QUESTION: Why is/was KESSLER considered so great? Why regarded so highly?

[Weebler I]

The first major butt was in 4 and Ward won the first 4 just as easy. Styles make fights man.

A fight isn't over in 4 rounds bud. Also, he needed the ref onside to get away with what he was doing. By the end of it Kessler was fighting blind and not from punches...from 5 unpunished headbutts.

[MACAQUEINBLACK]

guys develop at different rates.

who has the better win: froch over abe or pascal over Dawson (at 175)?

Pascal gets the edge on best single 'W' for Bad Chad.




Froch-Pascal II would still be a compelling and viable fight to me even if Froch is only a Super Six runner-up.

If, say, Ward beat Froch in the final, Ward-Bute (Ward would spank that show-pony) for 168 supremacy and Froch-Pascal II at 175 is how I'd love to see it go.

[MACAQUEINBLACK]

A fight isn't over in 4 rounds bud. Also, he needed the ref onside to get away with what he was doing. By the end of it Kessler was fighting blind and not from punches...from 5 unpunished headbutts.

Kessler had the belief spanked out of him by 8, the round in which the first really injurious head-clash came.



Stop dramatizing. Kessler got spanked and would get spanked on any day by Ward.

[RimmyDelicious]

This is so cute. Now Froch's win over Pascal doesn't count. America is the best, Europe sucks and European fighters never beat any good fighters, and when they do, it doesn't count. LOL...

[Xyei]

Kessler had the belief spanked out of him by 8, the round in which the first really injurious head-clash came.



Stop dramatizing. Kessler got spanked and would get spanked on any day by Ward.

Agreed. Ward beat him easily and would do so 10 times out of 10 IMO. Ward's style will always give Kessler problems.

As for the headbutts, I only saw one that looked somewhat malicious. The rest all seemed accidental to me.

[MACAQUEINBLACK]

I have watched a pre-fight interview of Froch, and he clearly said Dirrell showed him how to beat AA. That he would use that blueprint. I think I watched it on Sky, but not sure.

I saw it, too, but fighters say a lot of things - that was just as likely Froch's way of assuring an interviewer that he had a viable strategy, using Dirrell as an example.


I refuse to believe that anyone half-decent working with Froch would need Dirrell to show them the way to win that fight. It was common-sense obvious and the only question was if Carl could pull it off.



And Carl should be credited for putting his nuances on this 'blueprint'. Because his was a better, more general-like and hurtful performance than Dirrell's eventual flake-out, bottom line.

[Tiozzo]

I saw it, too, but fighters say a lot of things - that was just as likely Froch's way of assuring an interviewer that he had a viable strategy, using Dirrell as an example.


I refuse to believe that anyone half-decent working with Froch would need Dirrell to show them the way to win that fight. It was stark-staringly obvious and the only question was if Carl could pull it off.



And Carl should be credited for putting his nuances on this 'blueprint'. Because his was a better, more general-like and hurtful performance than Dirrell's eventual flake-out, bottom line.

I agree, and yes, Froch did better than Dirrell overall, got hit with less dramatic shots, was more in control

if there's one thing Dirrell taught him though, maybe it was to fight a disciplined fight, which he did

[MACAQUEINBLACK]

I agree, and yes, Froch did better than Dirrell overall, got hit with less dramatic shots, was more in control

if there's one thing Dirrell taught him though, maybe it was to fight a disciplined fight, which he did

I can dig that.


I had doubts over Carl's ability to do exactly that, and maybe seeing Dirrell at work on AA did focus him mentally that way.