Scorecards Calzaghe vs. Kessler

[Datsue]

This is going to sound weird, but I had it 115-113 Calzaghe, & after watching it again I am convinced that not only is that the correct score but that it was one of those weird fights where I cannot change my score on ANY round... It just seemed so clear that Joe had won at the end, & I totted up my scorecard & thought "I've made a mistake".

But I went back & watched it again, and it's the same.

Weird. One of those fights (like Barrera-Hamed say) where my score taken cold looks like there could be some room for debate over the winner, but the nature of the fight meant that there's only one outcome.

I found the fight slightly frustrating to watch -- I think Joe kind of "old-manned" Kessler a bit in there & from the extremely limited footage of him I'd seen before I thought Mikkel would be less tense, more adaptable, less easy to con.

But a good fight between two class lads.

[punchers chance]

i had it 116-113 ... but the winner was correct, no probs there, but kessler is a quality fighter, and a gracious sportsman.

Agree entirely. I had it 115-113 and was surprised at 117-111 which equates to 9 rounds to 3. To end up with 9-3 the official must have given every close round to Calzaghe.

Kessler would probably disagree with the margin of his defeat but has too much class to bitch about it, unlike Vivian Harris. I was impressed with him all week.

[Dirk Kelly]

I had it 117-111, but like the majority here some of the rounds were very close and hard to score so perhaps it might be a little lower but there is no doubt that Calzaghe won the fight fair and square.

[Coco]

i had it 116-113 ... but the winner was correct, no probs there, but kessler is a quality fighter, and a gracious sportsman.

Agree entirely. I had it 115-113 and was surprised at 117-111 which equates to 9 rounds to 3. To end up with 9-3 the official must have given every close round to Calzaghe.

Kessler would probably disagree with the margin of his defeat but has too much class to bitch about it, unlike Vivian Harris. I was impressed with him all week.

I did give all the close rounds to JC because he was doing more work

[stujones]

This is going to sound weird, but I had it 115-113 Calzaghe, & after watching it again I am convinced that not only is that the correct score but that it was one of those weird fights where I cannot change my score on ANY round... It just seemed so clear that Joe had won at the end, & I totted up my scorecard & thought "I've made a mistake".

But I went back & watched it again, and it's the same.

Weird. One of those fights (like Barrera-Hamed say) where my score taken cold looks like there could be some room for debate over the winner, but the nature of the fight meant that there's only one outcome.

I found the fight slightly frustrating to watch -- I think Joe kind of "old-manned" Kessler a bit in there & from the extremely limited footage of him I'd seen before I thought Mikkel would be less tense, more adaptable, less easy to con.

But a good fight between two class lads.

While we have disagreed one 1 post, I do agree entirely with your viewpoint. I was totting up a card at the time of the fight, so I was disagreeing with the commentators saying "surely Joe has won confortably enough" - not on my card, but yes if you didn't just keep looking at your card then I could see why you thought you made a mistake - cause Calzaghe did control large periods of the fight and periods in each round.

I'm of the opinion that Kessler lost the fight as opposed to Joe winning, but that is a big big compliment to Joe. To draw on my card against a guy who all the time seemed stronger, and at times appeared to have the faster hands, the right strategy and plenty of balls himself - takes some doing. Kessler has the more tools, but Joe used his tools better and fair do's to Joe to do that. Similar to the Reid fight in that respect - Kessler had the style and the tools to beat Joe clearly, but didn't utilise them enough to convince everyone that the close rounds were his... although as I said, the only reason why Reid was competitive vs Joe was because of Calzaghe's poor prep - Calzaghe would outclass Reid had he been as prepared as he was now.

Froch shares many similar characteristics to Kessler. I know Rhino says Froch does the weight easily, but he looks a huge for the weight and is strong and hits as hard (IMO). I don't think he has Kessler speed, or variety and maybe not chin - but what he does have maybe the edge over Kessler in is Stamina (cause he is not tight at the weight) and crucially Killer instinct. I have no doubt that if Froch lands against Joe (thats the if), then Joe will be as hurt as he was on Saturday and Froch will not relent.

[pundit]

This is going to sound weird, but I had it 115-113 Calzaghe, & after watching it again I am convinced that not only is that the correct score but that it was one of those weird fights where I cannot change my score on ANY round... It just seemed so clear that Joe had won at the end, & I totted up my scorecard & thought "I've made a mistake".

But I went back & watched it again, and it's the same.

Weird. One of those fights (like Barrera-Hamed say) where my score taken cold looks like there could be some room for debate over the winner, but the nature of the fight meant that there's only one outcome.

I found the fight slightly frustrating to watch -- I think Joe kind of "old-manned" Kessler a bit in there & from the extremely limited footage of him I'd seen before I thought Mikkel would be less tense, more adaptable, less easy to con.

But a good fight between two class lads.

While we have disagreed one 1 post, I do agree entirely with your viewpoint. I was totting up a card at the time of the fight, so I was disagreeing with the commentators saying "surely Joe has won confortably enough" - not on my card, but yes if you didn't just keep looking at your card then I could see why you thought you made a mistake - cause Calzaghe did control large periods of the fight and periods in each round.

I'm of the opinion that Kessler lost the fight as opposed to Joe winning, but that is a big big compliment to Joe. To draw on my card against a guy who all the time seemed stronger, and at times appeared to have the faster hands, the right strategy and plenty of balls himself - takes some doing. Kessler has the more tools, but Joe used his tools better and fair do's to Joe to do that. Similar to the Reid fight in that respect - Kessler had the style and the tools to beat Joe clearly, but didn't utilise them enough to convince everyone that the close rounds were his... although as I said, the only reason why Reid was competitive vs Joe was because of Calzaghe's poor prep - Calzaghe would outclass Reid had he been as prepared as he was now.

Froch shares many similar characteristics to Kessler. I know Rhino says Froch does the weight easily, but he looks a huge for the weight and is strong and hits as hard (IMO). I don't think he has Kessler speed, or variety and maybe not chin - but what he does have maybe the edge over Kessler in is Stamina (cause he is not tight at the weight) and crucially Killer instinct. I have no doubt that if Froch lands against Joe (thats the if), then Joe will be as hurt as he was on Saturday and Froch will not relent.

On the fight: I had it 115-113 too, but I also had little doubt that JC had won -- he just timed the fight to perfection, pulling away in the final third. After 10, 11 rounds it was clear Kessler needed a KO. This said, had the fight been in Denmark and not in the UK it might have been very close on the scorecards.

On Froch and Kessler: I don't think they are that similar. Froch is much easier to hit than Kessler, Kessler has amuch better jab, and he also works the angles better. Froch is a worthy contender at 168 no doubt, but in my view he stands in line not only behind Calzaghe and Kessler, but also behind Mundine, Inkin and Bute.

[Max Molyneux]

Kessler was taking alot of fast straight shots for the fight to be 7 rounds to 5.