What exactly does Kessler do to beat Bhop?

Too much? How is struggling with Winky Wright too much? Winky Wright's style is probably one of the best in boxing and anyone would struggle with it. And maybe Kessler is more textbook, but that's why I think I would give him the edge. Kessler would put up a good fight, but maybe too textbook to be able to fight a fight that Bernard does. Too bad this fight won't ever happen though. Winky is excellent as I said, but he fought almost all his career at 154, and Hopkins is a BIG middleweight (some say he is a natural 175er but it is just bullshit, you dont fight 15 years 15 pounds below your natural weight). No putting down Winky in ANY way here, just considering his size relative to B-Hop or Kessler. That's what I meant by Hopkins as a lightheavy struggled to much against the jr.middleweight. Kessler is good, not in the same league as Winky or Hopkins. but definitely not the smaller man in the ring against Hopkins. It would have been a good fight even in Hop's prime, but in that case Hopkins would have his stamina and would just have too many tricks for Kessler to deal with.

And for being a former 154er, Winky gave a hell of a fight to the 175 Ring champion, too much in fact... Too much? How is struggling with Winky Wright too much? Winky Wright's style is probably one of the best in boxing and anyone would struggle with it. And maybe Kessler is more textbook, but that's why I think I would give him the edge. Kessler would put up a good fight, but maybe too textbook to be able to fight a fight that Bernard does. Too bad this fight won't ever happen though.

And for being a former 154er, Winky gave a hell of a fight to the 175 Ring champion, too much in fact... Too much? How is struggling with Winky Wright too much? Winky Wright's style is probably one of the best in boxing and anyone would struggle with it. And maybe Kessler is more textbook, but that's why I think I would give him the edge. Kessler would put up a good fight, but maybe too textbook to be able to fight a fight that Bernard does. Too bad this fight won't ever happen though.

he's got spirit fingers.

Hopkins because he would land cleaner. And it's disputed who won the Taylor fights anyway, so I think Bernard being 40 he did a pretty damn good job against a younger fighter. Kessler is more by the book fighter. He hasn't shown that experience that would get used to Bernard and that's why I think he would lose. So we agree on Taylor-Hopkins. Kessler is more experienced than Taylor was coming in the first Hopkins fight. Kessler is surely more by the book, meaning he does not leave himself open for all of sort of counters, or fights with a guard, unlike Taylor, who cannot get away with it, because he is sloppy. Kessler is more solid and stronger than Taylor, and that's why I would give him at least the same chances I gave Taylor back then. Probably not, but they are still some of the best fighters in the world. Winky was #4 pound for pound when he was set to fight Hopkins. Joe Calzaghe is #3. Tarver was #10 and the man of his division. I pray god that Tarver was not in the top 10 at the timem other than that, I agree that Winky and Calzaghe are excellent fighters. As of now, because I actually rate Kessler, I think Calzaghe could easily be p4p #2. I pick Calzaghe to beat Hopkins, the style is all wrong for Hopkins IMO, and the number of punches Calzaghe throws and lands (at least partially) will win him the judges even if Hopkins is landing the better quality of shots. And for being a former 154er, Winky gave a hell of a fight to the 175 Ring champion, too much in fact... To sustain agression, but not automatically win the fight. I agree most of the time agression takes out the old fighter (See Juan diaz and Manny Pacquiao), but Bernard is a special case and I don't think Kessler would beat him and haven't seen anything that disproves my point except for the uppercuts and Kessler's strength. I see your point, but my view is that if Taylor could win 7 rounds against Hopkins, so can Kessler. Kessler would also not look like the loser at the end of the fight, like Taylor did. I mean, I never ever rated Taylor as a special item, but I was not surprised when he beat Hopkins, based on Hopkins taking too many rounds off against Eastman. That is basically why I give a chance to Kessler, which I think is better than Taylor, althought not as athletically spectacular. Hopkins is special, but as special as he is, he is not been the same for a while (Allen 3 or Joppy mark the beginning of his decline IMO).

I think Kessler can beat him by keeping him at the end of his jab and throwing one twos, easier said than done against Hopkins.

If Taylor threw the same number of punches as Hopkins in their fights, who do you think would have won? Hopkins because he would land cleaner. And it's disputed who won the Taylor fights anyway, so I think Bernard being 40 he did a pretty damn good job against a younger fighter. Kessler is more by the book fighter. He hasn't shown that experience that would get used to Bernard and that's why I think he would lose. If you take away Hopkins' age you have one of the best active fighters, i would say p4p#2, but he is 43. Do you think it's random that after Taylor, he is only fighting opponents over 35? Probably not, but they are still some of the best fighters in the world. Winky was #4 pound for pound when he was set to fight Hopkins. Joe Calzaghe is #3. Tarver was #10 and the man of his division. Youth does not bring smarts, power, skills... but it sure brings punches, which are good to sustain agression (effective or not). To sustain agression, but not automatically win the fight. I agree most of the time agression takes out the old fighter (See Juan diaz and Manny Pacquiao), but Bernard is a special case and I don't think Kessler would beat him and haven't seen anything that disproves my point except for the uppercuts and Kessler's strength.

I guess this applied for George Foreman and Michael Moore too huh? How about Archie Moore and he countless victories when he was in his 40s? There's some special cases, but to say this in Kessler's case is not true because he doesn't be able to seem to beat Bernard. It would be close, but just because Kessler throws more punches wouldn't give him the advantage. I think Hopkins is also a special case, just because of his career after age 35. I will repeat my point it from as slightly different angle. If Taylor threw the same number of punches as Hopkins in their fights, who do you think would have won? If you take away Hopkins' age you have one of the best active fighters, i would say p4p#2, but he is 43. Do you think it's random that after Taylor, he is only fighting opponents over 35? Youth does not bring smarts, power, skills... but it sure brings punches, which are good to sustain agression (effective or not).

It's pretty clear and good logic... if you can think for 2-3 seconds before typing. What did Taylor have that Winky and Tarver did not have? Youth, activity. In fact that's what cost Hopkins the fight. Taylor certainly did not score well on defense, ring generalship and so on, and is certainly not half the boxer winky is. He won because he is big ad young. I guess this applied for George Foreman and Michael Moore too huh? How about Archie Moore and he countless victories when he was in his 40s? There's some special cases, but to say this in Kessler's case is not true because he doesn't be able to seem to beat Bernard. It would be close, but just because Kessler throws more punches wouldn't give him the advantage.

That's horrible logic. Just because the fighter doesn't throw as many punches as the other guy, doesn't mean the first guy loses. It's pretty clear and good logic... if you can think for 2-3 seconds before typing. What did Taylor have that Winky and Tarver did not have? Youth, activity. In fact that's what cost Hopkins the fight. Taylor certainly did not score well on defense, ring generalship and so on, and is certainly not half the boxer winky is. He won because he is big ad young.

I agree with the guy who basically said Kessler is a bigger, harder hitting more technically sound version of Jermaine Taylor. He's also massive.

i could see hopkins beating kessler in a close fight to begin with then hopkins being effective late to take a close decision

That's horrible logic. Just because the fighter doesn't throw as many punches as the other guy, doesn't mean the first guy loses. regarding winky No. Hopkins clear as day won that fight and Winky wasn't winning after 3. I had it 29-28 for Hopkins. A lot of people give round 2 to Wright, but if you watch closely you can see Wright clearly missing and Bernard countering very nice. Round 3 was also close, but Wright landed a couple good shots. I had it 116-112 (easily could have seen 117-111/115-113) for Hopkins. i would say the general consensus is that winky was clearly winning in the early rounds, the mid rounds could have gone either way, and bhop clearly won the late rounds which to me is good evidence that had winky not ran out of gas, he wouldve won

Well I meant like athletic speed. Kessler has good speed, but doesn't use it like Jones did for example. Kessler is more of a technical by the book type of boxer with power.

I'm a bit confused about the speed part. Kessler DOES have above average speed, he was almost matching Calzaghe in their fight.

He is young enough to throw enough punches. I am not sure who I'd pick, but that would be the logic. That's horrible logic. Just because the fighter doesn't throw as many punches as the other guy, doesn't mean the first guy loses. regarding winky i think if winky and bhop wouldve fought at MW, winky wouldve won if you watch the fight again after the 4th round you can see winky breathin heavily with his mouth wide open in between rounds. he was winning early on, despite the big gash in his head, despite bhop clinching so much, and despite not being able to use his jab. bernard only caught up because winky couldnt hang on. by the 10th round winky was doing all the clinching, not cause it was his strategy, but b/c he was too tired personally i had that fight a draw No. Hopkins clear as day won that fight and Winky wasn't winning after 3. I had it 29-28 for Hopkins. A lot of people give round 2 to Wright, but if you watch closely you can see Wright clearly missing and Bernard countering very nice. Round 3 was also close, but Wright landed a couple good shots. I had it 116-112 (easily could have seen 117-111/115-113) for Hopkins.

regarding winky i think if winky and bhop wouldve fought at MW, winky wouldve won if you watch the fight again after the 4th round you can see winky breathin heavily with his mouth wide open in between rounds. he was winning early on, despite the big gash in his head, despite bhop clinching so much, and despite not being able to use his jab. bernard only caught up because winky couldnt hang on. by the 10th round winky was doing all the clinching, not cause it was his strategy, but b/c he was too tired personally i had that fight a draw

He is young enough to throw enough punches. I am not sure who I'd pick, but that would be the logic.

Lol. Even if Kessler fought against Hopkins like Wright did then he would win. Wright is no where near the size of Kessler and has no where near as much power as him. Kessler would KO Hopkins if they went to war like that.

The uppercuts thing is interesting. I could see that working, but I think Bernard would still be able to do enough to get a decision win. I'm not saying that Bernard would blow him out of the water, but I just don't think Kessler would win.