We'll agree to disagree. Toney himself, Hopkins and Tyson would agree that Barkley eats a kid like that up. Different era my man
Not at all, he was tough, he looked it to, but Toney would not fear this man in anyway shape or form.
You can't bring the hood in to the ring with you, he might've run **** on the streets but it's pro boxing bud, skills what count. Kessler survives some rocky spots but his IQ is better, he can box him imo
I hold all those guys in high regard but Kessler is someone who transcends (or at least is hardly exemplary of the general mediocrity of) his era, IMO.
I’ve never truly decided exactly HOW good Mikkel Kessler was. He was obviously a very durable fighter who could both box and punch to some degree and had some good wins. Iran Barkley was a warrior who showed no fear and mixed it up with some of the best. At the same time however was inconsistent. Not sure who wins but I’m leaning towards Kessler by a decision
Kessler was clearly very ordinary. A lovely guy but that doesn't win you boxing matches. Marcus Beyer was no Thomas Hearns. And an old, weight-weak, brittle-handed Calzaghe was hardly a young, dazzling Michael Nunn. Calzaghe was there for the taking that night.
Boxing is intangibles. I thought this forum would appreciate that. Obviously not. If the boxer who looks more conventional and consistent always won (he rarely does at top level), what would be the point in staging fights? There is also size, strength, power, height, reach, chin, toughness, aggression, determination, killer instinct, intimidation; such factors are huge and Iran is light years ahead of this guy. Kessler looked quite neat with his good high guard and straight shots against low level opposition, but Olajide, Hearns and Nunn were dazzlingly skilled boxers and look what Barkley did to them. He did better over 15 against Kalambay than Mike McCallum did.
LaMotta, Marciano and Frazier had no right to beat Robinson, Moore and Ali. And Mikkel Kessler is ordinary!