BoxRec

boxing_rocks wrote:

armageto wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:

True. I was just reading his 11 and typed it in. My bad. Yes to the point, it was a very close fight. I had it 114-113 Ward one time and 114-114 another time. But the OP has it a robbery! That's biased malarky. Thats the point. Not how much older I am than Saad. Not my careless moronic math.

I was rooting for Kovalev and had it 114-113 Ward. I can see if somebody thought Kovalev took it by 1 to 3 points and thought the decision to be bad. However, I can't see anybody calling it a robbery. Like Saad...stated, the Ward fight wasn't even the worst decision on the card. The Hooker/Perez fight being a draw, now THAT was a robbery. I think I had Perez winning 98-92.

You didn't fully understand what Saad said. One had to have give Ward ALL remotely close rounds to have him win. That is a definition of a bias and thus robbery. A close fight can still be a robbery. And it was in fact the worst robbery on the card if you take a profile of this fight in consideration and that it was a holder of 3 titles who was robbed.

jockpunk wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:

armageto wrote:
I was rooting for Kovalev and had it 114-113 Ward. I can see if somebody thought Kovalev took it by 1 to 3 points and thought the decision to be bad. However, I can't see anybody calling it a robbery. Like Saad...stated, the Ward fight wasn't even the worst decision on the card. The Hooker/Perez fight being a draw, now THAT was a robbery. I think I had Perez winning 98-92.

You didn't fully understand what Saad said. One had to have give Ward ALL remotely close rounds to have him win. That is a definition of a bias and thus robbery. A close fight can still be a robbery. And it was in fact the worst robbery on the card if you take a profile of this fight in consideration and that it was a holder of 3 titles who was robbed.

That is actually not the definition of bias.

The Cavs could lose game three by a point and while it would have been a close game, they still would have deservingly lost. Same thing with a prize fight. The rounds could be close, but a judge is under no obligation to give one guy a close round because he gave the other guy the last close round. A fighter could barely win every round and still win a 120-108 decision.

jockpunk wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:

armageto wrote:
I was rooting for Kovalev and had it 114-113 Ward. I can see if somebody thought Kovalev took it by 1 to 3 points and thought the decision to be bad. However, I can't see anybody calling it a robbery. Like Saad...stated, the Ward fight wasn't even the worst decision on the card. The Hooker/Perez fight being a draw, now THAT was a robbery. I think I had Perez winning 98-92.

You didn't fully understand what Saad said. One had to have give Ward ALL remotely close rounds to have him win. That is a definition of a bias and thus robbery. A close fight can still be a robbery. And it was in fact the worst robbery on the card if you take a profile of this fight in consideration and that it was a holder of 3 titles who was robbed.

That is actually not the definition of bias.

The Cavs could lose game three by a point and while it would have been a close game, they still would have deservingly lost. Same thing with a prize fight. The rounds could be close, but a judge is under no obligation to give one guy a close round because he gave the other guy the last close round. A fighter could barely win every round and still win a 120-108 decision.

Freedom2013 wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:

jockpunk wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:
You didn't fully understand what Saad said. One had to have give Ward ALL remotely close rounds to have him win. That is a definition of a bias and thus robbery. A close fight can still be a robbery. And it was in fact the worst robbery on the card if you take a profile of this fight in consideration and that it was a holder of 3 titles who was robbed.

That is actually not the definition of bias.

The Cavs could lose game three by a point and while it would have been a close game, they still would have deservingly lost. Same thing with a prize fight. The rounds could be close, but a judge is under no obligation to give one guy a close round because he gave the other guy the last close round. A fighter could barely win every round and still win a 120-108 decision.

So, what would be a reason for a judge to give ALL close and not so close rounds to one of the boxers?

Tanzio wrote: Keep trying to convince yourself of that, box of rocks. You are far too emotionally invested in this fight. Chanting the same tired sh!t over and over again is not going to affect the outcome of the fight.

Tony1244 wrote:

armageto wrote:

Freedom2013 wrote:I'm not an American.

And even if I were American, I would not be overly nationalistic and be objective enough to score a fight fairly.
I was rooting for Duran against Leonard when I was 25. Guess that makes me 5 years older. The fight happened here in Canada: "the Brawl in Montreal".

Well, being that old, you won't miss a lot of boxing if Kovalev is "robbed" again and you stop watching. Bright side to everything if you look hard enough...

Ha! I'm just saying in the case of Freedom if he was to stop watching, he's not missing a ton of years. Not like the guy is going to stop at 22 and miss a lifetime of boxing.


Hey! I have to defend Freedom here being I'm only about 5 years younger.

Freedom2013 wrote:A sport needs honest officiating to be legitimate.

If Kovalev loses fairly, I'll still follow the sport.

But if he loses because the ref permits Ward to use illegal tactics like deliberate head butts, or because the judges are corrupt, then I'm no longer going to follow the sport of boxing.

crow wrote:

Tanzio wrote: Keep trying to convince yourself of that, box of rocks. You are far too emotionally invested in this fight. Chanting the same tired sh!t over and over again is not going to affect the outcome of the fight.

Tanzidiot-my opinion is golden- Bradley beat Pac- and Ward beat Kovalev- because the judges said so- and their opinion is golden like mine.

We get it, weirdo.

victor-romeo wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

Freedom2013 wrote:A sport needs honest officiating to be legitimate.

If Kovalev loses fairly, I'll still follow the sport.

But if he loses because the ref permits Ward to use illegal tactics like deliberate head butts, or because the judges are corrupt, then I'm no longer going to follow the sport of boxing.

The first fight wasn't a robbery - it was a very close fight where Ward was lucky to get the nod. I watched it live at home, all the time hoping that Kovalev would knock Ward out, but I had Ward winning 114-113, the same as all three judges. I was surprised that so many were calling it a robbery, so I rewatched it and had Kovalev winning by a point. For me the real injustice was the scoring of the 10th round, which Kovalev clearly won, so to me 114-113 Kovalev is the best way to score the fight and I can't call a fight that close a robbery. Lewis-Holyfield 1 and Whitaker-Chavez were robberies, Ward-Kovalev just isn't in that category.

Do you remember what rounds of the first 6 that you gave to Ward?

boxing_rocks wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

Freedom2013 wrote:A sport needs honest officiating to be legitimate.

If Kovalev loses fairly, I'll still follow the sport.

But if he loses because the ref permits Ward to use illegal tactics like deliberate head butts, or because the judges are corrupt, then I'm no longer going to follow the sport of boxing.

The first fight wasn't a robbery - it was a very close fight where Ward was lucky to get the nod. I watched it live at home, all the time hoping that Kovalev would knock Ward out, but I had Ward winning 114-113, the same as all three judges. I was surprised that so many were calling it a robbery, so I rewatched it and had Kovalev winning by a point. For me the real injustice was the scoring of the 10th round, which Kovalev clearly won, so to me 114-113 Kovalev is the best way to score the fight and I can't call a fight that close a robbery. Lewis-Holyfield 1 and Whitaker-Chavez were robberies, Ward-Kovalev just isn't in that category.

So, a champion drops a challenger and wins at least 6 rounds (some say 8-9), but he is not getting a nod, and that is not a robbery?

crow wrote:

jezzamundo wrote: The first fight wasn't a robbery - it was a very close fight where Ward was lucky to get the nod. I watched it live at home, all the time hoping that Kovalev would knock Ward out, but I had Ward winning 114-113

Well, for every person like you giving Ward the nod, there's 3 other ones giving the victory to Kovalev.

3 to 1.

Who's more likely to be wrong?

jezzamundo wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:
The first fight wasn't a robbery - it was a very close fight where Ward was lucky to get the nod. I watched it live at home, all the time hoping that Kovalev would knock Ward out, but I had Ward winning 114-113, the same as all three judges. I was surprised that so many were calling it a robbery, so I rewatched it and had Kovalev winning by a point. For me the real injustice was the scoring of the 10th round, which Kovalev clearly won, so to me 114-113 Kovalev is the best way to score the fight and I can't call a fight that close a robbery. Lewis-Holyfield 1 and Whitaker-Chavez were robberies, Ward-Kovalev just isn't in that category.

So, a champion drops a challenger and wins at least 6 rounds (some say 8-9), but he is not getting a nod, and that is not a robbery?

Both times watching the fight I thought Kovalev won 5 rounds (I scored a couple of even rounds the second time) though I can see an argument for more, there were so many close rounds. Definitely a controversial decision, but not a robbery IMO.

Badhusker wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

boxing_rocks wrote:
So, a champion drops a challenger and wins at least 6 rounds (some say 8-9), but he is not getting a nod, and that is not a robbery?

Both times watching the fight I thought Kovalev won 5 rounds (I scored a couple of even rounds the second time) though I can see an argument for more, there were so many close rounds. Definitely a controversial decision, but not a robbery IMO.

Not sure if it has been pointed out yet, but Kovalev said in an interview that he thought he won the early rounds. He ALSO pointed out that he gassed the second half of the fight due to over-training. He is admitting that he was not winning the second half of the fight at least, so please simmer the bitching about a robbery. Everyone that was pro Kovalev was so sure he would KO Ward.

Maybe folks should just admit Kovalev lost a close fight and quit bitching, crying, moaning, etc.? Personally I think it will be an even wider win by Ward in the rematch.

Badhusker wrote:
Maybe folks should just admit Kovalev lost a close fight and quit bitching, crying, moaning, etc.? Personally I think it will be an even wider win by Ward in the rematch.

Freedom2013 wrote:A sport needs honest officiating to be legitimate.

If Kovalev loses fairly, I'll still follow the sport.

But if he loses because the ref permits Ward to use illegal tactics like deliberate head butts, or because the judges are corrupt, then I'm no longer going to follow the sport of boxing.

caldo2025 wrote:

Freedom2013 wrote:A sport needs honest officiating to be legitimate.

If Kovalev loses fairly, I'll still follow the sport.

But if he loses because the ref permits Ward to use illegal tactics like deliberate head butts, or because the judges are corrupt, then I'm no longer going to follow the sport of boxing.

I'll admit that I felt the same way when they read off the scores at the end of the Kov/Ward 1. I was livid and just pissed off at the sport and wondered why i put so much into it if they can just hand a victory to someone that did nothing to deserve it. Then I looked at the facts...the venue, the judges, the ref....everything is going against Kovalev. Why should I have been surprised.

Then i thought, does this have anything to do with Kovalev's promoter Kathy Duva? Boxing is years and years behind society in terms of equal rights. My feeling is that Boxing is not prepared to have it's #1 P4P star, which Kovalev would have been had he won that fight, be managed by a woman.

This time, i'm going in with the right mindset. Kovalev needs either a knockout or multiple knockdowns in this one to win. He's not winning a decision. I might not even listen to the decision if it goes the distance.

NateJR wrote:First off the fight wasn't a robbery. If you cant distinguish the difference between a robbery and a close fight maybe you shouldn't watch boxing to begin with. I watched the fight once and I thought it was a razor close fight, the first few rounds were close, Kovalev got the KD and it seemed Ward took control later in the fight with a few swing rounds. There were alot of close rounds from beginning to end with very few rounds in which there was a clear winner. Honestly a draw could have very well been warranted, it's just hilarious people have gotten so emotionally upset over the decision because their guy simply didn't win. Grow the hell up.. If Kovalev is such the superior boxer he will win the next fight and there won't be so many close rounds. But the truth is, they are both great fighters that compete at a high level and it will more than likely be damn near the same fight, without a knock down and Ward will win another close decision you can cry about.

NateJR wrote:First off the fight wasn't a robbery. If you cant distinguish the difference between a robbery and a close fight maybe you shouldn't watch boxing to begin with. I watched the fight once and I thought it was a razor close fight, the first few rounds were close, Kovalev got the KD and it seemed Ward took control later in the fight with a few swing rounds. There were alot of close rounds from beginning to end with very few rounds in which there was a clear winner. Honestly a draw could have very well been warranted, it's just hilarious people have gotten so emotionally upset over the decision because their guy simply didn't win. Grow the hell up.. If Kovalev is such the superior boxer he will win the next fight and there won't be so many close rounds. But the truth is, they are both great fighters that compete at a high level and it will more than likely be damn near the same fight, without a knock down and Ward will win another close decision you can cry about.

Tanzio wrote:If Krusher loses again his fans should all immediately play dead in their living rooms for two weeks in protest.

Impractical Poster wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:Americans always cheat and will always cheat lol, why do you think Wilder doesn't fight Povetkin?

That's funny coming from a fan of Russian fighters.