In not confusing form with styles make fights. Im looking at a fighter who wasnt moving as much and being caught cleanly far more often, who also had eye problems. Wards achievements are far below Calzaghe. As soon as I read that I realised that you are not familiar with Calzaghes full career.. Kessler wasnt written as faded due to a loss, it was due to his performance with Perdomo, Ward, Froch, Bouadla. Yes Kessler was still world class but faded in my opinion and the report I read of the Perdomo fight I watched noted timing etc. People would say Pacquiao is still world class but would you say he is the same fighter as he was when he was beating Cotto? I wouldnt say so but again that is only my opinion.
Ward's resume is not amazing. It's a resume that a lot of very good fighters have done. Handful of big wins, and a two division champ. One linear (168), one merely a title (175).
It's a great resume. The main thing that bugs me about Ward's resume is that Dirrell isn't on it. That whole fiasco was a big middle finger to fans, and it's a little surprising to me to see how many people forget that was signed for before mysteriously vanishing.
Kessler lost to ward because he was the best SMW since joe Calzaghe, and Kessler beat froch in the super six. no small achievement. i'm certainly not trying to belittle Calzaghe's achievements at SMW by saying ward's resume is at least as good as Calzaghe's, there's no doubt that ward and Calzaghe are the only two SMW's who can claim they were genuine world champions in their division
Kessler may well have always lost to Ward with Wards style but that doesnt remove that Kessler was a faded fighter with eye problems. How do you think Ward has as much claim as Calzaghe to being a champ in that division when Calzaghe beat the fighters when they were top and undefeated. Ward beat faded Kessler who beat Froch who beat Bute but didnt face any when prime and undefeated. Faded Kessler beat Froch which always made me feel the division was not as strong as it had been and Froch had not really been on the great run that it makes out when some feel he lost to Pascal who was not a top SMW, was behind against Taylor who was not a top SMW, some feel he lost to Dirrell who was not a top SMW, he lost to faded Kessler, beat Abraham who was not a top SMW, some feel he lost to Johnson who was not a top SMW. I think Froch gets alot of credit for his close fight with Ward and beating Bute after which was a real good win but he was later struggling at British title level with Groves
At least When Ward was the SprMW champ, there wasn't another fighter making a record number of defenses in the same division at the same time. The mere fact that both Joe C and Sven Ottke were making 20 defenses of their titles simultaneously hurts both guys.
you keep going back to the point that Calzaghe beat them first (when Kessler was undefeated) so he must be better, which is ridiculous if you come on the fight scene later and meet a common opponent who's career is in transition between the two champions, then of course fighter a gets to take his 0 before fighter b, but you seem intent on building up the british fighters and pulling down ward's achievements - point in question, you say that froch gets a lot of credit for the ward loss, but you downplay ward beating Kessler the bute win was a great example of a protected fighter stepping up for the first time and getting found out at a higher level
don't you think beating kovalev at 175 counts for anything? (btw...pleased you're back and debating on here)
but you're british it's relevant because you're a 'right fighter' you're not interested in other people's views, you're going to defend Calzaghe to the death
A right fighter? Not sure what that is? I stick with facts and on only what I have watched myself. Many didnt follow Calzaghes career before the Lacy fight so really arent aware of many of the things they comment on. I have no interest in defending Calzaghe but more to do with facts on various subjects. You seem upset and im not knocking you but think you have to look at the full picture and not a bias view