Mikkel Kessler announces retirement

Kessler has today announced his retirement from boxing
What are your thoughts on him as a fighter and what he acheived?

One of my favourite fighters of recent years, true gent outside the ring as well. Glad he's retired and not become a punch bag for the likes of Degale.

Good fighter, tended to be a good watch and as Hampo said one of the true good guys outside the ring. Hope he enjoys a well deserved retirement.

Never in a boring fight. Paid to see him twice (Calzaghe and Froch 2) and enjoyed both, good luck to the Viking Warrior!

I think the most pleasing thing is he has retired before becoming a stepping stone for younger fighters

Best of luck in the future to Mikkel, always fun to watch and a lovely bloke besides. Feet up by the fire and concubines by the score.

Agree with everyone else's sentiments and lets hope it sticks.

He was cobra'd so badly it took him two years to realise he'd been retired.

Good fighter, always came across pretty well, let's hope he sticks to his retirement.

Can't so I was much of a fan..............Lost to an old Calzaghe, lost to Froch convincingly and Ward too...........

Decent fighter..........Hope he enjoys his life..

World class fighter not elite but respected.

As people have said he came to fight but his good chap personality may have hindered his career could have done with being a bit spiteful from time to time.

It helps in boxing.

I'm a big fan. Classy guy and a good fighter to watch.

No.3 all time great career super middleweight for me after Calzaghe/ Ward.

A good guy, one of my favourites.

Good for him. I hope he sticks to his word and stays retired. Having some brain cells left when you reach old age has to be better than having none, even if you do have a pile of cash.

Strongback wrote:No.3 all time great career super middleweight for me after Calzaghe/ Ward.

A good guy, one of my favourites.

Don't be silly..

I really like Kessler and he was a very very good fighter but you are pushing it a bit strongback to rate him that high

Top all rounder, always set an example of how to go about things, including in retiring with his wits about him.

Awesome tattoo as well. Lovely cheek bones...those eyes...mmmm

Also his sister is the owner of Scandinavia's largest silicone breasts.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Top all rounder, always set an example of how to go about things, including in retiring with his wits about him.

Awesome tattoo as well. Lovely cheek bones...those eyes...mmmm

I did read somewhere once that Kessler might be a homosexual. If you like his eyes and cheekbones maybe you should try to contact him.

Strongback wrote:No.3 all time great career super middleweight for me after Calzaghe/ Ward.

A good guy, one of my favourites.

Ritchie Woodhall would have ruined him.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Strongback wrote:No.3 all time great career super middleweight for me after Calzaghe/ Ward.

A good guy, one of my favourites.

Don't be silly..

Name another better?

Froch and Jones are both above him, stronger records and better wins.

He is handsome isn't he, considering he was never squeamish about getting smacked in the face.

I guess Roy Jones campaigned at other weights during his career so his time as a SMW is limited in comparison to a career super mid like Kessler. Having said that, stepping up at beating Toney made Jones no.1 at the weight. There was always someone better than Kessler.

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Strongback wrote:No.3 all time great career super middleweight for me after Calzaghe/ Ward.

A good guy, one of my favourites.

Don't be silly..

Name another better?

Toney?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Froch and Jones are both above him, stronger records and better wins.

He beat Froch even in decline coming off a defeat.

The best fighter Froch beat was Kessler. A faded Kessler.

Kessler is the better man in all senses of the word.

I'd put Froch ahead of Kessler also. Mainly because Froch is a rare case of a sportsman who's fulfilled all his potential. Not as naturally gifted as some of his peers but you can't really fault his record. Took on everyone and only has one unavenged loss which to be honest is a fight I don't think he could ever have won.

Sounds like a thinly veiled insult to call someone an overachiever but I think it's a massive compliment.

Being an overachiever is something to be merited but we are comparing who is the better fighter.

Easy to say he was in decline but the only evidence of that was after the first Froch fight and they were injuries caused by Froch, on overall record Froch takes it by a fair distance.

Atila wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Top all rounder, always set an example of how to go about things, including in retiring with his wits about him.

Awesome tattoo as well. Lovely cheek bones...those eyes...mmmm

I did read somewhere once that Kessler might be a homosexual. If you like his eyes and cheekbones maybe you should try to contact him.

I am deeply homophobic.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

Atila wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Top all rounder, always set an example of how to go about things, including in retiring with his wits about him.

Awesome tattoo as well. Lovely cheek bones...those eyes...mmmm

I did read somewhere once that Kessler might be a homosexual. If you like his eyes and cheekbones maybe you should try to contact him.

I am deeply homophobic.

I am widely homophobic.

Dereck Chisora is physically homophobic

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Easy to say he was in decline but the only evidence of that was after the first Froch fight and they were injuries caused by Froch, on overall record Froch takes it by a fair distance.

So Andre Ward didn't cause an eye injury?

Have another Google.

Kessler beat Froch, no doubt who the better fighter is.

Froch has good wins but nothing great. Beaten by the best fighters he fought. Calzaghe would have mauled him. Even in defeat to Calzaghe Kessler showed his worth.

I really need to google Carl Froch don't I strongy, it's never as simple as simply saying A beat B so he's better especially when B also beat A.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I really need to google Carl Froch don't I strongy, it's never as simple as simply saying A beat B so he's better especially when B also beat A.

Kessler showed enough to demonstrate he is the better fighter. He fought everybody and beat Froch.

The google reference was in relation to Kesslers decline.

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Easy to say he was in decline but the only evidence of that was after the first Froch fight and they were injuries caused by Froch, on overall record Froch takes it by a fair distance.

So Andre Ward didn't cause an eye injury?

Have another Google.

Kessler beat Froch, no doubt who the better fighter is.

Froch has good wins but nothing great.  Beaten by the best fighters he fought. Calzaghe would have mauled him. Even in defeat to Calzaghe Kessler showed his worth.

Well, there was enough doubt to create a rematch. I don't think it's as cut and dried as you make out. They shared the ring for 24 rounds and there wasn't too much to separate them.

I think depending on your success criteria you can make an argument for either being the better fighter.
Depends what you value.

Froch has a better record.....

I'd pick Tyson to beat Jeffries..........I have Jeffries higher..

He's only got Kessler higher because Froch is British..........

Now I'm a Froch fan so naturally I would rate him higher than the Dane, but anyone who thinks he has a better resume than Froch must have learning difficulties or is being deliberately perverse.

Good luck to Kessler, won me over in the lead up to the second Froch fight, would hate to see him take much punishment, got nothing left to prove.

Herman Jaggery wrote:Now I'm a Froch fan so naturally I would rate him higher than the Dane, but anyone who thinks he has a better resume than Froch must have learning difficulties or is being deliberately perverse.

Deliberately perverse................You called it. All these degrees and he's so obvious !!......His famous Dad would be very disappointed !!!!.

Erm how do you google apparent wrong information Strongy?

Dipper Brown wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Easy to say he was in decline but the only evidence of that was after the first Froch fight and they were injuries caused by Froch, on overall record Froch takes it by a fair distance.

So Andre Ward didn't cause an eye injury?

Have another Google.

Kessler beat Froch, no doubt who the better fighter is.

Froch has good wins but nothing great.  Beaten by the best fighters he fought. Calzaghe would have mauled him. Even in defeat to Calzaghe Kessler showed his worth.

Well, there was enough doubt to create a rematch. I don't think it's as cut and dried as you make out. They shared the ring for 24 rounds and there wasn't too much to separate them.

I think depending on your success criteria you can make an argument for either being the better fighter.
Depends what you value.

Kessler was post prime when he fought Froch both times. The Kessler that fought Calzaghe is all over Froch.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Froch has a better record.....

I'd pick Tyson to beat Jeffries..........I have Jeffries higher..

He's only got Kessler higher because Froch is British..........

You only have Froch higher because you think it might annoy me. I couldn't care less. I equate Froch closely to an Irish fighter............Steve Collins.

Froch has no great win. He got out boxed by the best fighters he fought. This sound familiar. Anyway I thought you were too middle aged to wum anymore.

Herman Jaggery wrote:Now I'm a Froch fan so naturally I would rate him higher than the Dane, but anyone who thinks he has a better resume than Froch must have learning difficulties or is being deliberately perverse.

Good luck to Kessler, won me over in the lead up to the second Froch fight, would hate to see him take much punishment, got nothing left to prove.

Were are the great Froch wins...........a nobody in Groves or a hype job like Bute or example? Lets see what happens to Pascal when he fights a top man like Kovalev.

Good wins when considering Froch's level. Nothing spectacular in the big scheme of things.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Erm how do you google apparent wrong information Strongy?

You have a habit of it. In your eagerness to post the first thing that suits your argument your fail to read the full story and end up looking like the most obvious know nothing googler around here.

Strongback wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Easy to say he was in decline but the only evidence of that was after the first Froch fight and they were injuries caused by Froch, on overall record Froch takes it by a fair distance.

Kessler beat Froch, no doubt who the better fighter is.

So Danny Williams is better than Mike Tyson then?

Since apparently we're not looking at anything else and the rest of fighter's records don't count....

Only Strongy (in the absence of Az) could possibly pull off this level of BS wummery.

Really like Kessler, and 'peak for peak' I'd back him to beat Froch, but comparing them overall with silly remarks like "where are the great Froch wins" is laughable.

Where are Kesslers??!

Lost to every top level fighter he fought - JC, Ward, Froch.

Beat who? Magee, Green and Andrade?? Froch is his only 'top win'.

Struggle to see how that's better than:

Groves
Bute
Johnson
Abraham
Dirrel
Taylor
Pascal

None of those are really 'great', either, but as a package they're better than Kessler's CV comfortably. Hell, Reid-Dodson-Magee are comparable to the bulk of Kessler's record!!

Agree with the above. Froch has no great wins, but a resume of good to very good ones. Kessler doesn't have much quality in the win column. Their wins over each other are probably both their best wins. 

I too would pick Kessler head to head in their primes, but the first fight was close to prime for both and was close, so no certainty. A better allround boxer than froch, but struggled with froch's jab in both fights.

So Kessler head to head, just. Froch has the better record.

I'd actually lean towards Froch in a head to head scenario. He was unusually subdued in Denmark when they fought for the first time, by that I mean he wasn't quite active enough in getting his punches off in the steamrolling fashion he tends to fight. Felt it cost him the decision IMO.

And by 'lean' I don't mean Froch would win 90% of the time, could never really see either guy winning by more than a couple of rounds most times they fought.

Would've been interesting if they fought in Vegas (during their prime) as the home advantage is blurring the lines here somewhat.

I thought Froch won comfortably last time 116-112...........Had the fight in Denmark closer.....

My problem with Kessler is the Calzaghe defeat..........He lost that fight comfortably against an aging Calzaghe who was just to embark on a senior tour......Calzaghe was coming up to 36...Kessler was something crazy like 35 - 0.........

I'd pick Froch over a 36 yr old Joe any day of the week...........Though I'd go Calzaghe by decision in his prime..

Good fighter Kessler nothing more..

Good fighter who wasn't afraid to face his biggest rivals on their turf.

Froch has a better resume and is the higher-ranked super middleweight all-time (I'd have both top five).

I can see a case for arguing that Kessler was the better fighter (based on the two fights they fought).

I think joe would beat froch fairly easily even at the tail end of his career. Froch is solid but unspectacular and his custom of growing stronger through the rounds would probably tell against him because calzaghe wouldn't fade. Wide UD maybe a couple of hairy moments but comfortable nonetheless. As for the rankings I'd probably give froch the edge in terms of resume and Kessler the edge in face to face.

Considering how quite a few pundits gave a slow working...43 year old Hopkins the Calzaghe fight.........and Jones decked him..

I'd love to see a tail end Calzaghe fairly easily beat Froch...........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Considering how quite a few pundits gave a slow working...43 year old Hopkins the Calzaghe fight.........and Jones decked him..

I'd love to see a tail end Calzaghe fairly easily beat Froch...........

Give that "styles make fights" (and you do keep telling us that don't you) it's pretty easy to see Calzaghe mugging off the one dimensional Froch.