BoxRec

Autobarn wrote:Kovalev did outland Ward according to Punch stats, for what it's worth.

Oh, agreed with Ezzard about Ward's terrible jab and grab style.

Definitely, there are too many boxers looking to negate rather than produce clean boxing or skilful exchanges.

Yes, I'm no Ward fan, I appreciate his talent, but he's not very exciting to watch.

I can't believe Ward got paid as much as they say he did. How the hell does Jay Z make any money off him?

Autobarn wrote:Kovalev did outland Ward according to Punch stats, for what it's worth.

that and the fact knockdowns are clearly worth nowt .

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Vincent stevenson wrote:Ward is a product of the worst scoring system in amateur boxing history where 3 of the 5 judges had to press within a second of each other to register a point . It produced dreadful top level amateur boxing that was more akin to sword fencing and has subsequently been changed . Ward still looks for one shot then tries to hold or spoil. But this is pro boxing where aggression and forcing the fight should be major factors . And didn't you have to really beat the champion to take his title ? Not just jab and grab

No, you don't, that's bullshit, people trot this line out again and again, as if you should have to do something extra to take the belt from the champ. There's a scoring system, you box to the rules, you win enough rounds, you win, you take the belt home.

If that produces results people don't like, that's a shame, but Ward is fighting to the code of the sport he competes in, it's not some sort of moral battleground.

The champions already get an advantage in that a draw means they retain. So the challenger technically does have to do more to leave with the belt, but that should not affect scoring rounds in any way whatsoever.

ElJefe wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Vincent stevenson wrote:Ward is a product of the worst scoring system in amateur boxing history where 3 of the 5 judges had to press within a second of each other to register a point . It produced dreadful top level amateur boxing that was more akin to sword fencing and has subsequently been changed . Ward still looks for one shot then tries to hold or spoil. But this is pro boxing where aggression and forcing the fight should be major factors . And didn't you have to really beat the champion to take his title ? Not just jab and grab

No, you don't, that's bullshit, people trot this line out again and again, as if you should have to do something extra to take the belt from the champ. There's a scoring system, you box to the rules, you win enough rounds, you win, you take the belt home.

If that produces results people don't like, that's a shame, but Ward is fighting to the code of the sport he competes in, it's not some sort of moral battleground.

The champions already get an advantage in that a draw means they retain. So the challenger technically does have to do more to leave with the belt, but that should not affect scoring rounds in any way whatsoever.

j
So what are you saying then kid . I don't understand ?

Vincent stevenson wrote:

ElJefe wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

No, you don't, that's bullshit, people trot this line out again and again, as if you should have to do something extra to take the belt from the champ. There's a scoring system, you box to the rules, you win enough rounds, you win, you take the belt home.

If that produces results people don't like, that's a shame, but Ward is fighting to the code of the sport he competes in, it's not some sort of moral battleground.

The champions already get an advantage in that a draw means they retain. So the challenger technically does have to do more to leave with the belt, but that should not affect scoring rounds in any way whatsoever.

j
So what are you saying then kid . I don't understand ?

What don't you understand? I'm saying that judges should score each round independently from any outside influence. Who holds the belt is irrelevant. If the challenger wins 7 rounds he wins the fight. It doesn't matter if he wins 7 clear rounds or 7 close rounds. This idea that the challenger has to do more in each round to win the fight and 'take the belt away' is nonsense. The champion already has the advantage of only having to win 6 out of 12 rounds to retain the belt. He shouldn't need the challenger to have to do more in each individual round as well.

ElJefe wrote:

Vincent stevenson wrote:

ElJefe wrote:


The champions already get an advantage in that a draw means they retain. So the challenger technically does have to do more to leave with the belt, but that should not affect scoring rounds in any way whatsoever.

j
So what are you saying then kid . I don't understand ?

What don't you understand? I'm saying that judges should score each round independently from any outside influence. Who holds the belt is irrelevant. If the challenger wins 7 rounds he wins the fight. It doesn't matter if he wins 7 clear rounds or 7 close rounds. This idea that the challenger has to do more in each round to win the fight and 'take the belt away' is nonsense. The champion already has the advantage of only having to win 6 out of 12 rounds to retain the belt. He shouldn't need the challenger to have to do more in each individual round as well.

Grow up you tit this is pro boxing not amateur ( which in fact I'm involved at world level in each code ) for a challenger to take a champions belt he must prove himself worthy of that title not just tap and hold the way ward did . Personally I thought ward was terrified of kovalev and only engaged when he absolutely had to . Not the actions of a champion in my opinion

lillywhite14 wrote:

Ezzard wrote:You and I will watch boxing no matter what. But I don't now anyone under 18 who prefers boxing to UFC. Too many Wards for them to care. Too many Mayweather-Pac Man superfights.

Those of that age I do know who prefer it, box themselves so that kind of influences it I guess!

I'd say from my experience that the casual UFC fan is about as casual a sports fan there is. 'See Conor's post fight interview? Almost as on point as his suit and Bentley pics from the day before...oh and that beard' It's very, shall we say, 'bro'?

Having said that I've started to take more interest. I enjoyed the big card last weekend, well what I see of it. Was entertaining. I like the mix of styles, it's a great idea really. Just lacks substance imo.

I genuinely prefer UFC to boxing now, there just aren't enough really compelling fights happening in boxing.

Vincent stevenson wrote:

ElJefe wrote:

Vincent stevenson wrote:j
So what are you saying then kid . I don't understand ?

What don't you understand? I'm saying that judges should score each round independently from any outside influence. Who holds the belt is irrelevant. If the challenger wins 7 rounds he wins the fight. It doesn't matter if he wins 7 clear rounds or 7 close rounds. This idea that the challenger has to do more in each round to win the fight and 'take the belt away' is nonsense. The champion already has the advantage of only having to win 6 out of 12 rounds to retain the belt. He shouldn't need the challenger to have to do more in each individual round as well.

Grow up you tit this is pro boxing not amateur ( which in fact I'm involved at world level in each code ) for a challenger to take a champions belt he must prove himself worthy of that title not just tap and hold the way ward did . Personally I thought ward was terrified of kovalev and only engaged when he absolutely had to . Not the actions of a champion in my opinion

There is no moral code where a challenger has to grasp the right to be champion. He merely has to win a majority of rounds , when the previous rounds should be irrelevant in the scoring of that round. They are the rules.

For what it's worth, i had it to ward by one as well. Kovalev lost the last few rounds, but he really threw it away by not following up 3-5 (although he did win 3 and 5 marginally on my card).

It just wasn't a robbery. A close fight.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

handsofstone wrote:Can't remember Kovalev landing a meaningful shot in the second half of the fight,Ward was guilty of spoiling but he was also the only guy landing,I'm surprised so many people thought Kovalev won TBH

Same here. I think some people are just looking at aggression and not much else.

Am with you guys. Kovalev looked like he ran out of ideas quite quickly. Ward has a great ability to figure out what the other guys is doing and make adjustments on the fly. It's this adapatability that won him the fight in my opinion. Close as it was I do think he was the fair winner, Kovalev was punching thin air too many times.

Vincent stevenson wrote:

ElJefe wrote:

Vincent stevenson wrote:j
So what are you saying then kid . I don't understand ?

What don't you understand? I'm saying that judges should score each round independently from any outside influence. Who holds the belt is irrelevant. If the challenger wins 7 rounds he wins the fight. It doesn't matter if he wins 7 clear rounds or 7 close rounds. This idea that the challenger has to do more in each round to win the fight and 'take the belt away' is nonsense. The champion already has the advantage of only having to win 6 out of 12 rounds to retain the belt. He shouldn't need the challenger to have to do more in each individual round as well.

Grow up you tit this is pro boxing not amateur ( which in fact I'm involved at world level in each code ) for a challenger to take a champions belt he must prove himself worthy of that title not just tap and hold the way ward did . Personally I thought ward was terrified of kovalev and only engaged when he absolutely had to . Not the actions of a champion in my opinion

I had Kovalev winning the fight as well. My point was that in general a challenger doesn't have to do any more than win 7 close rounds to win the fight. The idea that a challenger has to do more to win a round than a champion is factually incorrect. It's not in the rules of boxing and therefore should not affect the way judges score a fight. Not sure why you're resorting to insults, I've got no problem with you thinking Ward didn't deserve the decision, I didn't either.

In years gone by (decades even)... When championships meant something. It was thought to devalue and dilute the title to just hand them out all over. So in a super tight fight the benefit of the doubt was thought to go to the champion. As most people here thought it was close and could go either way it sort of makes sense.

And it's no different to moments in other sports. In football a foul in the box generally has to be more conclusive to get given than elsewhere on the field. The idea being that a penalty is a big deal and you need to be certain.

The so called elite who criticize the Current Scene forum.
You all saw who edged it and most of you didn't even go to the fight did you.
So much for your reputation.