i agree but i think froch won 2 or 3 rounds i dont think abraham won 1 even. although il get bitched at another was calzaghe v lacy 12-0 in a unification fight.yes i know im naming brit boxers but being british these are the fights i remember most.
I think as a general rule, you're absolutely on point. You can't fault a fighter for losing rounds and showing moments of vulnerability against consistently high-quality competition. But it does happen, and you can't use the competitiveness of the bout as an isolated proxy to determine the quality of opposition. Jones-Toney and Jones-Hopkins were virtual shut-outs, and that was some of the best competition around those weight classes ever. Hearns went the distance with lesser fighters than Palomino, but stopped him early. Likewise, Mayweather can looks sensational against Gatti, but that's far from his best win. So while I agree with the premises of your argument, it's not "impossible" to dominate against the best opposition you have in front of you.
Froch still gave Ward a hard fight where he had to work. He lost clearly but it wasn't a walk in the park. Aside from that, even Ward has struggled in the past - just look at the Bika fight, for example, so even though he's a supremely skilled fighter, he isn't beating everyone easily and the reason being is because his opposition is good. He's facing skilled boxers in every single fight, and even if he keeps that 0 for another 5 fights, he won't have been up against pushovers who don't win a single round.
Communism falls suddenly Americans start losing all their titles. They see the numbers they hating This content is protected