Classic Forum Opinions...

Looks like I am the only one on this thread who made a detailed prediction and named the winner with any certainty? Sizzle made another detailed prediction, but wasn't confident enough to name a winner, leaving himself a loophole for escape.
Nobody else dares to take responsibility for making a detailed prediction of a 50-50 fight that is actually going to happen, to prove their historical matchups predictions are real thing, and not spun out of thin air?

 

I have predicted Calzaghe to win barring hand injury. While there is a loophole there it is a verry specific one.

 

Posts 22, 25, 27 operate with very vague and general terms. Too fast, unless you are right about Joe's falling off, slightly better fighter, quick enough, not smart enough. This is not a detailed prediction per se. One needs to point out what one and the other fighter will be trying to do, why one or both won't be successful at what they do, and how they gonna change their tactics accordingly.

Predicting a result means little. You have to give detailed prediction. Anyone can put their money on black/white/zero, but why don't you try to guess the number the ball is going to stop at?

This is also a good chance to prove one's qualification even for those who haven't seen enough of one or both fighters, as I have doubts they have better knowledge about fighters of the past, and yet all the time make predictions of the winner or virtual matchups of old-timers and the manner how it's going to happen.

 

The evidence in ths match-up is such you cannot give a even 60% accurate prediction unless you are inside both camps and picked something up that will determine the fight.

So any neutral looking from outside can only surmise that Calzaghe's experience or Kessler's possible edge in physicality will be the difference.

Calzaghe is more experienced and is fighting at home; Kessler maybe a better physical specimen... So the percentages are slightly in Calzaghe's favour, but not enough for any prediction to be anything other than a hunch.

So to go for Cazaghe by close decision with provisos (hands hold up) seems fair.

 

How often, and how Kessler is going to react to this? I think you mentioned Mundine fight, who has quick feet and hands just as quick as today's Calzaghe. It didn't work.

Do you want to say that Kessler is better at slugging it out at Calzaghe's best range (where he will be coming to according to you)?

What is a higher gear?

 

You want to say that all predictions in virtual matchup threads on this forum are BS then?

 

You want to say today's Calzaghe is so good and such a master of nullifying a jab, that Kessler's jab won't be an issue at all?
I don't know what fights of Calzaghe and Mundine you've seen to say Calzaghe "leans" far better, ie has a better upper body movement than Mundine. From watching their fights, I think it's obvious it's the other way around. As for angles, Calzaghe uses footwork for angles better than Mundine, but for angles of attack I'd again say Mundine's are more unpredictable.

You said "may lose early exchanges", how exactly is this connected with "won't dominate"?

Taking risks is a vague thing, that doesn't explain how he's gonna be solving the task of getting to mid or close range past Kessler's jab and neutralize Kessler's footwork.
Calzaghe doesn't have experience vs. somebody with such jab, how is it going to help him if he faced nobody even close to Kessler's style? Besides, there were hundreds or thousands of examples, when experience didn't help when two great fighters met. Why would it be an issue here?

 

It is very unlikely that we ever see a prime Robinson fight a prime Leonard etc...

So all you can do it hypothesis on an outcome.

The same goes Calzaghe/Kessler until 1:30 Sunday morning

 

Some hypothesis may have a higher probability than others. Some may even have much higher than 50%, and thus can be used for prediction. The point is, if a person can't analyze and make a prediction of a match between two well-known fighters, then, perhaps, any of their predictions of virtual matchups are meaningless, as they obviously are lacking the skills to make such predictions?

 

The beauty of an Hypothesis is you can argue anything. I could say a Chuck Gardner would beat Frank Bruno nine times out of ten, because he was good enough to beat Jimmy Young and Mike Tyson...

But the strength of that argument is flawed by the fact that Young was years past his best when he lost to Gardner; Gardner did beat Mike Tyson, but it was perhaps not one you are thinking of and not least because Bruno beat Gardner in a minute in their one meeting.

My Hypothesis is not wrong, there would be a chance no matter how small Gardner could of won the next nine fights with Bruno, but it would be extremely unlikely.