Seriously, No trolling: Name one really good fighter that Kessler has beat.

[bsrizpac]

Yeah that's true but Jones has secondary victories that are greater than Kessler's primary ones.

Same goes for Toney.

And Hopkins.

Pretty unfair to Kessler to even compare him to those three. He's NOWHERE near there in terms of opposition. And, to be honest, he isn't that far away from Jeff Lacy's quality of opposition before he met Calzaghe. We'll see what Kessler does from here on out.

What are you talking about? He just wrote a novel as to why I'm a biased homer (HAHAHAHAA) because I think Hopkins opposition trumps Kesslers easy. Clearly I'm just a BIASED YANK because of that.

[IMDAZED]

We all know who Kessler has beaten. As Kessler won the WBA belt, he took on all the top 5 (The Ring) except Lacy in the smw division. The problem, as i see it, is that you/US simply don't respect the opponents. And why - because they haven't fought any of your household names in US. But that simply doesn't mean, that they aren't any good. How can a not US fighter make his stand, when US-fighters keep on fighting them selfs?.

That's simply not true. In fact, I'd wager I know more about those opponents than you do. What makes them so solid - and please don't list some title they won, I want the good FIGHTERS they BEAT that makes them such solid opposition.

[Jan(DK)]

That's simply not true. In fact, I'd wager I know more about those opponents than you do. What makes them so solid - and please don't list some title they won, I want the good FIGHTERS they BEAT that makes them such solid opposition.

They beat the most of the fighters placed in front of them. But how do you/any body see the outcome of these fights?
Pavlik - Andrade in LA.
Taylor - Mundine in Australia
Wright - Beyer/Sartison hell anywere

[roundingace]

They beat the most of the fighters placed in front of them. But how do you/any body see the outcome of these fights?
Pavlik - Andrade in LA.
Taylor - Mundine in Australia
Wright - Beyer/Sartison hell anywere

Do you honestly not know the outcome of these fights or was this a sarcastic post? I wouldn't find it hard to argue, across the pond or not, who would win these fights and why. I'd like to see Mundine/Taylor though, just for kicks. I think JT isn't what he used to be but would be a nice comeback fight for him and definitely a make or break fight. **** Lacy IMO.

[MELLY-MEL...]

Kessler has never beaten a truly "great" boxer. However, questioning his quality is a little bit silly. He is what he is, a young prime champ who has proven himself to be top dog at SMW until either Calzaghe returns or someone else beats him.

This whole "great boxer" thing is really a very distorted way of looking at boxing, it pretends there is a cut off point at which a special class of boxer who has some sort of magical ability to be "great" sits looking down at all others and that all wins below this point do not count. If this was so, no boxer woukld ever be regarded as good.

In his career Roy Jones faced 1 'great' boxer, James Toney and won. One. You can make it two if you include the Hopkins he faced as 'great', I don't.

Bernard Hopkins, widely regarded as the best MW of recent years never beat a 'great' MW and lost to the only one he faced, Jones, as well as not-so-great Jermain Taylor.

James Toney beat possibly great Michael Nunn, he lost to his other great opponent, Jones again.

good post badge!

[IMDAZED]

They beat the most of the fighters placed in front of them. But how do you/any body see the outcome of these fights?
Pavlik - Andrade in LA.
Taylor - Mundine in Australia
Wright - Beyer/Sartison hell anywere

I think your response speaks for itself. I'll still be waiting for the opposition they beat that made them good.

[El Dominicano]

Bsrizpac doesn't like white boxers.

Says the man who doesn't like black boxers.

[abadger]

What are you talking about? He just wrote a novel as to why I'm a biased homer (HAHAHAHAA) because I think Hopkins opposition trumps Kesslers easy. Clearly I'm just a BIASED YANK because of that.

Unfortunately this doesn't constitute a victory for you. You sought to attack Kessler based on the absence of great opponents from his resume, I showed you that you were talking crap. As to what IMDAZED says I don't have much problem with it. I haven't seen enough of James Toney's fights to comment on how the overall standard of his 'secondary' opposition compares with Kessler, I agree that Jones has fought plenty of guys comparable to Kessler's better wins and some better, plus his very best wins, and on Hopkins I don't think most of his opponents were undeniably better than the likes of Mundine, but Eastman, Joppy etc could be, and wins over Trinidad and De la Hoya plus Tarver and Winky later give Hopkins a better resume than Kessler by some distance. None of this should be surprising to you, considering Toney, Jones and Hopkins are three of the best boxers of the previous generation and have had long illustrious careers.

The reason I called you a homer and biased is pretty simple, you are trying to discredit a good boxer on spurious grounds, by attacking what is actually a good resume as weak because he hasn't faced large numbers of 'great boxers'. Another reason I might do so is because you are now crowing in presumed triumph at the notion that Mikkel Kessler's career thus far is not as successful as that of Toney, Hopkins and Jones. To view this as some sort of 'win' for yourself proves your inclinations beyond question. The fact that you would seek to disparage a fighter like Kessler because he hasn't achieved as much as those three indicates clearly and exactly that your agenda is, to sum it up in words you are likely to understand: "USA got da best boxers LAMO PWN, all dem Euro's is **** cos dey not as good as Roy Jones".

[Jan(DK)]

I think your response speaks for itself. I'll still be waiting for the opposition they beat that made them good.

As i stated before - the ones they beat made them good - good enough to be # 1-5 at smw by the Ring. The problem is, that you and others don't think so - as i see it, because they haven't fought any of you homeboys. I could ask, who they should have fought - but i 'l guess the answer will be the same as yesterday - none.

[IMDAZED]

As i stated before - the ones they beat made them good - good enough to be # 1-5 at smw by the Ring. The problem is, that you and others don't think so - as i see it, because they haven't fought any of you homeboys. I could ask, who they should have fought - but i 'l guess the answer will be the same as yesterday - none.

Don't know why I thought you MIGHT be a person who could present his viewpoints without bias or with sense. Last time I make that mistake.