Does the Kess that fought Calzaghe whip Froch?

They'll always be a tough match up for one another. Just a clash of styles, but the Kessler that fought Calzaghe, was slightly better. Kessler was lighter on his feet and hand better hand speed. Kessler is more of a slugger now. His balance was terrible last night.

It would always be a pretty close fight. I don't subscribe to this idea that Kessler was diminished. Froch has been in tougher fights and more wars, taken more shots. Agreed 100%. I thought "Kessler would be better now because his eye is fixed. He's 100%" What happened to that?

yes he almost had a draw last night he beat him 3 years ago he would beat him 5 years ago

Yesterday a shot 34yr old Kessler just give Froch a life and death fight. you were watching the wrong fight, Froch clearly beat Kess. Next time check the names on the fights when you watch a Russian upload on youtube. As to the question, I expect that Froch would do much better against the thick version Kessler who was stupid enough to go into a fight when only fit for 6 rounds with only one good hand, rather than the cagier smarter but admittedly a little battered version of Mikkel today.

Calzaghe is so overrated...Chad Dawson made Hopkins look average yet Calzaghe struggled and arguably lost to Hopkins. But Hopkins embarrassed Kelly Pavlik, who destroyed Jermain Taylor, who won a decision over Hopkins, twice. Where does that leave us now? And what's with the "arguably lost to Hopkins"? Either you have a bad memory or you know nothing about boxing.

Calzaghe is so overrated...Chad Dawson made Hopkins look average yet Calzaghe struggled and arguably lost to Hopkins. Ye... B hop hasn't aged at all the past 4 years, clown

Calzaghe is so overrated...Chad Dawson made Hopkins look average yet Calzaghe struggled and arguably lost to Hopkins. Hopkins was 43 against Calzaghe. He was 48 against Dawson. I would bet the house on Hopkins 5 years ago to beat Dawson. If Calzaghe is so overrated Kessler, Eubank and Hopkins would have all beaten him comfortably. In 2007, Calzaghe at 35yr old comfortably beat a prime 28 year old Kessler. Yesterday a shot 34yr old Kessler just give Froch a life and death fight.

And fans of the boxer who beat the guy we're talking about aren't the best people to ask either. Deliberately or not, they always credit their fighter with the most they possibly can, in this case by hyping the opponent. Kessler's best ever performance was against Calzaghe, and that Kessler wins a close decision over Froch more often than he doesn't. Im a Kessler fan too though, Ward as well for that matter. I just think Mikkel poured his soul into that fight in Denmark a lot more than he did in Wales Styles play their part also, Joe and Carl are very different fighters

no he definitely wouldn't whip him, it would be another close and very entertaining fight with Kessler as slight favourite for a close decision win. There is not much between these two and there styles simply match up well.

Don't care, fighters aren't the best people to ask about their own careers. I think he was better the night he fought Froch in Denmark. Kessler also said he had a hand injury when he fought Joe And fans of the boxer who beat the guy we're talking about aren't the best people to ask either. Deliberately or not, they always credit their fighter with the most they possibly can, in this case by hyping the opponent. Kessler's best ever performance was against Calzaghe, and that Kessler wins a close decision over Froch more often than he doesn't.

Froch at his best beats kessler at his best hands down. Its always gonna be competetive though.

Yeah Kessler is the better fighter prime 4 prime Honestly. He would have won last night if Froch didn't have such an amazing chin Seriously anyone els would. Have been koed at 168 those where brutal shots

Even Kessler admitted he has never been as good as he was that night against Joe, so you're logic is flawed to begin with. I'll see if I can find the interview. Don't care, fighters aren't the best people to ask about their own careers. I think he was better the night he fought Froch in Denmark. Kessler also said he had a hand injury when he fought Joe

Even Kessler admitted he has never been as good as he was that night against Joe, so you're logic is flawed to begin with. I'll see if I can find the interview. That doesn;t really matter. Carl has never been better than he was against Bute...that's just part of the whole 'styles make fights' thing, Calzaghe's style was one that allowed Kessler to look very good at times.

No sir, I thought the Kessler that Fought Froch in Denmark was Mikkel at his best and even there he didn't whip Froch he edged the win by a ball hair Even Kessler admitted he has never been as good as he was that night against Joe, so you're logic is flawed to begin with. I'll see if I can find the interview.

No sir, I thought the Kessler that Fought Froch in Denmark was Mikkel at his best and even there he didn't whip Froch he edged the win by a ball hair

No. These two are simply tailor made for one another. You could put them in there 20 times and all 20 would be great fights, and all would be close. Kessler edged the first fight, Froch won the 2nd more clearly....prime for prime would be a hell of a fight.

I don't know, I like that Froch committed to the jab a lot more in the rematch, but I also felt that he didn't use the right hand as much as the first fight, unless I'm not remembering things correctly. Hard to say who the better fighter is, like Iron said if both fought 10 times they'd be in competitive fights.

Kessler said he hurt his right hand even before the fight, Kess at 100% probably beats Joe.

It's what sepearates him from other fighters that aren't great technically,he is fucking tough Somebody's forgetting he was the first Briton ever to win a medal at the amateur worlds, can't do that without being more than technically sound. Prime for prime: Calzaghe > Kessler > Froch, and it's not even close.