Kessler - Can He Become The Greatest SMW Ever?

Calzaghe also arguably has the best resume and I want to hear which Kessler wins trumps the following: Eubanks, Hopkins, Jones Jr, Mitchell, Lacy, Reid and Kessler himself?? Then there are quality wins over titlists like Brewer and Woodall.

I was a big critic of Calzaghe's over the years and his competition, which was often dire, but Kessler isn't near Joe resume wise and if he wins this tournament he won't be either.

 

Even H2H, had they fought a rematch, I don't favor Joe too heavily.

 

Well he beat 2 of the men in the tournament didnt he?

 

Wriggling like a worm on a hook!

OK, you explain the difference between these two statements:

Calazghe beat him in his prime, so Kessler can go and build a massive legacy and still be behind Joe

and

Junior Jones beat Barrera in his prime, so Barrera can go and build a massive legacy and still be behind Junior Jones

All that has been substituted is the names.

Look - it works with other names too:

Chris John beat Marquez in his prime, so Marquez can go and build a massive legacy and still be behind Chris John


You can admit this statement:

Calazghe beat him in his prime, so Kessler can go and build a massive legacy and still be behind Joe

is absolute bull****, or you can continue to look stupid.

The choice is yours! :good

 

no he didn't

 

Calzaghe beat him in his prime, but give Kessler time to go back to the drawing board, review the tape, see what worked and what didn't, refine his uppercut, establish a counter hook, figure out how to reserve his strength instead of reacting instinctively to everything Joe did (Kessler's stamina has not been a major concern, outside this fight), put them back in the ring within 6mo-1yr of the first fight - and I guarantee you the Welshman would have stood a very good chance of having his cherry popped before retiring. :good

 

Yeah...not sure what he's talking about, unless there's something from the amateur days I don't know about? None of those guys seem old enough to have fought Joe in the amateurs though...:think Maybe Froch? I know Froch lost to Inkin, but I didn't think he fought Joe.

 

He could do. I'd say its a long shot considering he lost to Calzaghe at his best, but one fight isn't everything of course. It just means he's got a lot to do to make up for that.

Plus Calzaghe's overall record is quite a lot better.

Luckily Kessler has this tournament. If he comes out of it well he could be on the way towards Calzaghe's achivements.

 

I think the loss to Calzaghe will forever be hung over him, so he would have to do something special to be able to surpass him, and the first steps towards that are by winning this tournament.

 

Hey Cherry picker, still avoiding practically all the points I made like the mother****er you are? :good

The difference ****wit is Calzaghe retired undefeated being a champ for 11years pretty much dominating, all the others minus Chris John have losses, and don't have any/many outstanding wins unlike JC. If you can't see that difference, guess what that makes you, well done you're a complete ****wit

Now stick to ****ing your fat ugly mother and avoid ESB :good

 

I thought Bika and Kessler were in it, am I wrong?

 

Bika isn't.

 

There is no doubt that it would require 4 -5 very good years with the right wins. ( a loss might not destroy it). Eg go 14 -1 against the best fighters aruond you division might do it.

The key is that he has to surpass JC in regards quality of opposition by far, in order to surpass the head to head result.

 

Then I am ,Joe has only beat Kessler.

 

You hopeless hopeless ****wit, don't you realize your posts keep proving me right??!

You said this:


Calazghe beat him in his prime, so Kessler can go and build a massive legacy and still be behind Joe


And I called you on it, and now you have changed it completely to this:


Calzaghe retired undefeated being a champ for 11years pretty much dominating


Don't you see you are agreeing with me now and going against your own initial post, you appalling ******?

Your reason for having Calzaghe above Kessler is not, as you stated, purely because Joe beat Kessler. You were talking dogmuck. You and I have combined to prove this! Cheers! :good


atschatschatsch