Rewatching Froch-Kessler now....

[REMOVED SHARK 97]

Well I've only watched the fight once but I'm sure I noticed Kessler landing the jab at will, and it being a large factor in why Kessler had firm command of the ring for most of the fight.

Froch commanded the Dirrell fight, why does everyone think Dirrell won?, because Dirrell landed the better shots.

Froch lands more and makes Kessler miss but because Kessler was the one chasing it, it was a clear victory for Mikkel?

I don't get it, what scoring criteria is it.

[askoe]

Froch looked like a looser just after the last bell, he knew he had lost.

[P4P Opinion]

Kessler dominated the ring with his jab. Froch did well to keep him from finding a home for the right up top early on, but Kessler adapted and went to the body instead. Froch had the tools to win this fight but he was too inactive and fought the wrong gameplan yet again. How can you score him a round on the basis of one 5 second period when he's given the whole other 2:55 minutes away?

I dunno S.G, I have a lot of respect for your opinion and I usually agree with what you say, but I have to disagree here. Kessler used his jab very well, but Froch was at least as effective. Kessler might have landed more jabs, but Froch certainly landed cleaner jabs. I was surprised that Kessler missed as much as he did throughout the fight. Froch missed more spectacularly when he did miss, but Kessler missed a lot more. Froch should have capitalised more when he did back Kessler up, but I felt he did just enough to take the decision. Very, very close fight though.

[S.G.]

Froch commanded the Dirrell fight, why does everyone think Dirrell won?, because he landed the better shots.

No he didn't. Don't mistake being the guy pressing the action as the guy in control of the ring. Dirrell kept Froch where he wanted him for most of the fight; that is out of range and walking onto counter punches. Kessler controlled the ring on the front foot by managing to mostly stay within landing range and tagging Froch with the jab all night. Froch was moving backwards and side to side but he wasn't setting anything up, he was just being moved around by Kessler.

Froch lands more and makes Kessler miss but because Kessler was the one chasing it, it was a clear victory for Mikkel?

Kessler landed more overall. Froch's success came in short bursts, Kessler took at least 2 minutes of at least 7 rounds.

Sorry, but you're comparing apples and oranges here. Two very different fights were Froch-Dirrell and Froch-Kessler.

[elgaringo]

It was a close, good fight that coulda gone either way! The margins were influenced by Kessler being the home fighter. If it had been in nottingham it would have gone to Froch. lets just leave it at that

[seany123]

why did

I dunno S.G, I have a lot of respect for your opinion and I usually agree with what you say, but I have to disagree here. Kessler used his jab very well, but Froch was at least as effective. Kessler might have landed more jabs, but Froch certainly landed cleaner jabs. I was surprised that Kessler missed as much as he did throughout the fight. Froch missed more spectacularly when he did miss, but Kessler missed a lot more. Froch should have capitalised more when he did back Kessler up, but I felt he did just enough to take the decision. Very, very close fight though.

mckracken frochs trainer admit that froch didnt fight his own fight and fought kesslers type of fight and say he will learn from this close loss then , should stop this robbery talk ****e filks right there

[REMOVED SHARK 97]

No he didn't. Don't mistake being the guy pressing the action as the guy in control of the ring. Dirrell kept Froch where he wanted him for most of the fight; that is out of range and walking onto counter punches. Kessler controlled the ring on the front foot by managing to mostly stay within landing range and tagging Froch with the jab all night. Froch was moving backwards and side to side but he wasn't setting anything up, he was just being moved around by Kessler.


Kessler landed more overall. Froch's success came in short bursts, Kessler took at least 2 minutes of at least 7 rounds.

Sorry, but you're comparing apples and oranges here. Two very different fights were Froch-Dirrell and Froch-Kessler.

I respect your opinion.

But I disagree.

[S.G.]

I dunno S.G, I have a lot of respect for your opinion and I usually agree with what you say, but I have to disagree here. Kessler used his jab very well, but Froch was at least as effective. Kessler might have landed more jabs, but Froch certainly landed cleaner jabs. I was surprised that Kessler missed as much as he did throughout the fight. Froch missed more spectacularly when he did miss, but Kessler missed a lot more. Froch should have capitalised more when he did back Kessler up, but I felt he did just enough to take the decision. Very, very close fight though.

Froch did land the jab while Kessler was coming in but to me they didn't seem to achieve anything whereas Kessler's jab was actually being used to keep Froch where he wanted him. Froch landed some good jabs in there, particularly early on, but I don't think they were enough to tip the scales by gaining points in effective aggression and clean punching.

Froch also did a good job of keeping Kessler from landing up top for most of the fight, but he still allowed Kessler to offer more in the way of offense than he did himself.

It was a close and competitive fight with quite a few subjective rounds but I think Kessler definitely deserved his win. I also think if Froch placed less emphasis on boxing Kessler and more on attacking him, he would have knocked him out late.

I respect your opinion.

But I disagree.

Fair enough. I'll try to give the fight another watch tonight anyway.

[Pugilistic™]

I rewatched it yesterday.

Very close fight but i thought Kessler edged it 115-113.

Froch did argueably win or get a draw though.

[SoldierWarrior]

If it was close then their shouldn't be an outrage at Froch losing his 0. He clearly needed to do more to make it so it wasn't close. Robberies aren't close fights in my opinion.