Printable View
This is logically inconsistent. If Kessler is the #2 SMW, then he's better than Lacy. Meaning that if Lacy is the best name on Joe's resume, then Joe actually has no names on his resume that are better than Kessler.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
Unless you meant that Joe's resume is better than Kessler's by virtue of Kessler not having beaten anyone as good as Lacy?
How is it logically inconsistant? Yes I RATE Joe higher, because of his beating LACY. And yes I do not rate anyone else on Joe's resume to be better than Kessler (Lacy would be an option however, I have to move him down because of the defeat). I don't see the flaw in my logic. Kessler is still undefeated and has two belts, just like Joe the only difference on paper is the conquest of Lacy IMO. Yes I do take into account wins and losses especially when it was a huge blowout. IMO I believe that Kessler will do better against Calzaghe than Lacy did, only time will tell though.Quote:
Originally Posted by shza
Going by this footage Joe would p*ss all over kessler, he cant fight in exchanges and trys nothing different to the jab right hand, Joe would have him out thought before he got to the ring, at least lacy threw some hooks.
Beyer was unlucky, he was the less amaturish looking of the two and may have come on late, he got caught with that One punch but really that was all he got caught with. Mikkels defence consits of leaning back and moving back, no side to side movement or anything that would help his cause against joe.
It really did look like an amature match not an expierienced title holder uniting with the young gun of the division, as long as Joes hands hold up id let him take this fight.
kessler is not hard to hit or out think or out fight, I think hed get a bit caught in the spotlight like Lacy did when Joe opens up on him, he hasnt faced a any one who has anything resembling Joes aggressiveness or quickness.
Joe had to tough out his fight because he made it that way, kessler, credit to him, stopped beyer but up until that point he looked very ordinary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcrrelZxSkE
No worries. I just interpreted you to mean something other than what you meant. You said "the only name that Joe has on his resume that's better is Lacy," which I interpreted to mean that "the only name that Joe has on his resume that's who's better than Kessler is Lacy." This would have been logically inconsistent with saying that Kessler is better than Lacy, obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
But you actually meant my second guess, namely that:
So, no inconsistency, and we can stop this part of the thread before it gets any nerdier or more nit-picky than I've already made it. Cheers!Quote:
Originally Posted by shza