Hopkins vs. Kessler

You call me weak and you pull out this cliche?

 

Best ignore his brown nosing antics.

 

I would've gone for some sort of homoerotic insinuation but brown-nosing works too.

 

Although Kessler has multi-dimensional limitations, and his adaptibility was abscent when he fought Calzaghe, he would be much more difficult for Hopkins than Pavlik was:

1) Pavlik moving up in weight to face Hopkins was his first mistake. One of his biggest advantages @ middleweight was his size, and strength. Going up lessened if not took away those advantages. It was allready shown as a probelm vs. Taylor #2. Kessler though, is allready @ or very close to Hopkins weight so moving up is not a factor

2) Kessler is a lot faster than Pavlik. Kessler was almost as fast as Calzaghe. Hopkins noticible speed advantage was key to how easily he handled Pavlik's offense.

3) Kesslers ring movement is much better than Pavlik. Pavlik plods forward like a zombie, Kessler moves side to side in and out much more and on faster, quicker feet.

4) Kessler puts distance between himself and his opponent very well. With the exception of Calz. Kessler has maintained his distance advantage in all of his fights. This could give Hopkins some problems if Kessler uses good movement and Hopkins follows him around the ring offensively and defensively, and gets tired in the process. Pavlik was there all night, moving straight in, allowing Hopkins to set up his punches without wasting a lot of energy

5) Kesslers defense is way better than Pavlik. Pavlik has made a habit of getting hit and out willing his opponents. He's always been easy to hit, so Hopkins took advantage of that fact and combined with his own great defense, he was able to cruise. Kessler is much harder to hit because of the distance he maintains with his movement and jab, and speed.

5) Kesslers punches are straighter, more accurate, and get to his opponent way faster. Hopkins would have less time to react.


6) Kessler and Hokpkins have 1 thing in common, both lost to Calzaghe. The biggest difference was Kessler fought to win and Hopkins fought to survive and spoil.

7) Health of the fighters. This in itself is debatable, but it's been reported that Pavlik had bronchitis and a fever the night he fought Hopkins. Judging by how slow Pavlik looked on fight night, I think at least part of his performance was effected because he was sick. Then there are also reports of Kessler injuring his (hand I think), and that he sacracficed some training recovering from the injury. I doubt the outcomes of their fights would have been much different if they were both totally healthy but it's enough to raise an eyeborw or two

 

Most people don't seem to remember the Andrade and Mundine fights - Kessler ********* them and used tremendous footwork - something guys like Pavlik just don't have.
Another thing, Hopkins didn't nearly beat Calzaghe by a long shot. Watch the FOTC, where the commentators say: "remember, when there are lots of clinches it counts against the man who instigates them in the scoring". Hopkins clinched half the fight.
Another example: Scoring of Andrade - Bute. Seriously, check it out.

 

why did they just censor the word "outboxed"?

 

For your information, of all kesslers opponensts only about 4-5 were European, the rest were American, South african, Australian, Canadian or latino.

Best name on his resume IMO is Beyer or Mundine. Maybe not huge name outside their home countries, but he way he beat them is what impressed people. And Mundine was #2-3 at SMW for years AFTER the Kessler loss.

 

edit

 

Well said.:good

Kessler is not only faster than Pavlik, he's faster than Hopkins. I suspect he also hits a lot harder than Hopkins as well. He doesn't punch as much as Calzaghe, but he'll definitely outwork the old man, and he ain't no one and done fighter, he throws combinations and if he gets hit, he always comes back with something. This fight will not happen.

 

edit

 

edit

 

Wow, poll is split exactly down the middle.

 

Wasn't directed at you mate.