Billy Conn Vs M. Kessler

I would go with Conn for the reasons you have stated along with the fact that he is much more proven.

I remain interested in Keslers future career however.

 

Conn and Calzaghe are very similar fighters as they both throw a lot of punches ,like to mix it up,good chin and stamina,can box when have to,and all of this spells bad match up for Kessler.........But as a poster previously stated i like kessler as well and have followed his career and will continue to do so and wish him luck because hes a very good fighter and a classy guy

 

Kessler outboxes Conn easily. Conn didn't do that well against fast skillful boxers (not to mention the beginning of his career).

 

You're never short of a surprise.

Conn by decision for me, better technically and damn tough.

 

Conn wasn't very talented (as his early career showed, and the latter part confirmed) and can't adjust well when things are not quite favorable to him.

 

Ediie Futch used to pin pictures of Conn in action all over his gym walls as an example of "how it should be done". He said he never saw a better fighter at 175.

What would he know tho :hey

 

Conn was a worker, doing it the hard way. When being in trouble, he's not adjusting to it by cleverness and skills, but rather just tries to outwork the opponent in later rounds and edge it out that way (but he's not even close to Calzaghe for workrate, sorry). His defence wasn't very good either, as the number of KD's shows. Old-timers are telling a lot of stories. Charley Burley, while prety good on film, doesn't come close to the ideal boxer some described him.

 

Kessler is an unfinished work. Too early to judge.

I do believe he is quite gifted and skilled. Only an immaculate fighter like Calzaghe could beat him.

 

this is unfair to kessler, who is in the middle of his career and has the disadvantage of being an active fighter and not one that fought 60 years ago.

fighters of the past are traditionally regarded as better than their counterparts of the present.
empirical evidence to this can be found throughout boxing history, just read some old issues of ring magazine.

anyway, from what i have seen, kesslers boxing talents, his speed and power are certainly comparable to those of conn.

its too early to tell if he also has the character to go with those talents.

but he certainly has the potential.

 

Conn imo

 

Billy Conn would have beaten Mikkel Kessler with room to spare, but that dosen't detract at all from Kessler's worth as a fighter at all. Conn was just one of the very greatest fighters of history, and particularly at lightheavyweight. Conn always embodied the fighting attributes and the character of The Greatest Generation, if you know what I mean.

 

Kessler by lopsided decision. :good