BoxRec

crusader wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Ward doesn't allow for great fights. I appreciate his skill, but he's a effing bore.

Increasingly this seems to be the way at the top. Mayweather, Klitschko, Hopkins, Ward, always made sure a fight didn't break out.

Ya, although when Hopkins, Floyd, and Ward repeatedly potshot then clinch the self-satisfied boxing hipsters think it's crafty and a treat to see; when Wlad holds it's illegal, he's awful to watch (despite delivering far more KOs than the others), and he's ruined the HW division.

crusader wrote:Of course it's the two Wlad obsessives who are the first to reply

No doubt those guys are all-round more skilled than Wlad, and they do get their share of criticism (did I say they are generally immune?), but there is a group of fans who like to feel good about themselves by noting how much they appreciate smart, technical boxers that others find boring. These types will brand hugging as crafty or intelligent when the three brothers do it, but it's really not much different than Wlad stifling his opponents with the same tactic.

And ya, Floyd, Ward, and Bernie have some good wins, thanks for noting that.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

crusader wrote:Of course it's the two Wlad obsessives who are the first to reply

No doubt those guys are all-round more skilled than Wlad, and they do get their share of criticism (did I say they are generally immune?), but there is a group of fans who like to feel good about themselves by noting how much they appreciate smart, technical boxers that others find boring. These types will brand hugging as crafty or intelligent when the three brothers do it, but it's really not much different than Wlad stifling his opponents with the same tactic.

And ya, Floyd, Ward, and Bernie have some good wins, thanks for noting that.

I actually agree with you about the band who pride themselves on putting the skilled pure boxer types on a pedestal. The type who will often make blanket statements like 'A good boxer will always beat a good puncher!' without considering it's often more nuanced than that.

If there's a meaningful sized band who praise those guys but bash Wlad (I'm not even sure there is) it's probably because the skills difference does matter, the opposition levels matter too, and the fact that it's in the heavyweight division matters as well.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Autobarn wrote:

johnswan1 wrote:In fights like this where stamina & fitness were not factors first time around, I think you have to go with the guy who had adapted best to his opponent by the end of the first fight. I think it would be a stretch to say Ward was controlling the fight by the end, but Kovalev certainly seemed to be running out of ideas and was a lot less effective than he had been through the first half. If he can't knock Ward down again or force a stoppage, he will likely end up on the wrong side of a close decision.

One of the better posts I've seen on the British scene regarding this fight.

And yet, Kovalev was still landing jabs and right hands in the second half of the fight, which is unheard of for opponents of Andre Ward.

There's no way Ward dominated the second half of the fight, and Kovalev received little credit for his solid boxing during those stages.

I felt Kovalev dominated the first half (one round notwithstanding) and that he and Ward pretty much were level over the second half.

Will be harder this time, though for Kovalev, in probably a tense tactical bout.

Ward's repertoire is pretty limited. Jab, grab, then either a left hook or right hand to the body depending on which hand he's still clinching with.

Wards main skill is nullifying his opponents offence. It's effective but ugly as hell.

Autobarn wrote:Kovalev wasn't in absolute command as he'd been in the first half, but was able to consistently land. He's a very well schooled boxer, much more cerebral than he's given credit for, really good concentration.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

crusader wrote:

Ezzard wrote:
Increasingly this seems to be the way at the top. Mayweather, Klitschko, Hopkins, Ward, always made sure a fight didn't break out.

Ya, although when Hopkins, Floyd, and Ward repeatedly potshot then clinch the self-satisfied boxing hipsters think it's crafty and a treat to see; when Wlad holds it's illegal, he's awful to watch (despite delivering far more KOs than the others), and he's ruined the HW division.

Those fighters are just a lot more skilled than Wlad. They have displayed boxing artistry to go along with the roughhouse tactics. And they have good wins. Wlad is a just a stiff robot with a jab and an occasional straight right, who has ruled a weak division. And in the division that's historically under more scrutiny to a wider audience.

Besides, a lot of people do complain about Ward and Hopkins, and sometimes floyd. They're not immune at all.

Ezzard wrote:There were times when I watched Floyd Mayweather and thought...there needs to be a rule change...this can't be what the sport has become.

I truly believe that without the shallow polarised culture adopted by two-thirds of The States that Floyd would not have flourished. He would have been forced (like Golovkin is) to fight more aggressively to earn his money.

Ezzard wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:

crusader wrote:
Ya, although when Hopkins, Floyd, and Ward repeatedly potshot then clinch the self-satisfied boxing hipsters think it's crafty and a treat to see; when Wlad holds it's illegal, he's awful to watch (despite delivering far more KOs than the others), and he's ruined the HW division.

Those fighters are just a lot more skilled than Wlad. They have displayed boxing artistry to go along with the roughhouse tactics. And they have good wins. Wlad is a just a stiff robot with a jab and an occasional straight right, who has ruled a weak division. And in the division that's historically under more scrutiny to a wider audience.

Besides, a lot of people do complain about Ward and Hopkins, and sometimes floyd. They're not immune at all.

I respect your opinions and TJ's. I know you guys are real aficionados but I don't agree with your assessment of Wlad or Heavies in general.

A guy that big is never going to be aesthetically pleasing. I just feel all those fighters listed were like kids in the 1980s who found a glitch in a video game that allowed them to win every time as long as they kept doing the same move in sequence.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:
Those fighters are just a lot more skilled than Wlad. They have displayed boxing artistry to go along with the roughhouse tactics. And they have good wins. Wlad is a just a stiff robot with a jab and an occasional straight right, who has ruled a weak division. And in the division that's historically under more scrutiny to a wider audience.

Besides, a lot of people do complain about Ward and Hopkins, and sometimes floyd. They're not immune at all.

I respect your opinions and TJ's. I know you guys are real aficionados but I don't agree with your assessment of Wlad or Heavies in general.

A guy that big is never going to be aesthetically pleasing. I just feel all those fighters listed were like kids in the 1980s who found a glitch in a video game that allowed them to win every time as long as they kept doing the same move in sequence.

A gem of an analogy!