Froch or Kessler?

by manos de piedra Thu 27 Sep 2012, 2:51 pm

First topic message reminder :

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.

by Herman Jaeger Fri 28 Sep 2012, 10:02 am

manos...

I don't really want to get sucked into a minor squabble, but what I will say is that I have never rated Froch above Jones in a p4p sense. Look again, I said supermiddle. And then I was only asking if it not unreasonable to place Froch higher in that division. Particularly as you can place an asterix over the Toney win for Jones- Toney's rapid weight loss. Not saying it wasn't a fine display from Jones.

If you think Jones and Calzaghe are a class above Froch fine by me. Although for me Froch a better chin than Jones, and beats Calzaghe in the 'taking on the best of their generation' category.

As for Calzaghe beating Hopkins- would fairly comfortable as opposed to easy be a more acceptable turn of phrase to you?

by Super D Boon Fri 28 Sep 2012, 1:58 pm

It's hard to evaluate these two because they both hold the dubious honour of being excellent paper champions but paper champions nonetheless.

Froch's competition is better overall but Kessler holds the distinction of having beaten Froch. I also believe that Kessler was quite some way passed his peak when he beat Froch as I think Calzaghe broke his heart and Ward broke his body before he faced to Froch. Kessler looked all over the place and lacked his usual crispness against Froch and won be sheer willpower more than anything.

Kessler for me is better. He's also been a unified champion lest we forget. However neither should be in the Hall of Fame on the basis they are paper champions. I think the HoF should be reserved for those who've proven themselves as true world champions not just belt holders. Saying that they'll both get in there one day.

by mobilemaster8 Fri 28 Sep 2012, 3:41 pm

Herman Jaggery wrote:manos...

I don't really want to get sucked into a minor squabble, but what I will say is that I have never rated Froch above Jones in a p4p sense. Look again, I said supermiddle. And then I was only asking if it not unreasonable to place Froch higher in that division. Particularly as you can place an asterix over the Toney win for Jones- Toney's rapid weight loss. Not saying it wasn't a fine display from Jones.

If you think Jones and Calzaghe are a class above Froch fine by me. Although for me Froch a better chin than Jones, and beats Calzaghe in the 'taking on the best of their generation' category.
As for Calzaghe beating Hopkins- would fairly comfortable as opposed to easy be a more acceptable turn of phrase to you?

That isn't even a category. Calzaghe was better. Unified the division, 2 weight world champion and undefeated. End of story.

by Herman Jaeger Fri 28 Sep 2012, 3:59 pm

Ah but that fails to address the question as to how good his division was! Kessler was many people's favorite to win the Super Six. In Calzaghe's time he was the definitive number two. Now you could argue he's about number five.

Two weight champion yes, but Dawson beat Hopkins comfortably, and sorry to bring this up, Pascal beat Dawson. Clear form line there. Though of course it's not that simple!

I'll happily say Calzaghe beat Hopkins, no way could anyone award that to Hopkins- you can't just take a breather if you can't keep up with the opponent's workrate(and of course it was only a tap he went down from, nothing more than a tap,) but you'll never get me to agree Calzaghe is superior to Froch. Never!

All good though.

by mobilemaster8 Fri 28 Sep 2012, 4:14 pm

I believe Calzaghe would have beaten the likes of Ward and Froch pretty easily in my eyes.

Granted it wasnt the best division back then, but he still beat the best offered to him.

I see Froch ahead of Kessler at the moment in momentum and opposition.

Ward
Froch
Kessler

by JabMachineMK2 Fri 28 Sep 2012, 4:29 pm

I don't see how you can say that Calzaghe beats Ward, Calzaghe struggled with Hopkins.

Ward has destroyed everyone he's faced. i haven't seen him in trouble. He tore through Dawson, he made Froch look like he couldn't box, Green, Kessler, Bika - all looked terrible.

Ward would beat Calzaghe, because he's facing people that Calzaghe wouldn't have done at the same stage in his career. Calzaghes has a better resume currently, but Ward would win, I can't understand why you'd think Calzaghe would win.

by Rowley Fri 28 Sep 2012, 4:30 pm

Herman Jaggery wrote:

Two weight champion yes, but Dawson beat Hopkins comfortably, and sorry to bring this up, Pascal beat Dawson. Clear form line there. Though of course it's not that simple!
.

Holmes beat Ali, Tyson beat Holmes, Williams beat Tyson, Audley beat Williams. Audley > Ali Clear form line there.

by Herman Jaeger Fri 28 Sep 2012, 4:40 pm

rowley wrote:
Herman Jaggery wrote:

Two weight champion yes, but Dawson beat Hopkins comfortably, and sorry to bring this up, Pascal beat Dawson. Clear form line there. Though of course it's not that simple!
.

Holmes beat Ali, Tyson beat Holmes, Williams beat Tyson, Audley beat Williams. Audley > Ali Clear form line there.

I punctuated with an exclamation mark. I mean these kind of debates can sometimes lurch into the realms of the absurd.

You're going to pick me up on a tongue in cheek comment now.

Jeez.

by Rowley Fri 28 Sep 2012, 4:54 pm

To be serious for a minute then I genuinely struggle to see how anyone could have Froch above Calzaghe, I am second to no man in my admiration for Froch and the run of opponents he has taken on but there are a couple of unavoidable facts I personally cannot get round or over. The first is that Froch has yet to establish at any point in his career he is the number one super middle in the world, we can, and indeed have debated to death Joe’s career and level of opposition but we can all agree on the fact that Joe most assuredly did prove this.

Secondly we cannot get away from the fact that in Kessler Froch lost to a guy Calzaghe beat, if not easily then certainly clearly and there is little to no reason to suggest the version of Kessler Froch lost to was significantly better than the one Joe vanquished, would probably find more people would see things the opposite way round to be honest.

I much prefer Froch as a fighter and have far more admiration for his career choices, but in terms of ability and all time supermiddle rankings I cannot justify anything other than having Joe above him.

by Herman Jaeger Fri 28 Sep 2012, 5:08 pm

rowley wrote:To be serious for a minute then I genuinely struggle to see how anyone could have Froch above Calzaghe, I am second to no man in my admiration for Froch and the run of opponents he has taken on but there are a couple of unavoidable facts I personally cannot get round or over. The first is that Froch has yet to establish at any point in his career he is the number one super middle in the world, we can, and indeed have debated to death Joe’s career and level of opposition but we can all agree on the fact that Joe most assuredly did prove this.

Secondly we cannot get away from the fact that in Kessler Froch lost to a guy Calzaghe beat, if not easily then certainly clearly and there is little to no reason to suggest the version of Kessler Froch lost to was significantly better than the one Joe vanquished, would probably find more people would see things the opposite way round to be honest.

I much prefer Froch as a fighter and have far more admiration for his career choices, but in terms of ability and all time supermiddle rankings I cannot justify anything other than having Joe above him.

Liston never established himself number one. Marciano did. Would Marciano beat Liston?

Don't quite see that as quite the decider you do. Why can't second in red hot division be better than first in lesser division? Or do we ignore perspective?

by Rowley Fri 28 Sep 2012, 5:21 pm

Liston did establish himself as number one but am not sure that is particularly relevant. Being number two in a strong division could well be considered as impressive as being number one in a weak division but I think you are overstating quite how strong the division is now, Ward is class no question but beyond that is it really all that great or one for the ages? I personally would not say so.

Also think when one of the guys who has stopped Froch getting to number one status (Kessler) is a guy Calzaghe beat on his way to achieving number one status this is a stumbling block far too great to summarily dismiss. Carl is a fine fighter but I absolutely cannot find a case for putting Carl above Joe even if I take things to as simple a level as prime vs prime who wins I still find myself plumping for Joe, much to my chagrin.

by Herman Jaeger Fri 28 Sep 2012, 5:31 pm

I realised just after I wrote that about Listin that it was a bad example. Of course he was number one. You got the point though.

Still don't get the second argument at all. Surprised a long time reader would put so much emphasis on just one common opponent. I can be pedantic too. Taylor beat Hopkins who sd'd Calzaghe. Froch beat Taylor.

You also ignore that many Calzaghe fans admitted on the old 606 that they doubted Calzaghe would get a verdict over Kessler in Denmark? Don't you appreciate the massive advantage of fighting at home! And weren't we expecting to see Kessler in Nottingham this autumn!

by manos de piedra Fri 28 Sep 2012, 5:44 pm

Herman,

You are obviously a big fan of Froch (I am aswell actually despite being guilty of selling him shot in the past).

But it does appear now as everything is being pitched from a position whereby Froch is almost beyond scrutiny.

For example, some of your comments on this thread indicate you believe that Froch is ahead of Kessler by a country mile, that Froch actually beat Kessler, that Froch coming second in the S6 is a case closed matter regarding his status above Kessler (Kessler actually beating Froch and withdrawing from the competition through injury I think makes it a little more complicated). You place alot of emphasis on Froch beating Kessler in hypothetical rematch, but attach much less significance to the fight that Kessler actually won. You also act incredulous that some people think that Dirrell could have been given the nod against Froch. It just comes across as a little bit one eyed in favour Froch to me.

Again, I dont see how Froch can rank above Calzaghe if you consider a broad approach. Yes he might have actually notched up slightly better wins, but he also lost twice to the two best fighters he faced there and as never the best in his division. Calzaghe actually beat Kessler, unified the titles and was the ring magaine champion as well as having extensive longetivity in the division. I also think Calzaghe was more talented overall.

Jones dismantling of Toney and the ease at which he beat a number of other super middles combined with his talent and ability and number 1 status at the weight I also think puts him ahead of Froch.

This isnt an attempt at squabbling by the way, but just an observation of why I think we are disagreeing because are respective positions on Froch are different. You think I am selling him short, fair enough. But I also in turn think you are being quite generous and selective when it comes to him.

by Herman Jaeger Fri 28 Sep 2012, 6:01 pm

Not incredulous though manos about Dirrell. Never said that. I also thought he won on first viewing as I did Hopkins with Calzaghe.

Then I rewatched, saw the cheating, and changed my opinion both times. That simple.

I have to stress though that I argue Froch's case not that I am a fan, just that I believe in what I say.

It may come across as though it's a matter of life and death to me, but really, don't lose any sleep over it. What does make me incredulous is how some people get so riled that I should hold this view. As it is so obviously not contrived.

by Rowley Fri 28 Sep 2012, 7:16 pm

Herman Jaggery wrote:Don't you appreciate the massive advantage of fighting at home!

I do indeed, I watched Froch vs Dirrell. I am still struggling to come up with a criteria where I put Froch above Joe though even on level of opposition. I f we take Carl's top five wins as Pascal, Dirrell, Bute, Taylor and Abraham and Joe's as Eubank, Hopkins, Kessler, Mitchell and Brewer I would have to ask if the first list really represented such a gaping chasm in terms of quality to cancel out all the other factors in Joe's favour (longevity, being divisional number one, result against Kessler etc)

by Super D Boon Fri 28 Sep 2012, 9:38 pm

I think Herman is in a minority of four in terms of people who think Froch rates above Calzaghe, those being - Herman Jaggery, Carl Froch, Rachel Cordingley, Mrs Froch (Carl froch's mum).

by Sponsored content

Froch or Kessler?

Froch or Kessler?

Re: Froch or Kessler?

Re: Froch or Kessler?

Re: Froch or Kessler?

Re: Froch or Kessler?

Re: Froch or Kessler?

Re: Froch or Kessler?

Re: Froch or Kessler?

Re: Froch or Kessler?

Re: Froch or Kessler?

Re: Froch or Kessler?

Re: Froch or Kessler?

Re: Froch or Kessler?

Re: Froch or Kessler?

Re: Froch or Kessler?

Re: Froch or Kessler?

Re: Froch or Kessler?

Re: Froch or Kessler?