i guess since b-hop beat KP all the excuses are that b-hop had a bad night im a big b-hop fan but he was just in there with a better fighter in JOE
Kessler is too robotic to be competetive against Dawson, which is why Palle turned that fight down outright. And even if by some miracle Kessler were to beat Dawson, it proves zero about a potential Calzaghe-Dawson matchup. You should know better than to cite the Fighter A-B-C triangle theory by now. :deal
calzaghes win over hopkins, proved his talent, who shortly after molested the hype train pavlik.. his career is very similar to hopkins actually. should kessler improve a do good, it would enhance joes legacy, but to me he has already proved to ba a really good fighter..
Hrazuz kyrfafpaf.... TOZEZO! Mugtatu Ghraaaaaaaaa...... Hey guys, help me juice up this voodoo spell I'm casting to off Palle
I'm not much of a resume guy, but it's abundantly clear the people who defend Calzaghe's record in the face of criticisms that he "lost to Hopkins" and "beat a shot Jones" fall back heavily on Kessler. That's just the play by play of it. If Kessler turns bust it will reflect negatively on "Calzaghe's best win." Again, not my thing - but this is what I would expect.
Again I say: Kessler is not some prospect. He is not an unproven quantity. He doesn't need to do anything going forward to be a bright spot on Joe's resume...he already is, and if he retired or had his legs bitten off by a shark tomorrow, he still would be. If he suddenly goes to **** in the ring and loses five in a row to Manfredo, Hanshaw, Zuniga, Ikeke, and Sanavia - he still will be. What the **** is people's malfunction with recognizing that? So he never beat an A-level fighter. So ****ing what? He's obviously elite, based on the way he dominated B-level guys. At the time that he fought Joe he was performing at a top level, and was the second best 168 lber in the world. He has nothing to prove for that to be validated as an excellent win for Joe. Boxing fans are idiots.