Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Rate Mikkel Kessler...
FightHype Community > BOXING HYPE > Boxing
Pages: 1, 2
The CEO
I'm thinking he was a B- before Calzaghe...and now with that experience and some hard work...he has the potential to be a full B+ someday...

What do y'all think?
BigG
He is the 2nd best at SMW...but there ALOT of guys better then him P4P.
The CEO
Yeah...he's clearly 2nd best at Super Middle...but that's a stepchild division without much competition...

Like what do you rate him as far as A, B, C style...?
BrutalBodyShots
I've got him as a B. Had he fought a closer fight with Calzaghe (who you've got to give an A) I'd be more inclined to give him B+ status, but he was clearly beaten.

Lil-lightsout
Right now about a B, we will see if the Calzaghe loss hurts him or helps him eventually.
BigG
I think he could be B to A- at his very best
Spreadking3rd
Joe Calzaghe is A +

Kessler is A minus at worst

With Jermain Taylor, Pavlik maybe moving up to 168, it gives Kessler a chance to show his skills against other popular fighters.

Kessler has the size to beat a Taylor or Pavlik. Taylor with his chin problem, and Pavlik with his my offense is my defense, it would give Kessler more than a good chance to beat either of them.

If Kessler beats either of them his stock would raise up.

It will be hard to ever overcome the legend of Calzaghe, but Kessler can erase most of it, given the chance.
BrutalBodyShots
I think we all need to be on the same page and define the letter grades the same. Are we talking A, B, C in terms of how good they are in their respective division or in P4P terms? I mean on a P4P level there are no A level cruiserweights or light heavyweights (assuming Hopkins is out of the division) so do we say that the best cruiserweights and light heavyweights out there are simply B's or do we say the best are A's even though they aren't that good compared to the top guys in other divisions?

If you compare Kessler to the top guy in his division (Calzaghe) as I feel most are in this thread, most would say that Calzaghe is of the A caliber and therefore Kessler is somewhere in the B variety as Calzaghe clearly beat him. Had Calzaghe BARELY squeaked by him we could put Kessler at A- perhaps. If we talk in a P4P sense, I don't think Kessler is even that high... because you could easily name 20-30 fighters better than him out there even though they aren't necessarily at or around 168.

BrutalBodyShots
QUOTE(Fitz @ Dec 12 2007, 10:38 PM) [snapback]370266[/snapback]
That's what I find hard Brutal. I usually rate them on there skill, and you see how there skill was matched against good opponents. But someone like Pacquiao who I don't find that great skillwise and IMO not an A class type of skill fighter, it still feels kind of weird saying he is a B level fighter and I am sure saying that would ruffle a few feathers as well.


I agree with that. I would rate Marquez an A and Pacquiao probably a A- or B+ in terms of skill (maybe that's why I'm picking Marquez over him in the rematch?) but Pacquiao certainly possesses the speed+power combo to overcome the disparity in their skills.

The CEO
QUOTE(BrutalBodyShots @ Dec 12 2007, 10:36 PM) [snapback]370262[/snapback]
I think we all need to be on the same page and define the letter grades the same. Are we talking A, B, C in terms of how good they are in their respective division or in P4P terms? I mean on a P4P level there are no A level cruiserweights or light heavyweights (assuming Hopkins is out of the division) so do we say that the best cruiserweights and light heavyweights out there are simply B's or do we say the best are A's even though they aren't that good compared to the top guys in other divisions?

If you compare Kessler to the top guy in his division (Calzaghe) as I feel most are in this thread, most would say that Calzaghe is of the A caliber and therefore Kessler is somewhere in the B variety as Calzaghe clearly beat him. Had Calzaghe BARELY squeaked by him we could put Kessler at A- perhaps. If we talk in a P4P sense, I don't think Kessler is even that high... because you could easily name 20-30 fighters better than him out there even though they aren't necessarily at or around 168.


Yeah...let's get on the same page...I will personally give an A-/A/A+ to a lesser skilled boxer if they can overcome adversity with what they have...like with Pacquaio...the speed/power combo plus the comp he's faced and beaten makes him an A- in my book..

Calzaghe is an A- to me as well....I can't give him a full A...his resume is hindering him.

If I remember correctly, Kessler was stimied and repeatedly kept looking to land the right hand only for almost the entire last half of the fight....it was very amateurish....in a P4P sense, that doesn't cut it...

I'm asking to grade Kessler using any and all criteria you can think of in this P4P sense. It is my feeling that Calzaghe fans rate Kessler higher than what he actually is to make Calzaghe look even better....

Kessler is juuuust above average to me...nothing special.

and for the record, Fitz...I think Pavlik is at least a full B, maybe a B+ right now..... smile.gif ...his package is better than Kessler's (no homo)...

laugh.gif
BigG
Kessler can be a very good fighter in this era...but not a great one.

I think Dawson would probably beat him up.
Fitz
QUOTE(The C.E.O. @ Dec 13 2007, 03:31 PM) [snapback]370277[/snapback]
Kessler is juuuust above average to me...nothing special.

and for the record, Fitz...I think Pavlik is at least a full B, maybe a B+ right now..... smile.gif ...his package is better than Kessler's (no homo)...

laugh.gif


I beg to differ. I thought Kessler was decent in the first half of the fight, but in the second Calazghe outworked and Kessler couldn't keep up at that pace. I think it's common to see a fighter who is getting outworked, out punched late in a fight to start looking for that one big shot. I won't hold it against him though.
I know I sound like a big Mundine nuthugger, but he is actually a very good fighter and I think some people that are not familiar with Mundine don't really appreciate the win Kessler got from there. I think Kessler would smash Pavlik into smithereens.
The Ring Dictator
Depending on how Kessler deals with the loss against Calazaghe... I think he beats both Pavlik and Taylor. A lot of people seem to, still to this day, underestimate Joe Calzaghe. The Welshman is a very special fighter in my opinion.
salvador
I'd take Taylor and Winky over Kessler at 168.
Fitz
Jermaine Taylor to beat Kessler? You are talking about Jermaine right? No way man, Kessler knocks him out.
BigG
I think Winky could beat Kessler....Taylor would be a live dog because of his speed and strenght.
salvador
QUOTE(Fitz @ Dec 13 2007, 08:05 AM) [snapback]370307[/snapback]
Jermaine Taylor to beat Kessler? You are talking about Jermaine right? No way man, Kessler knocks him out.


I've only seen Kessler fight twice, but in both fights he appeared to be just another straightforward Euroboxer who lacked any sort of dynamic trait. You could argue that JT won't use his boxing ability (which he may have forgotten about altogether), but if Taylor jabbed and moved I can't see Kessler landing too many right hands. He's just too slow and predictable. Outside of Kessler's power, I just don't see anything special about him.
BigG
Kessler has good skills but one thing I never liked about him was his defense....
Fitz
QUOTE(salvador @ Dec 13 2007, 11:26 PM) [snapback]370310[/snapback]
I've only seen Kessler fight twice, but in both fights he appeared to be just another straightforward Euroboxer who lacked any sort of dynamic trait. You could argue that JT won't use his boxing ability (which he may have forgotten about altogether), but if Taylor jabbed and moved I can't see Kessler landing too many right hands. He's just too slow and predictable. Outside of Kessler's power, I just don't see anything special about him.


He isn't terribly quick, but I don't know if he is too slow either. I think he has average speed. His boxing ability is decent, not great but I think he is a good all round fighter, he can do a few things. Once again, I don't think people outside of Australia give much credit for his win over Mundine. He more than held his own against Calazghe as well, the fight was pretty even half way into the fight which isn't a bad effort, but in the end it was the volume punching of Calazghe that did it for Kessler. He looked pretty average then after, but up until then, he was doing pretty well.
Taylor hasn't jabbed for a while and he doesn't know how to move either, unless it's moving back. I think you are expecting Taylor to do things he usually doesn't. I would be very confident that Kessler lays Taylor out. He had no trouble handling a quicker, better and stronger fighter in Mundine who is much better than Taylor IMO, so I see no reason as to why he wouldn't lay him out.
The CEO
See...how good Kessler really is is directly related to Calzaghe's P4P rating...this thread was really a roundabout way of trying to establish it...because I believe he's being overrated in the current P4P charts...

He was anywhere from #6-#9 in most lists before the Kessler fight....but now I've seen lists with Calzaghe at #2, and I don't think he deserves to more than #5....

I think Calzaghe is a great boxer...just inside the Top 100 ATGs for all the defenses...but if his biggest wins lately are over Lacy and Kessler (average to a little above average opponents) , why should he be in the Top 4 today?
Southeastpaw
Anyone who ranks Pac a B is high. Look at what the guy has accomplished. A ranking should be on the fighter, not the boxer. There are some very highly skilled boxers that do not accomplish all that much. Therefore something was lacking. IMO, a fighter should be ranked on what he has accomplished, how he did it, AND skillset. Not just skillset alone. If you are ranking purely of skill, you might as well have Spinks an A++++. Spinks is incredibly skilled. But I would rank Pac over him.
Southeastpaw
BTW, I rank Kessler at about an A-
Blayde
Other than Calzaghe the only one I see beating Kessler, at least seeing beating Kessler clearly, is Dawson. Then there are Hopkins, Pavlik and Taylor. I believe Kessler can beat all of them and at least have a 50:50 chance. Right now his loss to Calzaghe doesnt make him look that good because many people still are not that hyped about Calzaghe. But Im pretty sure after the Calzaghe-Hopkins fight Kessler will also be seen as an even better fighter than he is right now.

Its VERY difficult to rate him something like A or B though. For sure Floyd, Pacquiao and Calzaghe are A+ IMO. But then it already starts to become diffcult. Is a p4p top 10 fighter an A+, too? What about a top 20 fighter? For sure they are better than a B, arent they?
I dont feel like Im able to make such a rating. Just like with a p4p rating itself, I got my top 3 but after that its almost impossible.
Mean Mister Mustard
Kessler wan in the Calzaghe fight. I think in a rematch he could do better if only he twaeked some of his flaws. Against Calzaghe he waited too much, it was only in the late rounds when he started to let his hands go that he had success. I am also on the same page as george, the guy needs to improve his defense. When Calzaghe attacked, Kessler backed straight up. A big BOZO NO-NO. Kessler is still young, he could correct those flaws. I doubt it but you never know.
Nobudius
I actually like Kessler-he isn't a top P4P guy, but he CAN become one.

It all depends on how he follows up his first loss.
BrutalBodyShots
Taylor over Kessler at 168? What wrong with you guys.

Taylor can't get past a puncher at 160 but he can take a good punch at 168? Kessler and Pavlik IMO are on par with one another in terms of skill, so if Pavlik was able to land and get Taylor out of there I would think Kessler would be able to do the same at 168.

Until I see Taylor face and beat a puncher I will always pick him to lose to a puncher (like I will pick him to lose to Pavlik in the rematch). Taylor should stick to the Wrights, Oumas and Spinks of the world so he doesn't get his ass knocked out again.

salvador
QUOTE(BrutalBodyShots @ Dec 13 2007, 01:23 PM) [snapback]370354[/snapback]
Taylor over Kessler at 168? What wrong with you guys.

Taylor can't get past a puncher at 160 but he can take a good punch at 168? Kessler and Pavlik IMO are on par with one another in terms of skill, so if Pavlik was able to land and get Taylor out of there I would think Kessler would be able to do the same at 168.

Until I see Taylor face and beat a puncher I will always pick him to lose to a puncher (like I will pick him to lose to Pavlik in the rematch). Taylor should stick to the Wrights, Oumas and Spinks of the world so he doesn't get his ass knocked out again.


You keep coming back to that puncher argument, but he's only got one loss on his resume and he's faced much stiffer competition than Kessler has. And the truth is that if he'd landed one more shot in the (2nd?) round, he'd have ko'd Pavlik and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Pavlik is the strongest puncher at mw and JT took a lot of good shots before he got worn out.

Taylor is more athletic, more fluid, and faster than Kessler. Kessler's only advantage is power. And I'd take Pavlik over Kessler as well due to the volume and accuracy of his shots.
Lil-lightsout
QUOTE(salvador @ Dec 13 2007, 01:08 PM) [snapback]370362[/snapback]
You keep coming back to that puncher argument, but he's only got one loss on his resume and he's faced much stiffer competition than Kessler has. And the truth is that if he'd landed one more shot in the (2nd?) round, he'd have ko'd Pavlik and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Pavlik is the strongest puncher at mw and JT took a lot of good shots before he got worn out.

Taylor is more athletic, more fluid, and faster than Kessler. Kessler's only advantage is power. And I'd take Pavlik over Kessler as well due to the volume and accuracy of his shots.

I diagree. Kesslers got a better chin, stamina, power, and has been at supermiddleweight a long time where Taylor would be just moving up. I think Kessler beat some pretty good fighters too, where again Taylor has struggled with smaller fighters in a couple of his fights. Name a fight where it stood out of Taylors where he looked real good, cause I can not think of any? Also, Kessler hung pretty tough with Calzaghe who is very proven and ends up dominating most of his fights, yet Kessler fought well in there. He should learn from his defeat. Also, JT got KTFO, not "worn out". That shot that hurt him in the last round he got hit with would have had the exact same effect on him if it happened in the first round.
BrutalBodyShots
QUOTE(salvador @ Dec 13 2007, 01:08 PM) [snapback]370362[/snapback]
You keep coming back to that puncher argument, but he's only got one loss on his resume and he's faced much stiffer competition than Kessler has. And the truth is that if he'd landed one more shot in the (2nd?) round, he'd have ko'd Pavlik and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Pavlik is the strongest puncher at mw and JT took a lot of good shots before he got worn out.


I keep going back to that argument because it is 100% VALID. I said for years the first time Taylor faced a puncher he would get knocked out and it happened. While I may be wrong about some things I certainly wasn't about that. That said, Kessler at 168 I'm sure has comparable power to Pavlik at 160 and equal ability as far as landing that power. Therefore I conclude that Kessler would also get Taylor out of there. And the IF Taylor had landed 1 more shot means nothing because he DIDN'T. Same way if Torres landed 1 more shot on Cotto - it never happened. Also keep in mind that fighters after being knocked out sometimes don't take as good of a shot in the future. Their chins certainly don't get better... so if anything Taylor will only be more vulnerable in the future.

QUOTE(salvador @ Dec 13 2007, 01:08 PM) [snapback]370362[/snapback]
Taylor is more athletic, more fluid, and faster than Kessler. Kessler's only advantage is power. And I'd take Pavlik over Kessler as well due to the volume and accuracy of his shots.


Taylor was also more athletic, more fluid and faster than Pavlik and guess what? It didn't matter and he got knocked out. If Pavlik could do it, Kessler should be able to all things being equal... and they AREN'T equal as the fight would be at 168.

Nobudius
Kessler's jab is much more effective than Taylor's.

salvador
QUOTE(Lil-lightsout @ Dec 13 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]370368[/snapback]
Name a fight where it stood out of Taylors where he looked real good, cause I can not think of any?

Also, JT got KTFO, not "worn out". That shot that hurt him in the last round he got hit with would have had the exact same effect on him if it happened in the first round.


Who, out of all of Hopkins' opponents, has looked better against him than Taylor? Who, of all of Winky's opponents, has looked better against him than Taylor? Both of those guys are better than anyone Kessler's ever faced, including Calzaghe.

Taylor clearly wore himself out in the early rounds of his fight with Pavlik trying stupidly for the ko after it was clear that Pavlik had recovered and that's what made him more vulnerable in the later rounds.

salvador
QUOTE(BrutalBodyShots @ Dec 13 2007, 04:04 PM) [snapback]370372[/snapback]
I keep going back to that argument because it is 100% VALID. I said for years the first time Taylor faced a puncher he would get knocked out and it happened. While I may be wrong about some things I certainly wasn't about that. That said, Kessler at 168 I'm sure has comparable power to Pavlik at 160 and equal ability as far as landing that power. Therefore I conclude that Kessler would also get Taylor out of there. And the IF Taylor had landed 1 more shot means nothing because he DIDN'T. Same way if Torres landed 1 more shot on Cotto - it never happened. Also keep in mind that fighters after being knocked out sometimes don't take as good of a shot in the future. Their chins certainly don't get better... so if anything Taylor will only be more vulnerable in the future.
Taylor was also more athletic, more fluid and faster than Pavlik and guess what? It didn't matter and he got knocked out. If Pavlik could do it, Kessler should be able to all things being equal... and they AREN'T equal as the fight would be at 168.


The difference between the Cotto-Torres fight and Taylor Pavlik is that Torres never controled the fight until that punch. If I remember correctly, Taylor dominated those early rounds and then landed that punch. That's a big difference. Taylor let his adreneline get the better of him and it cost him that fight.

You may be very right about Taylor's ability to take a punch in the future. We won't know until we see it.

You and I disagree about Kessler and Pavlik being equal in ability as far as landing that power. I think Pavlik would have landed far more power shots against Calzaghe than Kessler did.
Nobudius
QUOTE(salvador @ Dec 13 2007, 04:19 PM) [snapback]370383[/snapback]
Taylor clearly wore himself out in the early rounds of his fight with Pavlik trying stupidly for the ko after it was clear that Pavlik had recovered and that's what made him more vulnerable in the later rounds.


But your statement isn't saying much about Taylor's stamina, or about his execution in finishing off Pavlik.
salvador
QUOTE(Nobudius @ Dec 13 2007, 05:17 PM) [snapback]370382[/snapback]
Kessler's jab is much more effective than Taylor's.


Taylor's jab has disappeared in recent fights, but before Hopkins he had a great long stiff jab. At a certain point I think he knows he has to go back to basics and I really think we'll see that in Feb.

I may not be remembering the fight correctly, but I don't remember Kessler's jab being particularly effective against Calzaghe.
salvador
QUOTE(Nobudius @ Dec 13 2007, 05:27 PM) [snapback]370386[/snapback]
But your statement isn't saying much about Taylor's stamina, or about his execution in finishing off Pavlik.


It's no secret that Taylor's biggest weakness is his brain. He gets overexcited and expends his energy early (like against Hopkins in their first fight) throwing huge looping shots. I think the fight with Pavlik was personal for JT because it was the first time so many people were betting against him and saying he was boring. He wanted to make a statement. And just like you saw him control himself much better in the second Hopkins fight, I think you'll see that in Feb.

And I'm not sure how many fighters out there would have recovered from those shots like Pavlik did.
STEVENSKI
QUOTE(salvador @ Dec 13 2007, 06:08 PM) [snapback]370362[/snapback]
Taylor is more athletic, more fluid, and faster than Kessler. Kessler's only advantage is power. And I'd take Pavlik over Kessler as well due to the volume and accuracy of his shots.


Mundine is faster more fluid & hits harder than Taylor at 168 & he was dealt with easily by Kessler. Winky & Taylor would be easy work for Kessler. Kessler is being severely underrated IMO.
BrutalBodyShots
QUOTE(salvador @ Dec 13 2007, 04:26 PM) [snapback]370385[/snapback]
If I remember correctly, Taylor dominated those early rounds and then landed that punch. That's a big difference. Taylor let his adreneline get the better of him and it cost him that fight.


Dominated those early rounds? There was only ONE ROUND before Taylor landed his best punch of the fight (in the 2nd) and Taylor wasn't "dominating" up until that point. That's like saying that Jones was dominating Tarver in their rematch before he got caught. 3 minutes is pretty much meaningless in a fight scheduled for 36.

Also if Taylor blew his entire wad in all of a minute against Pavlik than he really needs to work on his conditioning. Any professional fighter that can't go balls to the wall for a minute in the 2nd round of a fight and still have something left afterwards is pretty weak as far as conditioning goes, wouldn't you agree?
Fitz
QUOTE(STEVENSKI @ Dec 14 2007, 09:11 AM) [snapback]370393[/snapback]
Mundine is faster more fluid & hits harder than Taylor at 168 & he was dealt with easily by Kessler. Winky & Taylor would be easy work for Kessler. Kessler is being severely underrated IMO.


Exactly. You understand that the win over Mundine was a very good win. Kessler was actually doing pretty well early in the fight with Calazghe, it was the second half that stuffed him. Just couldn't keep up with the workrate. I think he is being underrated hear as well.
salvador
QUOTE(STEVENSKI @ Dec 13 2007, 06:11 PM) [snapback]370393[/snapback]
Mundine is faster more fluid & hits harder than Taylor at 168 & he was dealt with easily by Kessler. Winky & Taylor would be easy work for Kessler. Kessler is being severely underrated IMO.


Hopefully we'll get a chance to find out for sure. That said, it's very hard for me to believe that Winky would be "easy work" for anyone at 168.
Nobudius
QUOTE(salvador @ Dec 13 2007, 04:33 PM) [snapback]370388[/snapback]
Taylor's jab has disappeared in recent fights, but before Hopkins he had a great long stiff jab. At a certain point I think he knows he has to go back to basics and I really think we'll see that in Feb.

I may not be remembering the fight correctly, but I don't remember Kessler's jab being particularly effective against Calzaghe.


Kessler's jab wasn't effective b/c Calzaghe was taking it away.

I really don't see how somebody can say Kessler only has "power" if you've watched his fights. He doesn't have "power" in that destructive sense. His jab is his best weapon. Everything begins with it for him.
Nobudius
QUOTE(salvador @ Dec 13 2007, 04:37 PM) [snapback]370389[/snapback]
It's no secret that Taylor's biggest weakness is his brain. He gets overexcited and expends his energy early (like against Hopkins in their first fight) throwing huge looping shots. I think the fight with Pavlik was personal for JT because it was the first time so many people were betting against him and saying he was boring. He wanted to make a statement. And just like you saw him control himself much better in the second Hopkins fight, I think you'll see that in Feb.

And I'm not sure how many fighters out there would have recovered from those shots like Pavlik did.


Listen, at the end of it all, they all sound like excuses for JT. Personal or not, if he wanted to make a "statement", he should've finished off Pavlik.

Since he fought Hopkins, it's been too many cases of should've, could've, & would've's.
STEVENSKI
QUOTE(salvador @ Dec 13 2007, 10:33 PM) [snapback]370397[/snapback]
Hopefully we'll get a chance to find out for sure. That said, it's very hard for me to believe that Winky would be "easy work" for anyone at 168.


Just use your imagination. A fighter with zero pop who jabs & blocks vs a powerful fighter who is a skilled subtle boxer with power in both hands & is a natural at the weight.
salvador
QUOTE(BrutalBodyShots @ Dec 13 2007, 06:31 PM) [snapback]370395[/snapback]
Dominated those early rounds? There was only ONE ROUND before Taylor landed his best punch of the fight (in the 2nd) and Taylor wasn't "dominating" up until that point. That's like saying that Jones was dominating Tarver in their rematch before he got caught. 3 minutes is pretty much meaningless in a fight scheduled for 36.

Also if Taylor blew his entire wad in all of a minute against Pavlik than he really needs to work on his conditioning. Any professional fighter that can't go balls to the wall for a minute in the 2nd round of a fight and still have something left afterwards is pretty weak as far as conditioning goes, wouldn't you agree?


I wasn't comparing Taylor to Jones, though I think you would agree that Taylor's dominance of PAvlik was much clearer than Jones' dominance over Tarver, seeing as how Taylor was the aggressor and was landing big shots (that put Pavlik on the canvas) whereas Jones might have thrown 5 semi-effective countershots before getting caught. I really don't see the comparison at all.

And Taylor blew his wad early against Hopkins in their first fight as well. And his expenditure of energy in both fights was as much of an emotional expenditure as a physical one. Taylor's not a smart fighter, that's obvious. But what he lacks in intelligence he makes up for in athleticism. And I think we'll see that in Feb.

I'm standing by my assessment of Taylor's chances against Kessler because I haven't seen Kessler be particularly impressive in the two fight I've seen him in: Calzaghe and Andrade. And other than Calzaghe, there's no one else on Kessler's resume that is even remotely in the same class as Hopkins or Winky. (It seems as if a few on this board have a high regard for Mundine, but I've never seen him fight so I can't comment on him. That said, I find it a bit strange that such a great fighter can reach the age of 32 without ever leaving Australia.)

Maybe Taylor is done. Maybe Hopkins and Wright ruined him and maybe his chin was the final straw. If that's the case, then Taylor would have a hard time beating any serious opponent. I just don't think it is. I love the fact that Taylor wants the rematch with PAvlik and I think we're going to see what we should have seen the first time around with Pavlik, and if we do, I think we'll be looking at a fighter who's speed and athleticism would be too much for Kessler.

And while we're at it, who has Kessler beaten that makes you think so highly of him?
salvador
QUOTE(STEVENSKI @ Dec 13 2007, 07:57 PM) [snapback]370408[/snapback]
Just use your imagination. A fighter with zero pop who jabs & blocks vs a powerful fighter who is a skilled subtle boxer with power in both hands & is a natural at the weight.


My imagination tells me that a guy who made easy work of Tito at 160 with a jab and who held his own against Hopkins at 170 would be a tough night for ANYONE at 168, powerful or not.
BrutalBodyShots
QUOTE(salvador @ Dec 13 2007, 06:59 PM) [snapback]370410[/snapback]
I wasn't comparing Taylor to Jones, though I think you would agree that Taylor's dominance of PAvlik was much clearer than Jones' dominance over Tarver, seeing as how Taylor was the aggressor and was landing big shots (that put Pavlik on the canvas) whereas Jones might have thrown 5 semi-effective countershots before getting caught. I really don't see the comparison at all.


The comparison and point is that NEITHER Jones or Taylor were dominating their fights against Tarver and Pavlik when all we're talking about is ONE ROUND. ONE ROUND means nothing. Jones and Taylor won the first round of those fights, but it wasn't domination. Domination is Pacquiao in round 1 against Marquez.

STEVENSKI
QUOTE(salvador @ Dec 14 2007, 12:17 AM) [snapback]370414[/snapback]
My imagination tells me that a guy who made easy work of Tito at 160 with a jab and who held his own against Hopkins at 170 would be a tough night for ANYONE at 168, powerful or not.


A guy who who was a natural 147lber & never has had the ability to handle speed & a jab & a elderly fighter whose best days were 5-10 years before. I see your point that a natural 168lb fighter with good footwork & boxing skills combined with a sturrdy chin & power in both hands would be very beatable.

Fitz
QUOTE(salvador @ Dec 14 2007, 10:59 AM) [snapback]370410[/snapback]
(It seems as if a few on this board have a high regard for Mundine, but I've never seen him fight so I can't comment on him. That said, I find it a bit strange that such a great fighter can reach the age of 32 without ever leaving Australia.)


Huh? The age is kind of meaningless considering the age he made a switch from one sport to the other. He made a switch from professional rugby to boxing at like the age of 26, had no ameature background and then went to Germany to fight Ottke in only his 10th pro fight.
Since then, he hasn't left Australia and is probably due to, he has fought some solid competition, but not great and has made a habit of fighting bums from South America between meaningful fights.
But he has fought Ottke, Echols, Kessler, Green and knocked out Sam Soliman.

Round 2 and 9 from Mundine-Soliman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7aG8nCYaR4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzcrhCQxb_A
Fitz
QUOTE(salvador @ Dec 14 2007, 11:17 AM) [snapback]370414[/snapback]
My imagination tells me that a guy who made easy work of Tito at 160 with a jab and who held his own against Hopkins at 170 would be a tough night for ANYONE at 168, powerful or not.


I thought that said more on how much Tito sucked rather than how great Winky was.
salvador
Thanks for the videos Fitz.

I like Mundine's left hook. It's short and quick. I also like the idea that he was a professional rugby player because it makes me think he's probably got more stamina than most. Do you have any idea why he quit rubgy?

It would be interesting to see Mundine in with Lacy. It would be a good measuring stick fight for both guys.

I just watched a few rounds of Mundine's fight with Kessler and the announcer used the perfect term to describe Kessler: "robotic". Kessler's a lot like Ivan Drago in that he's very mechanically sound, but he's stiff and he looks heavier on his feet than any of the top guys at 168. Maybe Kessler's got too much power for JT, but I really think that Taylor has all the advantages if he chose to BOX Kessler. And I guess it just comes down to whether or not any trainer can convince JT to fight smart.

Fitz
QUOTE(salvador @ Dec 15 2007, 08:31 AM) [snapback]370578[/snapback]
Thanks for the videos Fitz.

I like Mundine's left hook. It's short and quick. I also like the idea that he was a professional rugby player because it makes me think he's probably got more stamina than most. Do you have any idea why he quit rubgy?

It would be interesting to see Mundine in with Lacy. It would be a good measuring stick fight for both guys.

I just watched a few rounds of Mundine's fight with Kessler and the announcer used the perfect term to describe Kessler: "robotic". Kessler's a lot like Ivan Drago in that he's very mechanically sound, but he's stiff and he looks heavier on his feet than any of the top guys at 168. Maybe Kessler's got too much power for JT, but I really think that Taylor has all the advantages if he chose to BOX Kessler. And I guess it just comes down to whether or not any trainer can convince JT to fight smart.


I'm not too sure why Mundine quit. You are probably better off to ask Stevenski. In my state (Victoria), we don't watch rugby, we watch Aussie Rules Football, in NSW (where Stevenski is from), they watch rugby, so he would know more than me about Mundine's rugby days.
But he retired at an early age from rugby, I'm guessing he got tired of rugby and just wanted to try boxing, after all he dad was a fighter.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.