The thing is he is fighting an excellent boxer at range, the one-two is the best thing to use against Ward, especially the jab. He showed an excellent uppercut against Calzaghe, he's thown a great left hook a few other times, but against Ward the one-two is his best option.
YOu haven't looked at Kessler fight and it is obvious. His head movements are perfect, his jab is one of the best around, his guard is stiff and he has excellent hook and uppercut, I do not see any arguments why he isn't good, hell, most specialists even see him winning the 6 men tournament, the guy's no fluke at all, you can hate him but it is not a reason to become irrational.
Hidden Content
That's the way it is, not the way it ends
Comparing Kessler to the likes of Hopkins and Calzaghe is unfair.
What made Hopkins and Calzaghe so great was their ability to fight coming forward or on the backfoot effectively.
From what i've seen from Kessler, he is most effective boxing behind his jab and using his jab to set up his strong fast right hand or putting combos together.
Kessler is the perfect example of a conventional boxer, he is well rounded, good jab, solid defense, uses his footwork effective, dangerous hard right hand, solid left hook and uppercut, is good at putting punches together. He also has surprisingly good handspeed plus good power especially with his right hand.
Overall Kessler is a good technician.
Only GREAT technicians can fight inside and outside effectively.
Exactly who has Mikkel Kessler beaten who's really that good ? i mean his best win is probably Anthony Mundine, and that was a tough close fight. Which was a good win but who else really ? Librado Andrade ? i agree Mikkel Kessler is a good fighter, but i feel he is a bit overrated.
We don't really know how good he is he's still a bit unproven IMO, he was beaten handily by Joe Calzaghe. And he hasn't fought any notable fighter since Joe Calzaghe, im not saying he's fought all tomato can's, but we don't really know how good he is yet.
Atleast Chad Dawson has beaten a legit top world class fighter, like Tomasz Adamek. And despite his other 3 best wins, being against older fighters. There still 3 good wins and Antonio Tarver was coming off a real good performance, and Glen Johnson had no signs of slowing down. And Eric Harding was still considered a good fighter.
And remember the last time Glen Johnson was beaten so handily, was probably against Bernard Hopkins in 1997. Everyone wanted to see Chad Dawson beat Glen Johnson more convincingly in the rematch, and he did so top marks to him.
And i know the rematch with Antonio Tarver was a waste a time, but its still two good wins over a good fighter, and remember Antonio Tarver isn't that old in terms of proffessional fighting, because he was a late starter.
Last edited by ICB; 11-10-2009 at 03:31 PM.
I have no problems with somebody thinking Dawson is superior, that's all a matter of brainstorming and making hypothesis and Dawson is not a bad boxer at all so though I think Kessler would make it, I wouldn't argue vehemently against it if just voicing that I think Kessler, in my opinion, i better. But to say that Kessler is not technical is all another thing and I just can't agree with that.
Hidden Content
That's the way it is, not the way it ends
some of you aren't getting the difference between a textbook fighter and being a technician.
arguello was textbook and a technician.
someone who's as incompetent as kessler is at IN-FIGHTING can't possibly be called a technician.
i guess it depends on how u define that term.
Last edited by sumkalambay; 11-11-2009 at 02:57 PM.
dawson beats the shit out of him. i can't believe people actually thought kessler would beat him.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks