I had kessler winning 7-5..

Well, Froch was more active, but Kessler connected with 55% of his power punches so I agree that it could have been scored for him. Had it as a draw myself, but when you fight in the opponents country, you know you need to dominate.

 

A fight fan sees what he wants to see. If you're a Kessler fan (and watched the first one with the mute botton on so you didn't have to listen to the shoddy commentary), the first one was clear win from Kessler and the second one was close. If you're a Froch fan the first one was a robbery and the second one was a clear Froch win.

The difference is, Kessler doesn't whine about being robbed.

Oh, and I had the first one 117-112 Kessler and the second one 115-114 Froch, maybe a draw.

 

A) I never said Kessler won.

B) I score better than you.

 

There's no possible way Kessler won that fight, I don't understand what anyone saw that lead them to that conclusion.

 

I'm a fan of neither, or both. Just relating what I saw and remember.

It's more the structure of the 2 fights that make me say the 1st was closer. It was just about even going into the final rounds. It could have easily ended in a Froch decision, even in Kessler's home court. This fight was more Froch pulling ahead early and Kessler trying to catch up.

 

Well said.

Another thing which I believe contributes to the belief that Froch was the clear winner and nothing else, is the difference in the reaction of the shots being taken. Kessler, with the way he tries to move away from punches, was always liable to having body/head swayed back dramatically when punched; evoking the ooohs and aaaahs from the fans and commentators. Whereas Froch would stand his ground and you'd barely notice his head being rocked when hit. This, in my opinion, created the illusion that Kessler wasn't landing the better shots. When, in fact, he was. He was digging excellent shots to the body (which rarely get noticed/scored) and his efforts up top were effective, too. It's just that they never created the visibly dramatic effect that Froch's did.

 

I haven't seen much of the fight, but in the bits I have seen I can't believe how wide Froch's punches are! I like Froch because he will fight anyone, but his technique reminds me of Max Baer's!

 

Like I said, try watching the first one without the shoddy commentary.
Showtime wasn't even paying attention to the fight and were more busy talking about what a great guy Froch was and one of them was idiotic enough to say "Froch is taking Kessler apart" like 20 seconds into the first round! And don't get me started on the British commentary - even Brits thought that was just ridiculous. That kind of biased commentary can't help but shape your oppinion of what is going on.

I haven't watched Sky's coverage of the second fight, but it didn't get the slamming that they did in the first one.

In the first, Froch was repeatedly retreating to the ropes and getting outworked and Kessler was constantly controlling the fight even though Froch often landed some very telling shots. Kessler also landed more consistently with his jab while Froch's jab was falling short of its target for the most part.

In the second, both fighters stayed in centre ring with one guy (Froch) jabbing better and another guy (Kessler) landing better power shots.

The first seems more clear IMO.

 

:nod

Between Kessler's perennial shaky egret balance (strange for a guy that, while certainly not exceptionally developed in his lower musculature, doesn't exactly have bird legs) and wobbling after soaking up big hits, combined with the crowd noise every time Froch threw in earnest - yeah, I mean if you were only paying attention to such things, present in every round as they were, you could probably score it a Froch shutout.

 

Strictly regarding the 1st round, HBO provided very balanced commentary.

They complimented what both did, acknowledging Froch's commitment to his jab but also saying that it was a positive start for Kessler with some nice work done getting in his power punches.

None of them said one way or another who shaded it on their card, although it was later revealed that Lederman gave it to Froch (obviously, since he was up 30-27 after three). They appropriately treated it as very close, however. There was no attempt to influence a viewer into thinking it was clear either way, unlike on Sky where the atmosphere may have fed into their nationalistic enthusiasm a bit.

 

Im glad to hear you say that . Good to hear you have integrity unlike the majority of posters on here .

 

The **** he does. He is rah-rah Union Jack all the way, check his posting history.

For him to attack others' integrity and capacity to objectively separate what they're watching from their rooting interest is the real joke here. Massive hypocrite.

 

I'm seasoned enough(tangy to the point of spicy, with a rich aroma of smokiness and subtle undertones of hops and barley). Anyway, point is, I can tune all that out as well as anyone else. Scored more than enough fights to know what to look for. Not always right, mind you, but I see what I see.

I scored both fights 116-112. But had much different outlooks on how the official cards might look. This one, I thought there was no chance Kessler got the W, while I felt in the 1st fight that Froch had a chance to steal if the judges scored it a certain way. it would have been unexpected, but I've learnt that lesson way too many times.

 

I think Froch won clearly.

 

you had it a draw, with you saying you could make an argument for a Kessler win. no you can't.

i've seen so many of you score cards, IB. they're crap. not worth the effort of posting.

how do you know you can score better than me? where are all my score cards for fights that you can make that judgement on? or are you just blowing off steam because you lost all of your Vcash?

how much Vcash did you lose anyway?