none are graced with a certain attribute that makes a great fighter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Froch/Calzaghe/Kessler - none of those are graced with a certain attribute that makes a great fighter.

---

A quote by Hatton The Hammer. Not picking on him per-se but I thought that was way off and I see these great attributes they both share

Calzaghe had great speed, volume and fitness that lasted forever coupled with heart and desire. He was very smart with excellent footwork and superb chin.

Kessler is as fundamentally sound a fighter their is, the guy is perfect textbook down to the tee, with decent power and great chin.

I was curious to see what others thought, maybe I'm way off on this

My point was they all made the best of their abilitys and none of the three relied on a certain skill to get the job done in a fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

My point was they all made the best of their abilitys and none of the three relied on a certain skill to get the job done in a fight.

---

Kessler relies on tight textbook fundamentals and a solid base to get the job done, he is absolute presicion.

Calzaghe throwing a million punches around was defensive as well, when you get your punches off in volume and angles it severly impedes what your opponent throws back, even if there not hurting there still causing a distraction..

Those above 2 guys are special fighters with intangibles to go with their skill set.. Calzaghe finished his career in rare form, where as Kessler has tremendous upside... Froch is not on that level or conversation of those guys.. Even if he beats Dirrell in 2 rounds it wont put him in that company. If he wins the tournament then I will vacillate on my position

JoeCal is head and shoulders above Froch and Kessler......Most of Joe's punches were arm punches and he still hit hard enough to make fighters shell up and give him respect.....

To be fair only Calzaghe has proven himself a great fighter so far, and I guess stateside at least his importance from an all time historical perspective may still not be the level of Jones Jr, Hopkins, Mayweather, Toney or even guys like Morales, Barrera, Pacquaio, Mosely etc.

Kessler is very good but has not yet proven he is great. Wins over Beyer and Mundine do not an elite fighter make. He needs to win the Super Six to be considered great imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JT Rock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

My point was they all made the best of their abilitys and none of the three relied on a certain skill to get the job done in a fight.

---

Kessler relies on tight textbook fundamentals and a solid base to get the job done, he is absolute presicion.

Calzaghe throwing a million punches around was defensive as well, when you get your punches off in volume and angles it severly impedes what your opponent throws back, even if there not hurting there still causing a distraction..

Those above 2 guys are special fighters with intangibles to go with their skill set.. Calzaghe finished his career in rare form, where as Kessler has tremendous upside... Froch is not on that level or conversation of those guys.. Even if he beats Dirrell in 2 rounds it wont put him in that company. If he wins the tournament then I will vacillate on my position

---

That itself vindicates my point

He doesnt rely on a certain "attribute" to get the job done

Concentrate very hardly on the word thats been paraphrased

Joe has great work rate condition and talent, decent chin and a lot of heart. His hands were brittle which held him back.

;D ;D ;D Joe Calzaghe was a fantastic natural athlete, elite level athleticism and a lot of his success was based on that, namely elite speed and elite natural conditioning (not saying he didn't work on it but some people are just more naturally energetic and have more natural stamina and Joe fits that bill. If you don't believe that just look around, I don't know any boxers but I know some people that just have far more energy than others and they usually have good stamina)

Not to say he wasn't just a great athlete, he had good skills, good chin and that ability to adjust during the course of a fight that a lot of top fighters have. But he was phenomenally talented, I know Hatton compares Froch and Joe in how they don't have that elite talent that some top fighters have but that's just not true in Joe's case, in Froch's case yes yes yes.

Interestingly Joe had bad Hands when He turned Pro. It was down to not wearing Bandages.I remember Micky Duff His 1st managrr going balistic about it, Joe when younger could punch hard. He developed the technique of Hitting the other guys gloves rapidly so the other guy couldnt get off ;D thought that was clever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

My point was they all made the best of their abilitys and none of the three relied on a certain skill to get the job done in a fight.

---

Disagree, for example, Calzaghe was throwing a tremendous amount of punches for a guy of his size, relying on incredible handspeed and great endurance, I think that these 2 attributes are part of what makes a boxer great or not. He also showed a very good heart, getting up from a solid knocked down against Both Roy Jones and Hopkins to come forward and nods the victory.
Kessler has an impeccable technique, solid chin and a heavy load of power in his gloves, I think that being able to have a great technique, a solid chin and power are as well ingredients to build up a champion.

Why does a fighter need a 'certain attribute'? what does that even mean? ???


???isn't beating the best and proving yourself over and over the test, or must you also develop a Mike Tyson Punch Out cartoon style uppercut to be considered great ? ???