BoxRec

Dan Dares wrote:

Final round wrote:Kessler's cuts may well come into it, his eyes were a mess against Ward and a bad one against Froch too.

Good shout. Even though Kessler won last time out, it was very close, and Froch pretty much retired him from the tournament.

I'm looking forward to this more than any fight, ever. A couple of first class hardcases. I can't see it being a stinker in any way shape or form.

It's a proper 50/50, and I think one of them might retire afterwards.

I predict that'll be Kessler. Froch by late stoppage, possibly due to cuts/his face looking a mess.

And then another crack at Ward. In the UK, this time. If this doesn't happen, I'll be blaming George Groves.

Yeah you can see the loser knocking it on the head, depending on how conclusive the outcome is of course. If at the end you can't slip a rizla paper between them they'll defo be a rematch after how well this sold.

I fancy froch on points or late stoppage I think froch is the fresher, stronger & harder puncher @ this stage of there careers & one thing you can 100% predict is this will be a scrap!!

Hagler2002 wrote:
I can't remember him been on the back foot against Abraham and trying to use the Dirrell fight as an example is just dildonic!

Saying Froch only knows one way to fight is doing the man a disservice. If you think he fought the same way against Abraham as he did in his other fights then that is not very accurate.

It is similarly not accurate to suggest (and I know you aint) that its guaranteed to be a classic cause of Froch's style when he has shown to adopt different tactics in other fights. Not exactly sure what his tactics were vs Taylor and Dirrell, but they were certainly different to how he approached Pascal and Bute.

Facts are in his world title fights, Froch has been in two classics (I don't class the Taylor fight as a classic despite the drama at the end - in the main it was quite dull). He has also put on two masterclasses..... in not exactly brilliant fights. The rest haven't been that memorable either in terms of performance or fight (okay fair enough he was pretty faultless against Mack also, but he was awful and painfully weak at the weight) so not sure why Froch is often described as this "never in the dull fight" British Arturo Gatti.

People thought it would be a great clash of styles vs Glen Johnson also - but while an okay fight, it wasn't a classic.

So long as it's not IJL refereeing . The man that was happy to let Briggs get his face smashed over 12 painful rounds, and now seems to be making up for it with a string of premature stoppages, that Even he looks embarrassed about afterwards. As bad as the rep for Enzo Mac's chin was, stopping his fight with Ovil McKenzie after one meaningful punch landed home was astonishingly poor refereeing. How is it that Mickey Van can't ref in this country, yet despite all of IJL's blunders, he still seems to be a star referee?

Benelio wrote:How is it that Mickey Van can't ref in this country, yet despite all of IJL's blunders, he still seems to be a star referee?

Because Mickey is too old and had to retire and he also has a full time job coaching folk at the Bolshoi ballet school in Moscow.

Yeah, it was a bit of a rhetorical question. My point is that an old Mickey Van would do a better job refereeing than IJL.

desperados wrote:

columbo wrote:If the Froch that turned up against Bute shows up against Kessler I can see it being very tough for Kessler! I think Froch needs to be more aggressive in this fight than he was in the first fight where he boxed off the back foot a lot! Would you agree with that?

The Froch that turned up against Bute is just the regular Carl Froch. Kessler would've made easy work of that chin aswell. The only relevence in the Bute fight is the potential to give Froch an overconfidence because he managed to do in a few rounds which Andrade done in 12.

I'm going with Kessler on points, because he is a superior fighter than Froch, but hell i'll stick a few quid on Kessler by stoppage for excitement value, although i concede the odds should be longer than 4's.

I dont believe that was the regular Froch though. The Froch that fought Bute was far more aggressive than the Froch that fought Kessler! Particularily in the first half of their fight where Froch was boxing off the back foot flicking his jab out. Also Froch threw more combinations against Bute and just pretty much didnt let him breathe for a moment. He needs to do the same to Kessler. He needs to be smart about it aswell though. I dont mean just swinging in a gung ho fashion.

columbo wrote:The Froch that fought Bute was far more aggressive than the Froch that fought Kessler!

yeah but there is a reason for that;

1. Froch would have been aware of what happened in Andrade 1,
2. He would have known right from the first flush punch he landed he was hurting Bute.

Froch knew early in that fight Bute couldn't cope with his power and was chinny, so he went for the jugular. There is no way he's going to approach Kessler the same way, he knows Mikkel isn't a guy he can just bang out of their like he knew he could do with Bute. I'm pretty sure we will see a controlled, thoughful & tactical approach from Froch who will look to put punches together, but also with a view to maintain stamina & win rounds.

desperados wrote:

columbo wrote:The Froch that fought Bute was far more aggressive than the Froch that fought Kessler!

yeah but there is a reason for that;

1. Froch would have been aware of what happened in Andrade 1,
2. He would have known right from the first flush punch he landed he was hurting Bute.

Froch knew early in that fight Bute couldn't cope with his power and was chinny, so he went for the jugular. There is no way he's going to approach Kessler the same way, he knows Mikkel isn't a guy he can just bang out of their like he knew he could do with Bute. I'm pretty sure we will see a controlled, thoughful & tactical approach from Froch who will look to put punches together, but also with a view to maintain stamina & win rounds.

Yeah he also had a different mentality against Bute in that he knew that if he lost his career was quite possibly over. When he fought Kessler he was unbeaten and maybe a little bit over confident and cruised somewhat. You can see how much he wants to beat Kessler in this rematch and plus with it being at home I think he's going to really take the fight to him. Again he knows that if he loses this fight, there isnt many places for him to go aside from a fight with Groves or something which I dont think particularily motivates him.

The Insider wrote:

Benelio wrote:How is it that Mickey Van can't ref in this country, yet despite all of IJL's blunders, he still seems to be a star referee?

Because Mickey is too old and had to retire and he also has a full time job coaching folk at the Bolshoi ballet school in Moscow.

Just thought I'd give you guys the Danish odds (from "Danske Spil"):

Kessler to win: 2.40
Froch to win: 1.52
Kessler to win inside the distance: 5.00
Froch to win inside the distance: 3.75

As reflected by the odds, Froch is a pretty solid favourite in Denmark.

Bundana wrote:Just thought I'd give you guys the Danish odds (from "Danske Spil"):

Kessler to win: 2.40
Froch to win: 1.52
Kessler to win inside the distance: 5.00
Froch to win inside the distance: 3.75

As reflected by the odds, Froch is a pretty solid favourite in Denmark.

As someone that doesnt really bet, those odds confuse the hell out of me! Ha .... im used to seeing the 3/1 and the like so have no idea what those odds there translate as!

columbo wrote:

Bundana wrote:Just thought I'd give you guys the Danish odds (from "Danske Spil"):

Kessler to win: 2.40
Froch to win: 1.52
Kessler to win inside the distance: 5.00
Froch to win inside the distance: 3.75

As reflected by the odds, Froch is a pretty solid favourite in Denmark.

As someone that doesnt really bet, those odds confuse the hell out of me! Ha .... im used to seeing the 3/1 and the like so have no idea what those odds there translate as!

That's just the Danish way of doing it... and 3/1 would obviously translate to 3.00 using their system.

Bundana wrote:

columbo wrote:

Bundana wrote:Just thought I'd give you guys the Danish odds (from "Danske Spil"):

Kessler to win: 2.40
Froch to win: 1.52
Kessler to win inside the distance: 5.00
Froch to win inside the distance: 3.75

As reflected by the odds, Froch is a pretty solid favourite in Denmark.

As someone that doesnt really bet, those odds confuse the hell out of me! Ha .... im used to seeing the 3/1 and the like so have no idea what those odds there translate as!

That's just the Danish way of doing it... and 3/1 would obviously translate to 3.00 using their system.

Ah ok so its that simple? I didnt realise it was just a decimal point really which separates how its done.

I believe it because (and I'm not a betting man whatsoever) it's easier to work out for sites like BetFair where you don't bet against the house but rather take other people's bets, and it's easier if all the odds are based on a 'to one' ratio.

That could be complete horse shit, mind.

MarkMcBurney wrote:I believe it because (and I'm not a betting man whatsoever) it's easier to work out for sites like BetFair where you don't bet against the house but rather take other people's bets, and it's easier if all the odds are based on a 'to one' ratio.

That could be complete horse poo, mind.

decimal is far easier, i'm amazed we still use fractions.


decimal couldn't be simpler, just times your stake by the decimal odds = your return. Then minus your original stake for the profit.

desperados wrote:

MarkMcBurney wrote:I believe it because (and I'm not a betting man whatsoever) it's easier to work out for sites like BetFair where you don't bet against the house but rather take other people's bets, and it's easier if all the odds are based on a 'to one' ratio.

That could be complete horse poo, mind.

decimal is far easier, i'm amazed we still use fractions.


decimal couldn't be simpler, just times your stake by the decimal odds = your return. Then minus your original stake for the profit.

Decimal was the word I was looking for!