Did Calzaghe 'school' Kessler

Yes, and those people are idiots. atsch

 

Often happens, a good fighter gets beaten by a better fighter, the better fighter shows the blueprint on how to beat the good fighter, and then the good fighter gets beaten again, a good example of this was people saying Hopkins has a good win over an undefeated G Johnson who then got beaten again in his next fight by a lesser fighter or Barrera being beaten by Pacquiao 2nd time on points and then being totally beaten a weight up against Khan even if a headbutt did play a massive part. But yeah Ward did do a good job on an already beaten fighter, it would have been such a big win if Kessler had still been undefeated.

Back to the thread no it wasnt a schooling by Calzaghe, in the 1st half Kessler was in it but the 2nd half was clearly Calzaghe who pulled away down the stretch

 

Many but definately not most

 

Not even close. It was a good competetive fight. Kessler won 4 rounds, maybe 5. He was getting schooled in some rounds, but not throughout the fight.

 

Nah. No schooling. Calzaghe did what he always used to do to outdistance himself from an opponent who could fight with him on relatively equal terms. He would shorten up his punches and pretend he was back in the amateurs. If Calzaghe could touch his gloves to your face or body that counted for him, no matter how weak the contact. Chris John has a way of doing this as well. There's nothing fancy or interesting about it.

 

You could be right, but they are both undefeated, with world class fighters on there resumes, John even has Marquez on his

 

Calzaghe lost to Hopkins. John lost to Marquez. But otherwise I agree for the most part.

 

No they didnt.
I havent seen the John, Marquez fight to comment but thought Calzaghe beat Hopkins clearly. Though this isnt the thread and a complete different subject. Its one of those fights that I dont think anyone ever agrees on, and both seem to have alot of passionate fans that only see it one way

 

Marquez won clearly. And yeah, the British nationals and Gentiles, Nordics, and Slovians who didn't like the "White boy" remark or Hopkins in general like to insist Calzaghe deserved the nod. OBJECTIVE fans who score fights based on actual punches landed - which Harold Lederman has gone on record as stating is "90% of scoring," had Hopkins the clear winner. Calzaghe successfully attempted to steal the fight by wading in over and over, simply moving his arms, hitting nothing but air. By that criteria, De La Hoya should have beaten Mayweather 9-3 or 10-2.

To each their own. No need for discussion. At this point people just make their statements, and that's appropriate. For myself and the folks who clearly understand Hopkins won that fight, there is always a basis for the argument. That's how it's ALWAYS been. No nonsense or other assorted crybaby excuses about **** that has nothing to do with anything. It's the same people crying about Andre Ward, Andre Dirrell, or whoever, or whatever the **** else.

 

yes he did step up his game. but Calzaghe wasn't even prime and he still came out on top

 

Not really Cal laid the Blue print. it's easier the second time around. Cal exploited Kesslers Weakness. ward just added his Head to the Formula and Wha La :yep

 

Wow you seem worked up.
Some people did score clearly for Hopkins, it was one of those fights, but most didnt. For me I didnt overly care who won, it was an awful boring fight.
I would say though, if Hopkins thought he was winning, why do you think he was trying to get points deducted on a fight that folk should clearly understand?
Im sure if Hopkins - Jones goes the distance we'll be on here debating that one as well.
I did read some reports that had De La Hoya ahead of Maywheather, and an article, I forget what magazine but the journalist was debating the Hopkins - Calzaghe fight, he had Hopkins a winner, and asked 9 other experts to comment, I remember one was Manny Steward and I think one was Saad Muhammed but all the 9 experts had Calzaghe as the winner, Manny couldnt understand why theres was contraversy.
On Froch vs Dirrell the 2 reports Iread on the fight in The Ring and Boxing News both had Froch a close winner

 

Oh, STFU... :rofl NATIONALIST **** NOOB. Whiny *****.

 

This must be personnal for you, such a shame you feel that way, glad I dont care enough to get so personnal

 

Personnal? :rofl Nah, bailey. We're just tired of hearing the same old NATIONALIST horse****.