Comments Thread For: Froch Vows Bloodbath: Kessler Took Everything From Me!

[PunchyPotorff]

"He took everything from me". Just a silly, silly comment. Froch is getting all the same fights and payday as before that fight. Kessler took nothing from Froch but a meaningless loss. Froch wasn't going to retire undefeated. Froch has a great life. Kessler took nothing from him. Have some perspective, Carl.

Froch is a true warrior. Kessler took that invincible thing away from him. He IS being real. You obviously don't understand the concept he's talking about. No worries... it will be a great fight. Can't wait.

[PunchyPotorff]

The real truth is Froch is not really been 100% truthful here - what is really eating Froch is Joe Calzaghe who he has called out many times before - he can never really better Calzaghe as Joe retired undefeated and inflicted Kesslers first loss onto him and Froch can never do that now, as an injured Kessler inflicted Carl's first loss and even if he wins this time around he can't change that but I have a sneaky feeling Carl will have a third loss on his record come May 25th, and sorry to change the subject but Joe would of found a way to beat Ward if they had face each other so Carl will always bee in Joe's shadow in the Hostory Books and he can do nothing about that and that's what's really eating at Carl.

The reality is Froch never played it safe like Calzaghe did his entire career. Froch's legacy is iron clad solid. Joe? Not so much.

[PunchyPotorff]

Sorry I can't agree with that as Joe beat the then best pound for pound fighter in Lacey and say what you like Lacey was considered by the whole boxing world at that time as the best that all changed when Joe beat him and Lacey was never the same fighter again - another point he beat Kessler which Froch has lost to Joe then went on to win a world title at 2 weight divisions he also beat who Hopkins in the USA and we have all seen what Hokins has achieved since losing to Joe becoming a world champion so don't give me that was an old Hopkins as that don't wash, and as a rookie Joe gave us a classic agianst Eubank and in my Books one of the best fights I ever enjoyed, Froch's record can never reflect that no matter what he does

You're speaking 5 years behind reality

[Tonyu]

Don't bet the farm on that concept

No problem looking forward to it - I will give you Froch has hometown advantage so the fight is really in his favour but the reason I'm favouring Kessler is Froch keeps his arm very low and this will give Kessler a decent chance - I agree it will be a good fight.

[techliam]

Sorry I can't agree with that as Joe beat the then best pound for pound fighter in Lacey and say what you like Lacey was considered by the whole boxing world at that time as the best that all changed when Joe beat him and Lacey was never the same fighter again - another point he beat Kessler which Froch has lost to Joe then went on to win a world title at 2 weight divisions he also beat who Hopkins in the USA and we have all seen what Hokins has achieved since losing to Joe becoming a world champion so don't give me that was an old Hopkins as that don't wash, and as a rookie Joe gave us a classic agianst Eubank and in my Books one of the best fights I ever enjoyed, Froch's record can never reflect that no matter what he does

Hopkins fight was close. I scored it for Hopkins personally, no complaints about a Calzaghe win. Same for Kessler-Froch. Illogical argument. You can't give credit to Calzaghe, and not to Froch.

I don't buy the argument that Lacy was a different fighter. He was just exposed. He had no fight in him at all during the fight, it wasn't as if Lacy was gradually wore down. There was no sign of any elite skill after this fight either, not to mention Lacy's resume pre-Calzaghe wasn't great too.

Your bottom sentence truly exposes the "brain" behind your argument - "no matter what he does" ... thats called bias my friend.

How can you not accept, that Froch has beaten much better fighters? Because simply put, he has. His resume totally trumps Calzaghes, belts or otherwise. The 168 division is a hell of a lot stronger now than it was in Calzaghes day.

[Mr. Philadel]

Froch is so good for this sport...man I love this dude!!

[hugh grant]

Although Froch nicely ackowledges he has lost twice to Ward and Kessler. He actually thinks he beat kessler though doesnt he?
He thinks he was robbed against kessler but is gentlemanly not to mention it too much.

But you sometimes forget how much losing effects boxers. Most fans acknowledge that most fighters will lose at some point if they fight the best.

[S. Saddler 1310]

given the fact that Kessler hasn't fought a top opponent in three years since fighting you, Carl, i'd say you took much more from him. and you're going to take it all on May 25th.

[No1]

Calzaghe dominated Mikkel Kessler, Froch lost against a lesser version of Kessler. Calzaghe became the lineal champion at 168 where he unified the RING, WBA, WBC and WBO belts (also held the IBF belt at one point) and became the lineal champ at 175 by beating Hopkins. Calzaghe's achievements can be 'down-played' for it being a weak era at 168 & 175, but his achievements are still impressive. Froch has no legacy, all he has ever been is a decent contender at 168.

Calzaghe was a joke!! Great fighter but to say his resume is better is a farce! Calzaghe did beat a young Kessler for sure but other than what has he done? He was dead lucky to beat a mid 40 year old Hopkins and got dropped by an old man in Roy Jones. Calzaghes career will forever be known as a guy who ducked everyone and never took an risks. Froch on the other hand will be remembered in a much brighter light than calzaghe due to him fighting everyone (Even in there back yards) and having one of the toughest runs of fights in recent history.

[Tonyu]

Hopkins fight was close. I scored it for Hopkins personally, no complaints about a Calzaghe win. Same for Kessler-Froch. Illogical argument. You can't give credit to Calzaghe, and not to Froch.

I don't buy the argument that Lacy was a different fighter. He was just exposed. He had no fight in him at all during the fight, it wasn't as if Lacy was gradually wore down. There was no sign of any elite skill after this fight either, not to mention Lacy's resume pre-Calzaghe wasn't great too.

Your bottom sentence truly exposes the "brain" behind your argument - "no matter what he does" ... thats called bias my friend.

How can you not accept, that Froch has beaten much better fighters? Because simply put, he has. His resume totally trumps Calzaghes, belts or otherwise. The 168 division is a hell of a lot stronger now than it was in Calzaghes day.

I am originally from South Africa so I am speaking from a neutral point of view and not from a no bias one - let me put it this way a few points Calzaghe beat a fresher undefeated Kessler and Froch lost to a not best of condition Kessler - I watched Froch against Taylor and until Taylor ran out of gas for 11 rounds he owned Froch, Froch only got the KO because Taylor was out on his feet so any fighter with pure boxing school will beat Froch because he is one dimensional as he is a strong lad who can take a punch but will lose to any fighter who has pure boxing talent eg lost to Kessler and Ward and got out fo jail aginst Tyalor all boxers have outboxed Froch -Caalzghe would do the same but even more convincingly than the othrs I have just mentioned - compare records Calzaghe best opponents Kessler,Lacey,Eubank,Hopkins,Biko, Jone Jr against Frochs best Kessler,Bute, Ward,Abrahams well I don't see how Froch wins as he has lost 2 of those and Clazghe remains undefeated ( - plus has done over 2 different divisons -this sport I love and particpated in is interesting as we all have our own personal point of view - you argue point well but I think I do the same - thanks for the debate it has been interesting.