That doesn't follow. Try an intro to logic. And then mull it over some more. You can learn to think. Yes you can !
No, that's the people who use the Taylor beat Hopkins, so Kessler beats Hopkins theory (while conveniently ignoring the Calzaghe and Pavlik fights) - have a dig at them. Personally I think Hopkins has enough movement, and ability to circle, and take away Kessler jab and give him a real head ache.
It doesn't work like that, even though I think it's foolish to say Kessler dominates Hopkins. Hopkins UD.
Originally Posted by cuchulain This content is protected I would give Bernard great credit if he goes the 12. In the one sense you have beating Hopkins by a controversial SD as an amazing and Great victory, in another you state it would be an achievement for Hopkins just to go the distance with an unproven fighter.
I know it doesn't I've just stated that, see my follow up post, that was a simplified reply to those who were using the Taylor beat Hopkins logic.
Kessler is NOT unproven. And the margin of victory was very clear. I would not rule out a Hopkins victory here, but I would consider surviving twelve rounds with Kessler an achievement for a 44 year old.
Kessler IS unproven at elite level, and the margin of victory in the Calzaghe v Hopkins fight was not very clear. Some people even have Hopkins winning. If you have Hopkins struggling to finish a fight with Kessler then fair enough that is your opinion.
That's maybe a bit harsh, but I think Bernard has too many tricks up his sleeve for Kessler. I'm surprised so many have voted for Mikkel. :hey
Hopkins by UD and then stares down the entire press row while eating some danish cookies to rub his victory in Kesslers face even more.