Kovalev vs Ward

Scoring criteria are:

Clean punches
Ring generalship
Effective aggression
Defense

Personally I think clean punching is the absolutely most important. The others only come into play for me when the round is close in terms of clean punches. And when they do, defense and ring generalship are as important as effective aggression.

But it seems like aggression, even when it's not effective, is the most important criteria next to clean punches for many. I see no reason for that.

 

Being the challenger should be irrelevant to how the rounds are scored.

 

No you weren't right when you said it at all, because Ward hadn't beaten a light heavyweight of any note at the light heavy weight therefore he WAS UNPROVEN . I never said it wasn't an important fight I said I did not think it was a historically significant one. Maybe you need an optician?

 

With the judges scorecards Ward must have won 7 rounds, no way in hell he won that many. He won 4-5 rounds and that's being generous IMO.

 

I picked Kovalev, wanted him to win and thought he just got it ,but imo it was too close to make a song and dance about.It 's all bout what you liked, Ward's inside work where he nullified Kova, or Kovalev's outside game where he landed clean punches.Kovalev should have kept the fight at long range imo he is a long puncher and was scoring well with his jab.Ward came into the fight in the second half ,whether he won those rounds depends on individual scoring but no robbery imo.

 

How many of those are Russian reporters?

Because there is little room for them to have any other winner than Kovalev. It would not only mean likely career suicide, but could be worse than that.

 

On the other hand, going backwards and clinching are often seen as ring generalship and good defense by many.

I suppose the reason aggression is sometimes over-credited is because two fighters going forward is more likely to result in a fight, though still no guarantee.
Two fighters moving away from each will never result in a fight.

 

Razor close title fight should be declared a draw.
I don't think fighters should LOSE fights where people say "could have gone either way". If it could have gone either way, it's a draw.
The same principle should be used for scoring individual rounds.

 

The three judges had identical score cards ,they were in no doubt who had won,and its only their opinions that matter on the night.

 

jesus, oh god this ****ing ******ed should be banned

 

I've never seen someone being favored in the scoring by that definition of defense and ring generalship. Quite the opposite (and spoiling by holding should be held against a fighter if anything - but hopefully the ref sorts that out with points deductions).

 

Yeah, that could be the reason, but the scoring citeria are what they are.

Also there's a problem with over-emphasising aggression. I remember the judge that had the highest margin of victory for Frazier in FOTC said that the aggressor only had to land half the amount of punches than his opponent to win the round in his book. That kind of scoring gives a dangerous incentive to take punishment.

 

Clean punchin? Effective aggression ?? Did you see who got the worst of it? Who was rocked? Who had to clinch just to get dome solid shots in?

Ring Generalship? Did you see who had to back up? Who couldn't engage ? What rounds did Ward show this masterful boxing going backwards or cutting the ring off to get even 5 rnds??


Sorry but you maybe watched the fight but you didn't look at the fight, think about it.

 

Thats because there is no criteria for how many punches you avoided,that would be dumb ,because its easier to move away and avoid incoming punches without throwing anything and thats what everyone would start doing if they were awarded points for it and no one would fight.

" That kind of scoring gives a dangerous incentive to take punishment.." Yes this is boxing where the winner is who lands more usually and the object is to stop the opposition more than to avoid getting hit ,which is also part of it but not the main objective which is to get the opposition out of there .

 

Yes, and I was saying it doesn't have to be that way.
Under an alternative system, such narrow lead in the scores would not provide a win. It would be a draw.