Right now, Kessler by decision. It's entirely possible that it's Winky because I read he's going straight to a top opponent at 160-168 in March so it definitely could be Kessler.
It's just that you said something like I was subjective and you couldnt argue with me because I said that I found Kessler's resumé to be slightly better than dawson's. It doesn't strike me as an outrageuos opinion at all.
You are correct Bat.
Kessler's resume is better that Dawson - most of his opponents were young and strong.
Beyer - underrated by Americans, has wins over Green, Sanavia, and Sheika (who defeated Glen Johnson) Andrade - tough young iron-chinned fighter Mundine - at his peak, had a home crowd behind him Sartisan - underrated: undefeated and had never been down in a fight
Tarver - old Johnson - old, lost to people like Omar Sheika, many feel he actually beat Dawson (the Dawson vs. Johnson fight was very similar to Reid vs. Ottke) Harding - old Ruiz - worst voluntary defense of the 21st century Adamek - Dawson's best win, he says he was sick and weight-drained that night
Will Kessler ever fight another live body again? Doubt it. He's European after all, so maybe when he's in his mid-thirties and all credible opponents are 40+
Sez a guy with a f u c k e n Wrestler photo on his profile!! what a moron!!!
Age is not the key factor. Fighters peak and lose their abilities at different ages. Look at Lennox Lewis, Bernard Hopkins, Wilfred Benitez.
But Tarver isn't old or shot at age 40?
Let's get this straight: if you hate a fighter, you'll say all the opponents he's beaten were "old" or "shot" regardless of their age. After all, since you believe that fighter is inferior, in your mind there's no way the fighter you hate could beat anyone any good UNLESS he is old and/or shot!
But if you like a fighter, their opponents are never "old" or "shot" regardless of how much they have slowed down or what age they are! When your favorites like Dawson beat old fighters like Tarver you'll say those are great wins on his resume!!
Let's get this straight: if you hate a fighter, you'll say all the opponents he's beaten were "old" or "shot" regardless of their age. After all, since you believe that fighter is inferior, in your mind there's no way the fighter you hate could beat anyone any good UNLESS he is old and/or shot!
But if you like a fighter, their opponents are never "old" or "shot" regardless of how much they have slowed down or what age they are! When your favorites like Dawson beat old fighters like Tarver you'll say those are great wins on his resume!!
Whatever.
The bottom line is I like Dawson but not as much as I like Kessler. If the two fought I would be rooting for Kessler, I have been a big fan of his ever since he whooped Mundine out here a couple of years ago.
I am just analysing their resumes based on my opinion of the level of competition the guys have fought when they fought them. I think that wins over Adamek, Johnson, Harding and a past-prime (although not shot) Taver are better than Mikkel's wins. Kessler's best win, IMO, is Mundine and he is not on the level of the guys Dawson has fought and beaten.
I know you will try and twist this post around and take the "you hate all white fighters and you hate yourself" argument, but I couldn't give a *** tbh.
Comment