BoxRec

Krusher lost. He deserves a rematch. Maybe he can close the deal next time.

Badhusker wrote:The rematch doesn't have any chance of happening, until Kovalev admits he lost, imo.

And if that happens it will be 100% Ward's fault. The fight was close; there was a rematch clause no? Ward already seems to be trying to finagle his way out of it. What's to stop him from denying a rematch by by saying even Kovalev knows I won the first fight if Sergei "admits" he lost? This is childish and stupid, and that's putting it nicely.

punchoutsb wrote:

Badhusker wrote:The rematch doesn't have any chance of happening, until Kovalev admits he lost, imo.

And if that happens it will be 100% Ward's fault. The fight was close; there was a rematch clause no? Ward already seems to be trying to finagle his way out of it. What's to stop him from denying a rematch by by saying even Kovalev knows I won the first fight if Sergei "admits" he lost? This is childish and stupid, and that's putting it nicely.

X2

child games. first he says he retires, now he wants kovalev to say he lost, whats next.....arguing in a sandbox

Kovalev won the fight... It's stupid to say you lost a fight when you were robbed blind... Too boot Ward used a lot of desperate and dirty tactics... Kovalev is going to have to adjust to the judging and the spoiler tactics Ward employs... Use his feet and jab more...

He has to keep Ward's head out of his face and employ uppercuts... It's going to go to a decision, so Kovalev better get used to winning by decision -- and the idea that no matter who is judging it they'll be NSAC guys determined to make Ward the winner... If it's anywhere close to being close, he'll get robbed again.

I'm still confused about what people mean when they suggest that Kov should admit he lost. Do some think he's under the impression that the judges didn't actually score the fight for Ward?

If he said 'Andre, you were given the decision and officially won, meaning I officially lost, but I feel I deserved it', would that cut it as admitting defeat? Why is it unreasonable for Kov to feel like he should've won when so many scored the fight for him, and most of those who had it for Ward believe it was super close and could've gone either way? Criticizing a guy for feeling like the deserving winner in that context is idiotic.

I want Ward to admit that he lost

crusader wrote:I'm still confused about what people mean when they suggest that Kov should admit he lost. Do some think he's under the impression that the judges didn't actually score the fight for Ward?

If he said 'Andre, you were given the decision and officially won, meaning I officially lost, but I feel I deserved it', would that cut it as admitting defeat? Why is it unreasonable for Kov to feel like he should've won when so many scored the fight for him, and most of those who had it for Ward believe it was super close and could've gone either way? Criticizing a guy for feeling like the deserving winner in that context is idiotic.

Its asinine and akin to trying to wriggle out of an official business contract because the handshake was too firm. Regardless of whomever you had winning the fight, this is a very bad reflection on Andre Ward. His actions are leading to the belief that he does not want the rematch and is willing to cite anything other than his own aversions on the reason.

How about Kovalev and his supporters admit the fight was close?

That's it. Just stop with all the 9-3/8-4 nonsense.
Hate that a great close fight gets labeled like this.

The fight wasn't close idiot... When you win 3 or 4 rounds at the most, and are given a gift decision by 3 American judges against a Russian boxer, and everybody admits the NSAC should have appointed a group of internationally neutral judges as the Russian commission did in Kovalev's previous fight?? Then you know why all of Ward's supporters are calling it "close" ... while all of Kovalev's supporters are calling it a clear win for Kovalev that was turned into a robbery by crooked judges.

Kalan wrote:The fight wasn't close idiot... When you win 3 or 4 rounds at the most, and are given a gift decision by 3 American judges against a Russian boxer, and everybody admits the NSAC should have appointed a group of internationally neutral judges as the Russian commission did in Kovalev's previous fight?? Then you know why all of Ward's supporters are calling it "close" ... while all of Kovalev's supporters are calling it a clear win for Kovalev that was turned into a robbery by crooked judges.

Another guy who name calls when someone doesn't see it his way.

Not sure how anyone could be a legit Andre "Son of Kovalev" supporter.

Rarely fights. Rarely impressive. Vanilla, grated cheese personality full of security issues like holes in swiss cheese. What's to love? Oh, right, that "0". As soon as it's gone, so will be his career. I'm sure he knows that.

Blodhemn wrote:Not sure how anyone could be a legit Andre "Son of Kovalev" supporter.

Can't see how anyone could be a supporter of racist like KKKovalev.

world ranked wrote:

Blodhemn wrote:Not sure how anyone could be a legit Andre "Son of Kovalev" supporter.

Can't see how anyone could be a supporter of racist like KKKovalev.

Knockouts and honesty, for starters.

Blodhemn wrote:

world ranked wrote:

Blodhemn wrote:Not sure how anyone could be a legit Andre "Son of Kovalev" supporter.

Can't see how anyone could be a supporter of racist like KKKovalev.

Knockouts and honesty, for starters.

Well he didn't get a knockout in that fight.

I enjoyed seeing "SOK" get dropped and shook by a jab even, so I got my money's worth.

The onus is on Ward's fans to defend the decision. Which is a bit embarrassing.

Blodhemn wrote:I enjoyed seeing "SOK" get dropped and shook by a jab even, so I got my money's worth.

Got up like a champ and the judges thought he beat your hero despite a knockdown.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:How about Kovalev and his supporters admit the fight was close?

That's it. Just stop with all the 9-3/8-4 nonsense.
Hate that a great close fight gets labeled like this.

This has nothing to do with anything. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the fight ranging from a shutout by Ward to a shutout by Kovalev. It has no bearing on anything. But suggesting that a contract can be broken because somebody doesn't give you props is laughable at best, despicable at worst.

world ranked wrote:

Blodhemn wrote:I enjoyed seeing "SOK" get dropped and shook by a jab even, so I got my money's worth.

Got up like a champ and the judges thought he beat your hero despite a knockdown.

Doesn't make one bit of difference to what I said, and why I enjoyed it.

punchoutsb wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:How about Kovalev and his supporters admit the fight was close?

That's it. Just stop with all the 9-3/8-4 nonsense.
Hate that a great close fight gets labeled like this.

This has nothing to do with anything. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the fight ranging from a shutout by Ward to a shutout by Kovalev. It has no bearing on anything. But suggesting that a contract can be broken because somebody doesn't give you props is laughable at best, despicable at worst.

Imagine if your was in the ring against a guy and he thought he would knock you out and he didn't and you lost but got the decision you would want the guy to respect you even if he thought he won Kovalev still didn't give respect at all. I can understand both sides as a competor.

Blodhemn wrote:

world ranked wrote:

Blodhemn wrote:I enjoyed seeing "SOK" get dropped and shook by a jab even, so I got my money's worth.

Got up like a champ and the judges thought he beat your hero despite a knockdown.

Doesn't make one bit of difference to what I said, and why I enjoyed it.

I enjoyed the result better

world ranked wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:How about Kovalev and his supporters admit the fight was close?

That's it. Just stop with all the 9-3/8-4 nonsense.
Hate that a great close fight gets labeled like this.

This has nothing to do with anything. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the fight ranging from a shutout by Ward to a shutout by Kovalev. It has no bearing on anything. But suggesting that a contract can be broken because somebody doesn't give you props is laughable at best, despicable at worst.

Imagine if your was in the ring against a guy and he thought he would knock you out and he didn't and you lost but got the decision you would want the guy to respect you even if he thought he won Kovalev still didn't give respect at all. I can understand both sides as a competor.

It's not an excuse to threaten to break a legally binding document. That's just silly.

Maybe the rematch clause had a 'no props' condition

punchoutsb wrote:

world ranked wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:
This has nothing to do with anything. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the fight ranging from a shutout by Ward to a shutout by Kovalev. It has no bearing on anything. But suggesting that a contract can be broken because somebody doesn't give you props is laughable at best, despicable at worst.

Imagine if your was in the ring against a guy and he thought he would knock you out and he didn't and you lost but got the decision you would want the guy to respect you even if he thought he won Kovalev still didn't give respect at all. I can understand both sides as a competor.

It's not an excuse to threaten to break a legally binding document. That's just silly.

Yeah it is silly, but let's not act like people don't break binding agreements everyday for one reason or another.

world ranked wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

world ranked wrote:
Imagine if your was in the ring against a guy and he thought he would knock you out and he didn't and you lost but got the decision you would want the guy to respect you even if he thought he won Kovalev still didn't give respect at all. I can understand both sides as a competor.

It's not an excuse to threaten to break a legally binding document. That's just silly.

Yeah it is silly, but let's not act like people don't break binding agreements everyday for one reason or another.

Look I get what you're saying, as a competitor you'd like your peers respect. This is much beyond that and there is no excusing it if it is used as an attempt to break a rematch clause.