Who should Kessler fight in his next match?

[Mikkel_K]

I like Kessler a lot, I was cheering for him against Calzaghe, and I'd cheer for him against almost any other SMW, but his recent opposition has been nothing short of laughable.

At the end of the day Kessler has bounced back from the Calzaghe defeat by re-conquring a belt and then going to his mandatory's home turf to knock him out.

Surely more interesting matches could be made - and I hope, they will be in the near future [1] - but it could have been worse too. As bad as Sartison and Häussler were (esp. Häussler), they were highly ranked by WBA, and both of them are as good as anyone Froch and Pascal have ever beaten. The only better wins at 168 this year imo than Sartison was Inkin's against Zuniga and Bute's against Andrade. And as for that last one...

[1] As stated before the Kessler camp has been talking of fighting in the US next. Apparently HBO would like to have him on in February or March.

[CFH]

I like Kessler a lot, I was cheering for him against Calzaghe, and I'd cheer for him against almost any other SMW, but his recent opposition has been nothing short of laughable.

At the end of the day Kessler has bounced back from the Calzaghe defeat by re-conquring a belt and then going to his mandatory's home turf to knock him out.

Surely more interesting matches could be made - and I hope, they will be in the near future [1] - but it could have been worse too. As bad as Sartison and Häussler were (esp. Häussler), they were highly ranked by WBA, and both of them are as good as anyone Froch and Pascal have ever beaten. The only better wins at 168 this year imo than Sartison was Inkin's against Zuniga and Bute's against Andrade. And as for that last one...

[1] As stated before the Kessler camp has been talking of fighting in the US next. Apparently HBO would like to have him on in February or March.

IMO, at the end of the day Kessler has taken two gimme's and showed real reluctance to take on a real challenge. One gimme fight for a belt after the Calzaghe fight I can stomach, but two (and it looks like 3) gimme fights in a row is absurd for a fighter who wants to lay claim to the title of the best 168lber. I don't think I need to address the lack of legitimacy in the sanctioning bodies ranking systems either.

I'd argue that Froch, though arguably not Pascal, presents a more legitimate fight than either Hausser or Sartison.

[Rantcatrat]

How about Kessler fighting Hopkins or Winkie?

[CFH]

How about Kessler fighting Hopkins or Winkie?

I'd be glad to see either one of those fights made as well, though I doubt Hopkins would be interested.

[Clanger]

As if anyone can debate Kessler with a forum member called Mikkel K ?

Froch is all wrong for Kessler and would stop the Dane.

World amateur pedigree, world amateur finalist - he would be up for Kessler.

[Mikkel_K]

IMO, at the end of the day Kessler has taken two gimme's and showed real reluctance to take on a real challenge. One gimme fight for a belt after the Calzaghe fight I can stomach, but two (and it looks like 3) gimme fights in a row is absurd for a fighter who wants to lay claim to the title of the best 168lber. I don't think I need to address the lack of legitimacy in the sanctioning bodies ranking systems either.

I'd argue that Froch, though arguably not Pascal, presents a more legitimate fight than either Hausser or Sartison.

I dont get why it looks like 3? I also dont get why Kessler is reluctant to take on real challenges, having fought Mundine in Australia, Andrade as a mandatory and attempted unification in Cardiff against the current p4p #2.

As for your last argument I actually agree completely, but I still just dont get the "Why is he fighting x? Who has he ever beat, he should be fighting Froch instead" kind of arguments (not so much presented by you, but heard many times before, not only with Kessler but also with the likes of Calzaghe). Froch has yet to beat a top 25-fighter himself.

[CFH]

IMO, at the end of the day Kessler has taken two gimme's and showed real reluctance to take on a real challenge. One gimme fight for a belt after the Calzaghe fight I can stomach, but two (and it looks like 3) gimme fights in a row is absurd for a fighter who wants to lay claim to the title of the best 168lber. I don't think I need to address the lack of legitimacy in the sanctioning bodies ranking systems either.

I'd argue that Froch, though arguably not Pascal, presents a more legitimate fight than either Hausser or Sartison.

I dont get why it looks like 3? I also dont get why Kessler is reluctant to take on real challenges, having fought Mundine in Australia, Andrade as a mandatory and attempted unification in Cardiff against the current p4p #2.

As for your last argument I actually agree completely, but I still just dont get the "Why is he fighting x? Who has he ever beat, he should be fighting Froch instead" kind of arguments (not so much presented by you, but heard many times before, not only with Kessler but also with the likes of Calzaghe). Froch has yet to beat a top 25-fighter himself.

This article makes it look like 3, maybe even 4 (though Larsen would never beat Bute): Lucian Bute vs. Mads Larsen in The Works For Early 09

I think in the past, Kessler was more than willing to take on real challenges, it was one of the attributes that made me a fan of his, but since Calzaghe he's seemed different in that regards.

As for your last point, I have to same problem with people saying that type of thing, but in some instances it is founded, though, again like you (I think), I find it is often an unfounded claim or at least one that is made in regards to wanting to see fight x matched up against a different unproven fighter (IE Froch).

I'd rather Kessler fought a Bute or a Taylor/Lacy, but if he doesn't fight them, for whatever reason, I'd rather see him take on a highly-touted up and comer like Froch than someone like Larsen.

[Mikkel_K]

This article makes it look like 3, maybe even 4 (though Larsen would never beat Bute): Lucian Bute vs. Mads Larsen in The Works For Early 09

I'm fairly sure Boxingscene got things mixed up. What the Kessler-camp has been quoted saying in Danish media (from which the other information is taken too) is that they are looking for a US-fight in March, and that the WBA-title has to be defended against another mandatory within 9 months. Perdomo looks like the likely mandatory, but nothing points towards him being the next opponent.

[CFH]

This article makes it look like 3, maybe even 4 (though Larsen would never beat Bute): Lucian Bute vs. Mads Larsen in The Works For Early 09

I'm fairly sure Boxingscene got things mixed up. What the Kessler-camp has been quoted saying in Danish media (from which the other information is taken too) is that they are looking for a US-fight in March, and that the WBA-title has to be defended against another mandatory within 9 months. Perdomo looks like the likely mandatory, but nothing points towards him being the next opponent.

As a Kessler fan, I hope you are correct and that this is untrue:

"Kessler will make a voluntary defense; his next opponent may be Gusmyl Perdomo (15-2, 9KOs) of Colombia."

I guess for his HBO debut they'll probably feed him a relatively easy opponent anyways. Not that I would blame Kessler for that, it seems to be the way it goes for a fighter making his HBO debut.

[Mikkel_K]

As a Kessler fan, I hope you are correct and that this is untrue:

"Kessler will make a voluntary defense; his next opponent may be Gusmyl Perdomo (15-2, 9KOs) of Colombia."

I guess for his HBO debut they'll probably feed him a relatively easy opponent anyways. Not that I would blame Kessler for that, it seems to be the way it goes for a fighter making his HBO debut.

Kessler has fought Andrade and Calzaghe on HBO before, so it wouldnt be his debut. And yeah, I'm fairly sure that that sentence mixes two different things (mandatory and voluntary) up. But we shall see - hopefull before too long