Kessler v Froch - He who wins is higher

I've been mulling over this for the last few weeks. Despite beating Froch the last time people still see Kessler as the underdog and keep going on about how he has to avenge his loss.

However I can't see this fight being a trilogy so does this fight determine who will be ranked as the better SMW when they retire? If Froch wins does this mean that he ranks above Kessler when they retire?

So if Froch wins is he guaranteed to be ranked higher than Kessler even though their head to head would be 1-1 and both having lost to the best fighters in the division in their careers (Calzaghe and Ward)?

Yes, I would say you are right. The winner will be seen as ranked higher, especially if there is a clearer outcome than before. Another very close fight (I had Kessler winning the last one before it comes up for debate) and then we may be clamouring for a trilogy!!

Kessler will win anyway. Froch gets more props because he's British. Kessler won the first fight fairly and a campaign by certain people would have us believe that the result could have gone either way ir a hometown decision.

I'd pretty much agree. Right now I'd have Kessler a slither ahead of Froch and it's largely because of the result from their first fight, although he does have an edge in longevity, too.

Froch has more notable wins on his ledger, which closes the gap, but not enough to get him back on equal terms. If he levels their series at 1-1, which I think he will, then I'd say he deserves to edge just in front.

if froch wins a close decision i dont think it proves anything conclusively. especially as he likes to think he only lost to kessler because he was fighting away from home before. if his victory is emphatic then im sure he will go down as better than kessler. however i think kessler is way past his best and only fighting for the money. froch seems to be closer to his best and have more ambition than kessler these days. maybe he will prove me wrong though

Lance wrote:if froch wins a close decision i dont think it proves anything conclusively. especially as he likes to think he only lost to kessler because he was fighting away from home before.

Just a slight quibble, Lance, but Froch has since acknowledged that the better man won on the night and that the decision was fair and correct.

azania wrote:Kessler will win anyway. Froch gets more props because he's British. Kessler won the first fight fairly and a campaign by certain people would have us believe that the result could have gone either way ir a hometown decision.

Froch gets props because he has fought a long line of very tough bouts and has won most of them, giving some tremendous displays along the way. Yes, Kesslar won the first fight, but it was very close...and it was in Kesslar's back yard....and Kesslar hasn't fought at championship level since his injury lay off.....and Froch has looked better than ever recently. I see another close fight, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that you're being silly to just dismiss him like that.

88Chris05 wrote:

Lance wrote:if froch wins a close decision i dont think it proves anything conclusively. especially as he likes to think he only lost to kessler because he was fighting away from home before.

Just a slight quibble, Lance, but Froch has since acknowledged that the better man won on the night and that the decision was fair and correct.

depends when you listen to him. froch tends to say a lot of different things. i spoke to him at the darts last week and he seemed to be telling everyone it was a 50/50 fight which usually goes to the home fighter. and said he will make sure its not close this time

Az ....of course Froch gets more props because he is British. As much as we would all like to think that we are not nationalistic in our views when it comes to fighters/fights we are all suspectible of being a little blinded by passion.

I'm sure on Danish sports sights they would say that Kessler won fair and square.

Without getting into the fight itself I actually had it a draw but could see why Kessler got the nod. Had the fight been in Nottingham I do think we could have seen a different decision. It certainly wasn't the 117-111 fight that one of judges had it.

As for the topic itself...I wouldn't be to sure that Kessler would be ranked higher than Froch in terms of legacy should he win the 2nd fight as well. Whilst he would indeed have proved himself over Froch I would say that Carl's record would stand up better than Froch in terms of wins.

Notable wins on Kesslers would read:

Froch, Andrade .... bar that it isn't stacked. For the sake of argument in terms of names though lets put Allan Green & Brian Magee on it.

Notable wins on Froch would read:

Bute, Arbraham, Dirrell, Pascal, Taylor... hard to disagree that's not a better ledger. In the same mould as weaker names on Kesslers you could also add: Johnson & Magee.

In some way's I also feel that the fact Kessler lost to Calzaghe as well as Ward holds him back.

We can say with certainty that he wasn't the best in either era and whilst I do think Calzaghe would have handled Froch with as much ease as Ward did we don't know...

Were either Kessler or Froch 'THE MAN' in their weight during Ward's time...NO...was Kessler 'THE MAN' in Calzaghe's era NO...could Froch have been....possibly....

Maybe he's only acknowledging it in public, then!

I do think that it's "all there" for Froch to win this one though, just as he said he felt it was for the Bute fight. You can see with Carl in his interviews, the way he's been carrying himself, his last two performances etc that he's never been more confident or determined and, on top of that, he's visibly a better, more rounded fighter now than he was three years ago.

Difficult to say if Kessler's declined as much as others seem to think he has, for me. He's ounger than Froch but has been hampered with injuries and has been on the championship scene for the best part of a decade. My gut feeling is that his decline hasn't been that great, however, but that it's Froch's improvements which will make this fight a different one to their first.

I'm anticipating nothing less than a highly competitive, all-action fight, and I genuinely believe that Froch will do enough this time out to make it 1-1 between them. I won't totally rule out a late, late stoppage win for him, but I'd be more inclined to say he wins it by a two or three points on all cards.

i would have froch as slight favourite if kessler is in top shape. but i worry his injuries have caught up with him, in which case froch should win it comfortably.

carl is a very impulsive guy in person who tends to talk openly. i get the impression hes trying too hard to say the right things infront of the camera these days. hes certainly not a natural at talking in public

Ozzy, I have to disagree with you on whether Froch could have been the man in Calzaghes' era, especially if he losses to Kessler again. I am no lover of Calzaghe who I see as a wasted talent, struck low by lack of ambition, but I still believe he had the beating of Froch. Mind you, I would prefer to watch Froch fight than Calzaghe any day of the week. I do think he has the beating of Kessler this time and think we will be for an excellent fight from two top professionals. Role on May!!

bhb001 - I didn't say Froch would beat Calzaghe. In fact I said the exact opposite...that Joe would handle Froch with the same kind of ease as Ward did.

The point I made was that with certainty we can say Kessler was never the best of either the Calzaghe or Ward era ...wheras we can only say that Froch was never the best whilst Ward was around.

For what it's worth I do think Froch will beat Kessler this time round...and I think he will do so handidly. I am of the belief that the Dane has lost a step in recent times (though not the decline some would have you believe). Froch is really coming into his own right now and seems to be similar to Hopkins in the sense that he is getting better with age.

If he wins I would like him to steer clear of Ward, whose style is just all wrong for him, and instead attempt a move up to Light-Heavyweight or even catch-weight and get one of Hopkins/Dawson on his ledger in a final fight.

Seems to have become fashionable to think that froch was unlucky in the first fight between the two. My memories at the time, we're that only froch thought he deserved the win.

Certainly there were more people who thought he got a homer v dirrell than thought Kessler got a homer against him. But that one seems to get brushed under the carpet of frich's win list

I think we had a thread on our scores for Froch-Kessler I a few weeks back, Milky, and the general feeling amongst most of us who posted was that Kessler had done enough to nick it by a point or two. That's how I saw the fight as well, personally; a draw wouldn't have been an injustice or impossible to justify by any means, but would have been kinder to Carl than it would Mikkel.

I agree that Froch's close shave against Dirrell does get too easily and conveniently forgotten by that minority who do moan about the Kessler result, but here's the caveat.....I actually think Froch just about beat Dirrell, albeit by the skin of his teeth!

The bigger Caveat for me 88chris05 was that Froch at least went to Denmark and fought for the win.

Dirrel came to the Champions back yard and attempted to steal the title away. It was a rather negative display from the American and given Froch was the person attempting to push the pace and actually get shots of I always though heading into the score cards being read out that he would get the nod.

As I said I had Froch v Kessler I a draw....will head back and watch a 3rd time before they meet again...but would agree that if I had to give it one way it would have gone to Kessler but only narrowly.

Don't see this next contest being anywhere near as close to be honest.

I agree that it was Dirrell's negativity which cost him the decision, Ozzy. In the first few rounds and the last two or three, he did put together some excellent pieces of boxing, but it was between rounds six and ten that he really blew it.

His speed and class gave Froch absolute fits but in those middle stages he just spent way too much time clowning when he should have been working. There was no great quality to most of Froch's work in those stages of the fight, but at least he was engaging his opponent and looking to make things happen. There's a line between defensive boxing and simply not fighting, and Dirrell overstepped it; holding whenever Froch got to him, turning his back, making Froch 'miss' simply by virtue of being out of scoring range, ducking below the waist etc. That wasn't defense and he deserved nothing on the cards in rounds six, seven, eight or nine, for me.

As I've said before, the point deduction would have helped him had he received it earlier for his constant spoiling and fouling, ironically. When the point was taken in the tenth, it seemed to light a fire under Dirrell's backside and he realised that he needed to step it up to be sure of getting a decision. He duly did and, after that point, Froch didn't really get a look in. For those final two and a half rounds, Dirrell really did show what he could do and he even hurt Froch considerably in the tenth, but it was just too little, too late for me.

I was in the stands in Nottingham that night of the fight and wasn't sure either way at that time, but having seen the fight twice since on both occasions I've had it 114-113 to Froch (the point deduction in the tenth making what would have been a 10-9 round to Dirrell a 9-9).

Dirrell could have ran away with it had he shown more willingness to fight in those middle stages, but his reluctance to really stamp his authority over Froch despite holding all the aces from a styles point of view meant that Froch's industry and pressure was enough to hold on to the title, just about. I can see why someone might have the American nicking it, but he just didn't make Froch pay enough in my opinion.

Think it's one of those hagler Leonard fights to score Chris.. Do you score aggression, or effective aggression, and as you say... When does slick backfoot defence become running away. I can see how it went Carl 's way, though a fair few of our friends across the pond can't. However, froch is only a different set of judges in the dirrell fight and Taylor having the wherewithal to take a knee from having 4 defeats on his ledger... and just being another useful contender in a tough division.

I'm not suggesting that's a fair reflection, and I have great respect for froch's attitude and achievements, but its fine lines at the top level. Fighters generally have a one eyed view of their careers... and often, from some of the atg stuff we hear on here about froch so do some of their fans!

Froch looked great against bute, but I was one of the few who had bute down as a flat track bully before the fight. I suspect carl's improvement and Kessler's decline may both have been exaggerated and unless mikkel's punch resistance has gone, I expect another tough close fight.

I'm a Froch fan but I had him losing by 3 clear rounds against Kessler. I though Froch was pretty much ineffective throughout the fight and Kessler had him worked out. I can't agree with the opinion Froch nicked it. I din't see home town judging coming into it as they weren't needed as Kessler cearly won the fight.

I see this as a similar fight. Kessler is better than he is being credited for as far as I can see, he could do exactly the same thing to Froch again.

Calzaghe said Kessler gave him his toughest fight.


For me it's hard not to like Kessler. He presents himself very well at all times and must be one of the most genuinely popular guys in boxing.