Kessler interview. (On the Calzaghe fight)

Next time :bbb ? Kessler will smash him:!: ! Calzaghe wants no part of him. We know why:yep

 

Calzaghe has already said this - right after the fight. He knew there was a lottery chance that his negating Kessler tactics would work, and it did.

However, Kessler does not deserve that second chance - he should have gotten it right, when the opportune moment arose - and he didn't.

 

edit

 

Yes, but you forget also that being older can work for you, not only against you. Despite the fact that they almost have the same amount of fights - Calzaghe is more experienced at title fights.

Calzaghe don't make the mistakes that he did as 28.

 

You can´t quite compare things like that!

I actually believes that Kessler would have a greater chance of beating the 28 year old version of Calzaghe than the 35!

The Calzaghe that fought Kessler is the most disciplined Calzaghe I have seen!

 

edit

 

Three years ago, they wouldn't have set up a gameplan whose sole purpose was to negate Kesslers boxing, nor would he have been able to carry it out.

3 years ago, he still punched with less power, than he did at 28. This version of Calzaghe is the only version who could have pulled this off.

 

Completely disagree and note that your fan status of Kessler is the reason you pull this argument.

Calzaghe got caught several times against Kessler in ways that I've never seen him caught before. His next fight against Hopkins saw him get caught and put down by pretty much the first punch that landed on him.

Experience aside, Calzaghe is down in just about every single attribute since his early thirties, with his last truely decisive performance coming against Lacy.

This is the Calzaghe that used to outbox people one handed to shut out decisions.

Calzaghe's tactics for Kessler were off in my view, as you could see after four rounds, where he kept trying to catch Kessler with his straight left, that was where Kessler kept catching him with uppercuts and lead rights.

Once Calzaghe adjusted and worked solely off his jab, outstripping Kessler, the fight wasn't even close from that point on.

That's an ability to adjust that Calzaghe has shown right throughout his career.

Kessler has never shown that ability and that was the ultimate difference.

Kessler at 27 would have lost to the Calzaghe that beat Eubank in my view and in the views of many. It's just a different class and style of boxer.

Kessler has nothing to be ashamed of, like you rightfully pointed out, Calzaghe is a HOF, probable ATG fighter.

 

pretty good read

 

Of course it is my status as Kessler fan, that I am pulling the argument, I have no other thing than my own assumptions to the matter, since from fact, we can't be sure, other than Kessler failed against Calzaghe last november.

Yes, Calzaghe is worse in alot of areas, but he is still fast, has tons of agility, and stamina. Those are his key areas, along with his great adaptability that has only gotten better and better for each given fight - too some extent at least. His experience is far greater than ever before after his great and not so great fights with Brewer, Mitchell, Lacy, and finally Bika. Experience such as his weaknesses and strengths had been laid out there for him, unlike for Kessler, whom had never struggled before. Such experience is far more valuable than power and slightly better speed.

I have all of Calzaghe's fights on my harddrive, and he made tons of mistakes earlier in his career that would be devastating against Kessler - also the fact that he was more - lets say proud or arrogant earlier on. For once JC realized that he was up against something, which might be too much for him at this time in his career, and therefore they constructed a well thought out gameplan to negate Kesslers assets, which pretty much worked from the get go, and only became better and better as Kessler fell behind on pts in close rounds, which opened up Kessler even more, than ever before.

I am not asshamed that Kessler lost to Calzaghe. I believe he is the superior boxer than Kessler, and he showed it. By that I mean also in his success to negate a boxer than noone has shut down before. All I am saying is, is that Calzaghe is more complete than he was at 28, and at that age he wouldn't have shut down Kessler, and therefore would not have won the game by smarts, as he did; Calzaghe outsmarted Kessler, and therefore he won.

 

We can be sure about a few things because we can compare Kessler quite easily to fights Joe has faced in his past and done well against.

We can also point out that the same "thing" that won Joe the fight is something he was better at a few years prior, sticking and moving from the outside.

His experience is the only thing that has increased in my view, offset markedly by decreases in every other attribute. Joe has been adapting his fight style mid fight since Eubank, if you have that fight in your directory, review it and see the changes Joe made from Round 4 onwards after Eubank had more success against his initial style.

To talk about Joe swallowing his pride? No, that only happened after he dropped his hands, tried to throw the lead left out of nothing and got his head snapped back by Kessler.

Prior to that, Joe was his usual clowning self.

You'll note in the later rounds, where clear victory was there and he was just outboxing Kessler easily, he was showboating, clowning around and even fought the last round, rather than ran from it.

Calzaghe didn't out smart Kessler.

Calzaghe beat Kessler at his own game. Calzaghe won that fight solely because he was able to out jab Kessler from the outside and set up the rest of his offense, while putting Kessler off of his own.

That isn't out smarting him, that is using the advantages Joe still had, quicker hands, a snappier jab, better feetwork.

Are you saying at 36 that Joe had more ability with these attributes than he did at 30? Because I just don't see it.

Calzaghe has been beating Kessler level fighters for 10 years, it's why he boasts a 45-0 career record with wins over ATGs ( Eubank, Hopkins ), Euro HOFers ( Reid, Woodhall, Brewer) and up and comers ( Lacy, Kessler, Sheika, Veit, Mitchell, McIntyre, Bika)

Joe beat Bernard Hopkins with his mind, he out styled Bernard and completely took away his weapons.

Joe beat Mikkel Kessler by utilising better weapons, his jab, footwork and speed. It wasn't an intellectual fight like the Hopkins match, it was a fundamental skill fight, Joe's fundamentals were better than Mikkels and they were even better than they are now 5-6 years ago.

 

No, we can't, neither one has faced an opponent of the high skillset that each offered in their different areas.

I fail to see the last part, Kessler has great sense of distance and great timing, and he failed to hit Calzaghe much of the fight. Bika, Brewer, and Mitchell hit Calzaghe far more - and flush. None of those fighters are even in the same ball park as Kessler, in any area.

I have elaborated my post, while you seemingly were typing your response to my original post, but as I see it, his experience from the worst of him(Bika) to the best of him(Lacy) - hell even the experience from the Eubank fight has proven valuable lessons for him. Yes, JC has changed his style much due to his weak hands - he has tried alot of stuff, and tried alot of style because he doesn't have a defining style that wins his fights for him, and by experience he has adopted great sense of what to do, and when to do it.

So experience is key to Calzaghe - from 28-37. Calzaghe made tons of rookie mistakes in the Eubank fight. Letting Eubank back into the game, and being pressed back was a few of them. Calzaghe has always had a fighters heart, which has saved him more than once in his career, and to me, his sheer determination swayed the fight back in his favor.

The late rounds have really nothing to do with my statement. As you say, the fight was pretty much won, as it was very apparent that Kessler had totally gassed from round 6 and up. There was no danger anymore - and not only that - he had lured Kessler out of his comfort zone, and brought the fight to where he is the better - by far. He did not showboat or anything in the like, when Kessler was still a threat, which is not what he did earlier in his career; then he could do it even without impressing, even without being in front. In those fights it was merely an attempt to show the audience, that dispite his lack of performance, he would taunt his opponent out of superiority. Against Kessler it was: "Yes, I have beaten this prime fighter, and now I am taunting him, because he has nothing left in the tank, and I will show the US, and own audience that I am an ATG". Big difference.

As I see it, he shut down Kessler by holding, when Kessler was about to get his jab going, and fighting in a totally different way than Kessler had anticipated - gone were the pitty pat flurries, and in came great counters, and jabs when Kessler lost momentum. If that isn't outsmarting an opponent then I don't know what.

Joe didn't beat Hopkins with anything, than being the superior fighter. It was otherwise a totally unsuccessful fight for Joe. Hopkins managed to shut down Joe throughout the fight, but since he is the far inferior boxer at this point, he was way behind on points.

 

Or you just rate Kessler higher than he deserves to be rated, while underrating guys like Eubank (good jabber, good right hand, tall fighter, strong puncher) or Veit (good jabber, much taller, distance keeper) or Reid (said to be too much a boxer for the crude slugger Joe was and would outbox him all night off of the jab)

Bika, Brewer and Mitchell were in out and out brawls with Calzaghe that he was dominating, he felt no need to jab them from a distance. I like how you pick three of Joe's sloppiest wins, rather than look at the Eubanks, Reids, Woodhalls, Veits and Sheika performances.

Beyond this, I really don't feel I need to add anything based on your country of origin and why you have such diehard appreciation for a countryman.

 

I don't care about what is being said, it was also said that Lacy would be too much for JC.

Thing is that if you have watched a fair share of Kesslers fights you will know that he is much better than anyone JC have ever faced, even Hopkins, with the exception of Eubank, who weren't prime nor at best weight, and called in late.

If you don't understand that Kessler is ten times the boxer than Veit is, then I don't know what. At least Calzaghe acknowledges Kessler as the best he has met, and has declared that he has no interest in meeting Kessler yet again, and I quote: "Kessler will be better, and I am not getting any younger".

When did Reid or Veit ever dismantle the kind of opposition that Kessler has, and it such a way?

You mentioned those, Bika, Brewer and Reid.

To the last bit - oh well... Guess we can't debate Kessler on another date then - and I guess you totally disregard the fact that I said that JC was the better man - so much for being biased. Your choice, I couldn't really care less.

 

JC was not only better at 36, he would have been better at 30, he would have been better at 25.

Kessler is still an unproven person, what wins has he had that makes you believe different? Andrade?

By the way, in the lead up to the Hopkins fight, Joe mentioned Eubank was his toughest fight. I'm sure he'll now rank Hopkins then Eubank as his two toughest fights.

As for giving Kessler a rematch, What does it prove? That he can squander an opportunity to finish his career fighting legends by fighting a guy still unproven at the elite level?