"Kessler is better than Pavlik!"

[MELLY-MEL...]

I think he is. Taylor was in his twenties when he fought what, a 40 year old B-Hop? Calzaghe was 36. If you want to call B-Hop old against Calzaghe you have to call him old against Taylor, because he was. I don't think there was a huge difference in how good Hopkins was against Taylor and against Calzaghe, I thinks thats just spin, and besides, Hopkins looked markedly better against Tarver and Winky than he did against Taylor did he not?

So look at Taylor's record. Wins title against an aging champion about 15 years his senior. Wins rematch. Two reasonable defences against Spinks and Ouma, a draw with an aging Wright then two losses to the first prime MW he faced. In none of these fights did Taylor actually look good. Compare that with Joe who has never lost a fight, beat the same fighter Taylor did, beat two prime SMW champions and faced hordes of opposition in the Spinks Ouma category, winning every single fight other than Reid and Hopkins clearly and impressively.

Calzaghe is a much better fighter than Taylor.

anyone who knows boxing knows that winky has no business above 60. he was so much different of a fighter it was not even funny. surely you know that.

[abadger]

back in the day much better yes, now..not so much imo. if he was still so much better than taylor he would have beaten bhop much more convincingly. and yes fyi almost 4 years make a big difference from 39 to 43. how can it not?

I'm sure the four years from 39 to 43 do make a difference, whether it is big or not I couldn't say, and I suppose it depends on the individual, 39 is already pretty goddamn old! My take on B-Hop is that he hasn't actually changed all that much, but that against Taylor he was still trying to fight like a MW and couldn't do it, whereas now I think he's much more aware of his limitations. Losing will do that.

Against Calzaghe I think he actually looked pretty good for most of the fight. His game is to shut his opponent down and he was successful, but Calzaghe gave him an awful lot of shutting down to do, meaning his output was exceptionally low. Lots of defence = limited offense. He did get tired, more so than he had against Taylor, but not in R4 it was in R10, which is not unusual against Calzaghe. I'm sure his age factors into this, but so too must the pressure Calzaghe placed him under and the fact that Bernard is now carrying LHW weight, which reduces stamina too.

I'm just saying that Hopkins age is too easily used as a tool to write off Calzaghe's win over him, and I agree its not the same thing as beating B-Hop in his prime at MW, but neither were Taylor's victories. Neither Tarver or Wright were capable of beating old Hopkins or stop him from becoming the #1 LHW, so it seems a little unfair to then write off the man who took that title form him just a few months later. Hopkins has been old for a long time, and he didn't suddenly fall offf a cliff against Joe, he fought pretty much like he has done for a while, but this time he was facing Calzaghe, and got beat fair and sqaure.

[abadger]

anyone who knows boxing knows that winky has no business above 60. he was so much different of a fighter it was not even funny. surely you know that.

I totally agree. I also think Tarver was an absolute disgrace against him too and the win maybe gets overrated a bit, but the fact remains that Hopkins was able to fight and beat decent fighters in 12 round fights. Anyhow, I talked about it more in my previous post...

[MELLY-MEL...]

I'm sure the four years from 39 to 43 do make a difference, whether it is big or not I couldn't say, and I suppose it depends on the individual, 39 is already pretty goddamn old! My take on B-Hop is that he hasn't actually changed all that much, but that against Taylor he was still trying to fight like a MW and couldn't do it, whereas now I think he's much more aware of his limitations. Losing will do that.

Against Calzaghe I think he actually looked pretty good for most of the fight. His game is to shut his opponent down and he was successful, but Calzaghe gave him an awful lot of shutting down to do, meaning his output was exceptionally low. Lots of defence = limited offense. He did get tired, more so than he had against Taylor, but not in R4 it was in R10, which is not unusual against Calzaghe. I'm sure his age factors into this, but so too must the pressure Calzaghe placed him under and the fact that Bernard is now carrying LHW weight, which reduces stamina too.

I'm just saying that Hopkins age is too easily used as a tool to write off Calzaghe's win over him, and I agree its not the same thing as beating B-Hop in his prime at MW, but neither were Taylor's victories. Neither Tarver or Wright were capable of beating old Hopkins or stop him from becoming the #1 LHW, so it seems a little unfair to then write off the man who took that title form him just a few months later. Hopkins has been old for a long time, and he didn't suddenly fall offf a cliff against Joe, he fought pretty much like he has done for a while, but this time he was facing Calzaghe, and got beat fair and sqaure.

well i agree, and bhop is a very good win for joe, but i must be for taylor as well. taylor is much better than he is given credit. it's bull****. i mean kessler is praised for ****ing losing to joe, yet taylor is trashed, yet he beat a ****ing all time great! where's the logic in that?

[bsrizpac]

well i agree, and bhop is a very good win for joe, but i must be for taylor as well. taylor is much better than he is given credit. it's bull****. i mean kessler is praised for ****ing losing to joe, yet taylor is trashed, yet he beat a ****ing all time great! where's the logic in that?

Easy logic: Anything that makes Joe look better, or an all time great, makes sense. No matter what it is.

[abadger]

well i agree, and bhop is a very good win for joe, but i must be for taylor as well. taylor is much better than he is given credit. it's bull****. i mean kessler is praised for ****ing losing to joe, yet taylor is trashed, yet he beat a ****ing all time great! where's the logic in that?

The difference really is that Taylor has not been able to follow up that great win with anything else and seems to be going backwards. It's all very well beating the worlds best MW, but what is it really worth if you then can't beat any other elite opposition? There seems to be a trend in boxing at the moment to acclaim young fighters as bordering on legendary status the moment they get their first impressive win, but this forgets the fact that the legends they beat in those impressive wins had that status in the first place because of long and illustrious careers with all manner of impressive achievements. The same burden should fall on young fighters like Taylor and Pavlik too.

Now, I'm not saying that Taylor can't get any more good wins, in all probability he will, but he hasn't done it yet, and in losing so quickly after acquiring his title has demonstrated the kind of flaws that (for example) Roy Jones, James Toney, Joe Calzaghe, Bernard Hopkins etc etc, did not. So Taylor gets 'trashed' by those who seek to trash him because with wins over Hopkins but losses to Pavlik he remains a fighter with much to prove. His wins over Hopkins suggest he could be excellent, but can he actually go on and be so? At the moment nobody really knows.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Ross Thompson is a very wise man

[BattlingNelson]

Ross Thompson is a very wise man

And probably well-paid as well

[abadger]

And probably well-paid as well

Sorry Bat, we hijacked your thread to talk about everything but Kessler and Pavlik.

[BrooklynBomber]

So says Mikkel Kessler's sparringpartner Russ Thompson: "Mikkel is a great fighter. He knows a lot of combinations and he's fast. He works a lot. He reminds me of Kelly Pavlik only faster", says Thompson who went the distance with "The Ghost" in 2004.

If a fight between Kessler and Pavlik is made, Thompson thinks the result is a given: "I think it's going to be an easy fight for Mikkel. Kessler's speed will be decisive."

Mikkel Kessler himself want's a big fight after Haussler. "Kelly Pavlik's style suits me good", he says, "that would be a great fight for me".

Thompson is impressed with Kessler's speed: "Mikkel's strenght is the straight shots. I am a solid defensive fighter, but Kessler often catches me with straight punches."

I agree, I thought the notion that Kessler is better then Pavlik is somewhat standard.