is that the overwhelming majority of fans, writers, pundits, commentators etc....have never actually boxed a day in their lives, or set foot in a gym and therefore they have no clue what they're looking at or how to properly score and appreciate a fight and different styles. You don't see this in any other major sport. Most people have played football or basketball at some point in their lives, rather it be pick up games, youth league, middle or High school etc.. They have a fundamental understanding of the sport, and its nuances. However most fans and journalist don't have a clue about boxing, technique, strategy, defensive maneuvers, setting traps nada. They don't know how fights are scored. I've see so many people saying "fighter A was busier, and was the aggressor" and should have won evenr though neither of those or valid scoring criteria. Then these same ignoramuses will cry robbery and corruption when a scorecard gets entered that they can't comprehend do to their lack of knowledge about the sport. And then people keep regurgitating that boxing is corrupt, journalist ring with it, and it just tarnishes the reputation of a sport that I really love. **** is sad and I really wish people had a deeper appreciation of the high level level that professional boxers do in the ring, and how to properly score a fight round by round, using the appropriate 4 different criteria.
Another Ward apologist. So setting traps even if the opponent does not fall into them should favour the fighter who sets them even when they do not come off? We should ignore initiation, effective aggression and knock downs in favour of back peddling, holding and spoiling another's work?
First off I'm not a Ward apologist. I have no problem with fans who gave the edge to Kovaleb and would not have been upset if he got the decision. It was a close competitive fight. Second, my mention of setting traps wasn't specific to this fight, I was simply listing some of the things that casual fans don't understand bout boxing because they've never boxed before. I don't know what the hell you're talking about in your last sentence cause I didn't say that. Round 2 was scored 10-8 so Kovalev got rightful credit for the knockdown. But fighting off the back foot, doesn't get anymore or less credit than coming forward. At times Kovaleb's aggression was very effective but other times it wasn't. You don't simply get points for being the aggressor. Also most boxing fans don't appreciate body work, which Ward did a good job of causing Kovalev to gas. It was a close fight, could have gone eitherway, but it certainly wasn't a robbery.
Agree. Ward set some nice traps and hitted Kovalev repeatedly with his face in his fist, I see how the judges scored for him now
On a night, when Perez visibly outworked Hooker, and yet still the latterescaped without a loss to his name, it was indeed a robbery. How can the judges give the benefit of the doubt in a complete shut out to Hunter, who simply survived those 10 rounds, yet overlook a decision in Kovalev's favour who knocked down his man and later had close rounds that were difficult to score for everyone during the rest of the fight? There is no deny that ward had his moments with stabbing jabs and tidy body work along with kovalev fading in the later rounds as a result. however I do not believe he done enough to clearly show he had beaten Kovalev considering the measure the same judging panel used on the Perez/hooker fight. At worse he it should have been scored as a draw.
Yep,and the fake blood that leaked from Kov's nose and the red welts on his body...Special effeeeeeectssssss.
Then forget about what writers and fans are saying about this Kovalev -Ward fight, what are the boxers and trainers saying about it?
People who have boxed hundreds of fights, amateur and professional, disagree on scoring fights too. The problem with boxing is the idea of declaring winners and losers on decisions anyway. Especially in close fights. The truth is, in many of these fights there was no clear winner, no clear loser. No one got beat up, no one got schooled in boxing. I think perhaps the rules should be changed, especially in title fights, so fights are declared draws more often. Unless the scorecards suggest a wide margin, the verdict should be a draw. Also, judges shouldn't be discouraged fro scoring rounds even.
So going from your logic, Floyd should have lost against Maidana with a bloody nose in a close fight? #theagendadrivenraciststrikesagain
Impossible to due. Fans are what make the sport, ans sadly man of them are clueless and rely on the media to keep them informed even though the media DKSAB either.
Absolutely nothing wrong with your opinion. Thinking that it should have been a draw for a Kovalev win is perfectably reasonable scoring of the fight. Its the uneducated masses crying robbery like it was a onesided whitewash that I'm talking about. When people recklessly throw that term around, it gives fuel to enemies of boxing to insult and belittle the sport.
Maybe. Another big thing thing is that boxing is just not scored or refereed in ways we may like these days. For a round, the narrowest of victories is the scored the same as a landslide. Clinching is completely tolerated. Going by these standard rules I had Ward winning. But I wish we could change things. Sometimes I experiment with keeping a separate card where only landslide victories count (and close rounds are just a draw). Although often enough this means that a single strong exchange decides the entire the fight, which I have mixed feelings about.
