Froch or Kessler?

As things stand at the moment who do you think deserves to rank higher on the all time SMW list? Should Kesslers victory over Froch give him the nod? Or has Froch done enough to rank above notwithstanding? Both fighters share a loss to Ward and have the distinction of losing to the two best SMWs they faced. Kessler to Ward and Calzaghe, Froch to Kessler and Ward.

Noteable wins for Froch: Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham, Johnson, Bute
Noteable wins for Kessler: Beyer, Andrade, Mundine, Froch, Green

I would lean towards Froch in terms of comeptition baten, but Kesslers equaliser is that he beat Froch in a head to head and has the greater longetivity, title wins and defences and unifications to his name. Ability wise I dont think there is a huge amount in it. For me its close.

Kessler. He beat Froch and when its all said and done, it carries more weight. One could argue that kessler would have beaten the guys Froch beat anyway.

azania wrote:Kessler. He beat Froch and when its all said and done, it carries more weight. One could argue that kessler would have beaten the guys Froch beat anyway.

But he hasn't. I would agree Kessler at the moment just about but a couple more big names and Froch is above for me. Plus there is always the possibilty Froch beats him in a rematch.

If Froch wins a rematch then yes. But as things stand, Id have Kessler ahead due to the win over Froch.

Froch has to beat Kessler in a rematch for history to ever rank him better. Personally I think Froch has achieved more as he has fought and beaten some of the best worldwide whereas kessler has stayed on the European circuit with one trip to Oz

Kessler fought Calzaghe in Wales, Ward in California and Mundine in Australia. He is willing to travel to be fair.

Kessler.

Froch's list of top-notch wins is a little longer, I agree, but the importance of Kessler's victory when they shared a ring themselves can't be overstated in this case. If Froch can add a couple of more meritorious wins then I may edge him in front, but as it stands I don't think there's quite enough on his ledger to turn the tide.

Also, while they've both lost to the two best 168 lb champions they've met, Kessler has been fairly dominant outside fo that, whereas Froch hasn't always been. Arguably the beneficiary of a fortunate decision against Dirrell, needed that desperate late rally against Taylor, etc.

Only very minor quibbles with Froch's victories, of course, and there's no saying for sure how Kessler would have got on against those two in 2009 (although I think he'd have kept Taylor pretty much in check throughout, personally), but that's how fine the margin is between them. But Kessler's win over Froch, his longevity and his title unifications are reason enough for me to be higher right now.

Froch by a country mile.


Runner up in Super Six to supreme Andre Ward. Case closed.


Froch's list of victims and championship run far outstrips the Dane's achievements.

Froch much better success on the road than the Dane.


Kessler home advantage in their head to head, contentious decision. Talks break down for their expected return later this year, leaving many wondering if Kessler really wants the fight.

If Kessler ghadn't beaten Froch I would definitley say Froch, the only thing that has me leaning toward Kess is the fact he beat Froch. Froch has by far the better wins on his resume IMO, but Kess did beat him fair and square. Answer is simple - they must rematch

I think Kessler missed out on two years post calzaghe fighting duffers because of a promoter dispute which may explain crispears reasoning. Kessler has never lacked nerve and I think he was robbed of a few good wins by that dispute. I think his first fight after signing with Sauerland was Ward which say it all for me. As it is Kessler is ahead marginally because he beat Froch but I agree that a couple of fights time Froch could top him.

Regardless of who one ranks ahead I cant for life of me see it being one or the other by a country mile. I have Kessler edging it at the moment.

Kessler, simply for beating Froch.

Until Froch wins a rematch, theres no real debate in my eyes

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Kessler, simply for beating Froch.

Until Froch wins a rematch, theres no real debate in my eyes

Jabmachine has spoke, close the debate

I think in the rematch, though I have very little confidence in that taking place, you'll see what I mean manos. If you feel country mile is excessive, then I'll retract so as not to offend.

Seanusarrilius wrote:Jabmachine has spoke, close the debate

kessler beat him. was nothing at all contentious about the decision as far as im concerned. unlike froch dirrell. also froch was still undefeated and arguably at his near best, where as kessler had already slipped some what and was coming off the back of the ward defeat and a few injury problems.

Yeah, agree with Lance in sense that Froch lost, wasn't a landslide and I think Kessler was still a very strong opponent veruss Froch, but Froch did lose. Was outworked IMO. However, Froch would defeat Kesssler in a rematch, IMO

Herman Jaggery wrote:I think in the rematch, though I have very little confidence in that taking place, you'll see what I mean manos. If you feel country mile is excessive, then I'll retract so as not to offend.

Im not offended at all, I just dont see how as things stand now Froch could be miles ahead of Kessler. If he avenges the defeat in a rematch, the naturally I would re-evaluate. But thats a big if.

Ultimately I think they are two very well matched fighters with not a great deal seperating them (as their first fight indicated). Kesslers head to head win, greater longetivity and title defences are enough to edge him over Frochs better list of wins for me at the moment.

froch would most probably beat him comfortably now. but kessler is very much in the twilight of his career where as froch is still performing to his best. kesslers many injury problems have caught up with him

Can certainly see their point of view- those who think Kessler won. I don't agree naturally. I also think Kessler is happy to take that and is preying Froch loses before next summer and the pressure mounts.


People talk of Kessler slipping but ignore problems Froch encountered before their fight.

Lance, Kessler has had injuries, but he wasn't a walking shell of himself and isn't now. Ward dominated him because he dominates anyone and depsite the niggles, come fight night he is still ready. ALso he has gained experience in every fight. Kessler is prob 80-85% of his prime ability, but Froch is 35, too and was written off afer Ward. I was literally one of about 2 people on this board who called BEFORE the Bute fight for a Froch KO win. The revisionists will say otherwise, but in short... respect my authority!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seanusarrilius wrote:Lance, Kessler has had injuries, but he wasn't a walking shell of himself and isn't now. Ward dominated him because he dominates anyone and depsite the niggles, come fight night he is still ready. ALso he has gained experience in every fight. Kessler is prob 80-85% of his prime ability, but Froch is 35, too and was written off afer Ward. I was literally one of about 2 people on this board who called BEFORE the Bute fight for a Froch KO win. The revisionists will say otherwise, but in short... respect my authority!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't make him write in red Lance.

Manos, I hope this doesn't sound argumentative, but 'wins' always trumps longevity for me. If their list of wins were comparable(even,) then yes Kessler's longevity might shade it. We're all agreed(for the most part,) Froch has a better list of wins, thus negating all other criteria.

Herman Jaggery wrote:Manos, I hope this doesn't sound argumentative, but 'wins' always trumps longevity for me. If their list of wins were comparable(even,) then yes Kessler's longevity might shade it. We're all agreed(for the most part,) Froch has a better list of wins, thus negating all other criteria.

No not at all, thats what discussions are all about. I would agree with you that I think Froch at this stage has the better win column, although I dont think its by a huge amount especially when you factor in Kessler holding a victory over him. I would have to disagree that Froch won that head to head. I think Kessler won a close, competitive fight.

I would also slightly disagree with the idea that a better win column automatically ranks you higher as its not always a fair reflection. Take for instance Ricky Hatton. He holds a better win column than Manny Pacquaio at light welterweight. But Pacquiaos only fight at the weight was to completely blitz Hatton himself. Who is a better light welterweight? If you just took win colums then Tszyu, Castillo, Malignaggi, Urango, Maussa etc might indicate Hatton. But in practical terms I think its fair to say Pacquaio was obviously a better light welter.

Or take Jones Jr at SMW. His record at there is shallow. One big win over Toney and series of decent but not anything to write home about wins. Froch could possibly boast a better win column at SMW than Jones overall but I think Jones has to rank higher.

So for me I try to factor in other aspects like head to head or longetivity in ranking them overall. And in this regard I think it gives Kessler enough of an equaliser to just stay in front, even though Froch could probably say he has a better list of wins at the weight.

I digress a bit, but does Jones in fact automatically rank ahead of Calzaghe and indeed Froch at super middleweight? It was discussed on the old(and great,) 606. Personally I think Calxaghe has to rank higher than Jones. And so does Froch. Though of course, that doesn't mean they win the head to head.

I see your point though. A great win could possibly trump a series of very good wins. Or more realistically a great win and a few very good wins could trump a greater number of very good wins.

Herman Jaggery wrote:I digress a bit, but does Jones in fact automatically rank ahead of Calzaghe and indeed Froch at super middleweight? It was discussed on the old(and great,) 606. Personally I think Calxaghe has to rank higher than Jones. And so does Froch. Though of course, that doesn't mean they win the head to head.

I see your point though. A great win could possibly trump a series of very good wins. Or more realistically a great win and a few very good wins could trump a greater number of very good wins.

I think Jones was a better fighter than both (alot better than Froch) but Calzaghes record and acheivement, longetivity etc at the weight probably puts him top of the pile.

But Jones I think is well ahead of Froch. I dont think you can just take Frochs wins in isolation. You have to consider he lost twice at the weight also, to the two top guys he faced there. Jones dominated the top pound for pound fighter in the world at the time at the weight and swatted away several other fighters without breaking sweat before moving on. Froch has never actually been the top guy at SMW. He isnt even a cert for second in his era. When Jones beat Toney he was definately the top dog.

Kessler edges it for me, by virtue that the best win on either of their records is Kessler's over Froch, anyone who rates Froch as a great super middle has to judge someone who beats him as better. If Froch turns him over in a rematch then for me that would rank him higher based on the quality of his other wins.

If you don't mind my saying so manos, I do think you underrate Froch somewhat, and possibly overrate Calzaghe.


You had Abraham and Bute to beat Froch, and you had Calzaghe to easily beat Hopkins. You didn't even see that one as close.


Don't forget either, there's always the chance Froch could open Jones up and knock him out. Not sure JC could have done that.

Herman Jaggery wrote:Froch by a country mile.


Runner up in Super Six to supreme Andre Ward. Case closed.


Froch's list of victims and championship run far outstrips the Dane's achievements.

Froch much better success on the road than the Dane.


Kessler home advantage in their head to head, contentious decision. Talks break down for their expected return later this year, leaving many wondering if Kessler really wants the fight.

Why is the assumption that its Kessler's fault that the talks broke down. Perhaps it was Team Froch's fault.

Herman Jaggery wrote:I think in the rematch, though I have very little confidence in that taking place, you'll see what I mean manos. If you feel country mile is excessive, then I'll retract so as not to offend.

Offend offend!

Azania wades in.


I'm off...

See ya

C'mon Kessler priced himself out.


What's he done anyway to deserve a rematch? B grade Boudia and Green. He should be grateful to get another shot at Froch, who clearly shows much more willingness to fight the best than Kessler.

Herman Jaggery wrote:C'mon Kessler priced himself out.


What's he done anyway to deserve a rematch? B grade Boudia and Green. He should be grateful to get another shot at Froch, who clearly shoes much more willingness to fight the best than Kessler.

I would have thought it would be Froch deserving of a rematch not the victor of the first fight. Come on mate, Kessler has proven his grapefruits many times before.

If Froch wants him, pay him.

Kessler's weary of travelling imo.


Whenever he fights quality abroad...


But yeah, I hope he gets a new suit for it.

He went to the lion's den to fave Calzaghe. Went to USA to fight Ward. Not exactly a sign of someone weary of traveling. The guy is a warrior.

All I am suggesting is he's not confident of beating Froch.


That is all.

He;s done it once before. I doubt he doubts himself. Anyway a fight now won't prove anything as Kessler is on the downside of his career. I'd still pick him over Carl.

Herman Jaggery wrote:

Froch much better success on the road than the Dane.

Not sure how because Froch has only had 1 or 2 more fights outside the UK than Kessler has had outside of Denmark, and both have been beaten twice away from home, so when it comes to travelling they're quite equal.

Also, in some peoples eyes, Froch has 3 losses (Dirrell) against Keslers 2.

Froch performance against Pascal was the best for me, followed by Bute.

Kessler performed brilliantly against both Calazaghe and Froch.

Froch needs to beat Kesler to be rated higher.

You seriously think Dirrell deserved the nod against Froch?


Like Hopkins against Calzaghe, he cheated.



That's the bottom line. And the judges weren't fooled.

I reckon he beat Froch. Anywhere else he would have got the decision. But hey ho, shi!t happens.

dirrell beat froch. ive watched it many times and i cant see how froch won it. as for cheating, froch wasnt exactly fighting cleanly and often doesnt. if you think froch beat kessler and dirrell and that kessler is running scared of a rematch then you are some loyal froch fan i have to say

im a hopkins fan and i think he beat calzaghe dawson and taylor twice.

Yeah falling to your knees like to get out of any in fighting. Blatant.

rabbit punches and wrestling arent exactly legal boxing moves

I think Dirrell-Froch is a fight which you can have to either man by a point, perhaps two, but no more than that. A draw wouldn't have been unreasonable, either.

I must say though, that from a technical point of view, Dirrell had the beating of Froch that night. In the latter rounds, aside from the twelfth when he got on his bike, he had complete control. Dirrell threw it away to some extent by being way too passive early on.

Gutsy and determined performance by Froch, but he was made to look very ordinary at times that night. Having said that, he's come on leaps and bounds since then.

Admittedly biased but do think Froch deserves to be ahead of Kessler despite the loss, which for me could easily have gone either way!

Take that fight away looking at both fighters opponents and victories for me Froch has the better record. Not knocking Kessler who I have a great deal of respect for and understand why many have him ahead, but like I say that fight imo could have gone either way so I can't rank Kessler higher just based on that fight.

I entirely agree with that chris, Dirrell threw it away.


But so did Hopkins, who probably had the better of things from a technical point of view against Calzaghe.


Moral of the tale. Cheats never prosper.


Especially in boxing...

but froch prides himself on being able to fight 'dirty' and do whatever it takes to win. also many people including some of his opponents have called calzaghe a cheat.

To be honest Lance, I've never thought of Calzaghe as a dirty fighter. Honestly I've never heard that before.

Herman Jaggery wrote:If you don't mind my saying so manos, I do think you underrate Froch somewhat, and possibly overrate Calzaghe.


You had Abraham and Bute to beat Froch, and you had Calzaghe to easily beat Hopkins. You didn't even see that one as close.


Don't forget either, there's always the chance Froch could open Jones up and knock him out. Not sure JC could have done that.

Strange, Ive been accused of being Calzaghe "hater" in the past amongst other things. You might be right in me underating Froch in terms of head to head. I did actually think he would lose to Bute and Abraham. Calzaghe and Hopkins though, no I didnt think Calzaghe would win easily and I actually scored it to Hopkins.

Head to head in comparison to Jones or Clazaghe with relation to Froch is a different ball game though. Froch lost to Kessler. Calzaghe proved he was better than Kessler. I might be guilty of underrating Froch somewhat, he is a fighter I find dificult to evaluate, but if you rate him above Jones and miles ahead of Kessler I would suggest you might be overrating him yourself. Jones and Calzaghe were a class above Froch in my view. Froch has never come close to outclassing someone like Toney the way Jones did. He barely beat Andre Dirrell and a shopworn Taylor.