you only had to look on Joe's face to see he was taken aback by it.

Arbachakov · Post by **Arbachakov** » 30 Apr 2008, 19:51

Kessler's basic tools are mostly very good.

Unless the Calzaghe loss has got to Kessler in some way i can't see him losing.

Carl has too many technical flaws for my liking.

Maxime · Post by **Maxime** » 01 May 2008, 00:13

STP wrote:I don't rate Kessler. To me hasn't fought anyone bar Calzaghe. I just see a straight-up, European boxer-puncher who stands in front of you, with little sense of timing though an impressive looking right hand. He did show good ring generalship against that extremely limited guy he fought before Calzaghe, going one way and the other and stuff, but that guy he was fighting just walked in face-first in straight lines.

I rate Froch. He punches through defences, which only Cotto and Haye can do out of any other fighter today. He has the longest jab about and looks really difficult to hit the way he uses his shoulder and leans and rolls. He has decent footwork as well, though hasn't shown it in recent fights because of his knee. He can show little side-steps effectively with good timing, to prevent an opponent setting to hit and all the while pinging him with his accurate arm shots all over. When he sets his feet... we've all seen the power. I think he's going to take some beating, Froch.

So you don't rate Kessler because "He has fought no one but Calzaghe" but somehow you rate Froch even tho he has fought no one anywhere close to Kessler's opposition?

That makes no sense what so ever....

Coco · Post by **Coco** » 01 May 2008, 01:02

Kessler is very technically god and I think the JC fight will have taught him a lot of ring savvy, he came through the bout undamaged and I believe he will come back a better fighter.
I make him a heavy favorite against Froch

Calzaghe was definately hurt by the knockdown, calling it a push shot is laughable, and it is to the Welshmans credit that he had the chin to get through it.
However Hopkins did not come to fight and was content to pot shot instead of being ambitious enough to put his punches together, instead he was happy to stay in his defensive shell, which would never be enough to get him a decision, even on home turf.
In fact it was the knockdown which kept the scores close

Coco · Post by **Coco** » 01 May 2008, 01:04

Terry D wrote:
Max Molyneux wrote:
Who knows if Mikkel fought the fight in his country with a better hand, if it would have panned out any differently.
Maybe, when I say simular stuff like about who knows If Haye Vs Mac went 12, I get ravaged.
Because Macca got KO'd with ease you fool! Watch the fight properly. Haye came out like a visiting Champion whereas Macca came out like a British level fighter who knows he is out of his depth. He then fought along those lines. Nothing to do with tactics, Macca is a big puncher with a chocolate pudding chin who is being trained wrong by his trainer. He is being trained to box like Joe Calzaghe when he is clearly not capable of that.

Macca has shown huge improvement under Enzo C

Chambers2 · Post by **Chambers2** » 01 May 2008, 09:12

Great fight.... Froch KO10

theHitman · Post by **theHitman** » 06 May 2008, 08:12

Terry D wrote:
black panther wrote:I'll hold my hands and say I picked Kessler to beat Calzaghe. Where is all this nonsense coming from that Kessler isnt a good fighter? I mean he dominated Mundine in Australia - Mundine is a very talented fighter. And Joe admitted Kessler stunned him a few times. And Kessler definitely won more than three rounds against Calzaghe - those uppercuts he landed were pure class. Froch definitely wouldnt blow through Kessler - a really good fight but I feel Carl doesnt have the reflexes to fight like he does(left hand so low etc) - but he does have a good chin and power- two things which means you always have a chance in a fight.
No one is saying that he is not good, I'm personally just saying that I'm not of those "Yeah, you just won a couple of titles, you are a great fighter!" types. Kessler is a strong European fighter, in other words limited stylistically, in a historically weak division.

Historically... What does that mean to how good the current fighters are? That sounds like you trying to make up a story to suit your own agenda.

Fact is that right now it is one of the strongest divisions in boxing.

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 06 May 2008, 08:57

Kessler is Woodhall with a big right hand. Ok, bit of a rough translation but that what sticks out to me.

Froch is harder to judge, I'm just relieved he's getting a chance to prove his worth before its too late.

BTW, is there anyone who knows there way around the WBC conference and rating system than Mick Hennessey?

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 06 May 2008, 09:31

Coco wrote: In fact it was the knockdown which kept the scores close

It was one point, not that much of a big deal. It gave Hopkins a one point win on my card, and a one point win on Adelaine Byrd's card.

So it STILL would have been close on most peoples card - a 115-112 fight is still close IMO.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » 06 May 2008, 09:58

Max Molyneux wrote:What doesn't have bollocks.

HBO seemed to score It the same as me too.

Kessler was strong but he was pretty easily outboxed.

Take your blinkers off son, it was a great win for Joe but only by around 3/4 rounds at best.

What is all this "godly" bollocks?!

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » 06 May 2008, 10:02

theHitman wrote:
Terry D wrote:
black panther wrote:I'll hold my hands and say I picked Kessler to beat Calzaghe. Where is all this nonsense coming from that Kessler isnt a good fighter? I mean he dominated Mundine in Australia - Mundine is a very talented fighter. And Joe admitted Kessler stunned him a few times. And Kessler definitely won more than three rounds against Calzaghe - those uppercuts he landed were pure class. Froch definitely wouldnt blow through Kessler - a really good fight but I feel Carl doesnt have the reflexes to fight like he does(left hand so low etc) - but he does have a good chin and power- two things which means you always have a chance in a fight.
No one is saying that he is not good, I'm personally just saying that I'm not of those "Yeah, you just won a couple of titles, you are a great fighter!" types. Kessler is a strong European fighter, in other words limited stylistically, in a historically weak division.
Historically... What does that mean to how good the current fighters are? That sounds like you trying to make up a story to suit your own agenda.

Fact is that right now it is one of the strongest divisions in boxing.

What is? Super middleweight?!

Chambers2 · Post by **Chambers2** » 06 May 2008, 11:03

DavidPayne wrote: BTW, is there anyone who knows there way around the WBC conference and rating system than Mick Hennessey?

Definately not, Howard Eastman and Junior Witter have certainly benefited with Micks persistance and knowledge of the WBC