Kovalev / Ward 2. From a neutral perspective

If you're neutral about a rematch, why state your position on their first fight? In fact, why mention the first fight at all?

Again, this seems to be your preoccupation with the first fight.

How did Andre Ward deal with Kovalev's Jab in the rematch (the fight you're supposed to be being neutral about)?

What does that have to do with your OP; the one I was responding to; the one that's supposed to be 'neutral'?

That's not what happened. Kovalev was already beginning to double over, after the first of the three body blows.

I suggest you watch the ending again yourself and try, this time, to do so from a point of 'neutrality'. As it stands, it's clear to me that you're only seeing what you want to see.

I have watched the fight. Why imply that I haven't, as if it makes your position stronger? It doesn't.

At the time of the stoppage, Kovalev had effectively stopped fighting (after the first of the series of three body shots). Kovalev was finished before the last punch landed.

 

The only people buying into your low blow excuses are the online fanboys. Not hearing anyone important in the boxing community speaking out against these "low blows" you speak of. But then again I suspect you and most of the online community have alterior motives.

 

I didn't say it was odd. I just don't think it is representative of you being neutral; like the remainder of this, your latest response. If you can't even begin to entertain the question of why people might interpret your neutrality as being quite transparently bogus (inadvertently or otherwise) then I am not going spend any further time trying to explain it to you.

You haven't answered my question about how Ward began to address the Kovalev jab and I doubt you're going to.

Then it doesn't matter.

It started with the first shot.
In terms of your perspective on the second shot, this is pure speculation and, again, in favor of Kovalev. But, I understand why you have to take this position because, with you being so entirely neutral, it's the only way you can get close to making a case for the fight being stopped on low blows.

I'm not worried about your opinion. It's turned out to be straightforwardly biased.

You can't make out the first shot but can speculate on the second shot??

Like I stated in my previous post, it's clear to me that you're only seeing what you want to see, which just demonstrates a quite non-neutral perspective.

You have not been neutral and you're still not being so. Never mind.

It's not really an opinion. It's what, at that point in the fight, was actually happening.

And, what on Earth has Gatti/Ward got to do with this??

In those closing seconds of the fight, how many punches did Kovalev throw, after the first body shot landed?

If you're doubling over; not throwing punches (and not even looking like you're going to); not even using your feet to find a way out of the predicament and just leaving yourself there to be hit, you're not giving the Referee a lot of options.

Weeks could have left it a bit longer before jumping in but, where was it going to go, with half-a-minute left in the round? At that point, it was only going to result in Kovalev taking more undefended punishment.

 

I think the OP hit a nerve for some posters...

 

THey cant handle the Troof.

 

The low blows are a fact, esp. the last one.................it is on Video, saw it is low motion and a still picture, but Bob Bennett refused to even review the replay and he lied about the criminal Rigo................damned criminal referees, boxing commission and judges are killed boxing, so many are going to UFC/MMA................

 

It is difficult to "debate the matters", when one is only interpreting the evidence they want to, in the way that they want to - and, all in favor of only one of the fighters in question (that's you and your case for Kovalev).

My initial response to your OP was calling you out on the claim that yours was a 'neutral perspective', when your perspective is anything but neutral. You quite plainly opened your post by stating you think Kovalev won a fight that he actually lost.

This was laughably the least neutral statement you could have made about a fight you needn't have brought up at all. And, rather amusingly, you have continued to reinforce my initial point with your every subsequent response.



As it is, you seem unable to provide much more of an analysis of the fight, beyond Kovalev's Jab and video footage, which every man and his dog has already seen. In fact, I believe the Kovalev Jab was the basis of your analysis of the first fight; the one, which has you describe Ward as, "more of a very good brawler rather than a boxer", and your belief that Kovalev adapted to Ward's "brawling" in that fight - even though Ward won.

Other than this, you acknowledge Ward's big right hand in the 8th of the rematch, which anyone with eyes would have to do - so, you are not exactly brimming with insights, are you?.

I think that you were convinced Kovalev was going to win this rematch (probably because you thought Kovalev won the first fight). I'd wager - a lot - that you, along with the other 'Krusher Kids', believed Kovalev would win the rematch with apparent ease (based on how you thought Kovalev had had Ward all sewn up in their first contest).

Oh well - he didn't win - and now it seems you have to find solace in jumping on the 'Low-Blow-Bandwagon'.



You really show no perceptive interpretation of my initial case, either. You keep using words to guess at my state of mind or motives like suggesting I am "worried" and "bugged"; or, I have an "agenda" (which is priceless coming from you, with your historical view on Ward).

So - Let's get something clear. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I couldn't care less. I am neither for nor against either fighter but the fact of the matter is that Ward won and Kovalev lost. Sometimes, fights end in odd circumstances but the sheer truth of this situation is that it was a fight; not a massaging contest and Kovalev was getting beaten.



I think Weeks was a little hasty with the stoppage but then I have never claimed otherwise. However, I also think Kovalev was not helping himself, by giving off the physical indications that he was hurt and unable to continue.

When you're in the ring and you've just taken a shot that has clearly changed the complexion of the round (and quite probably the fight itself) then you have to keep yourself in there by at least looking like you're able to defend yourself. As I have mentioned before, the first of the series of three body shots he takes from Ward, effectively stops Kovalev from doing anything but begin to pitch over.



You've not really posted any new footage and certainly nothing that reveals, without doubt, that the first and second body shots were low. You also seem to think that earlier shots on the belt line are low. So, you should at least establish accurate criteria for assessment before declaring your assessment as neutral.

Given that you have shown that you consider belt-line shots to be low, why should anybody trust that you, 1) understand what you're watching, 2) know what you're talking about and, more importantly, 3) are being neutral?

In the final series of three body shots, the view of the second blow's impact is obscured by Ward's own body - and so, I remain somewhat amused by you, claiming to be neutral, having proudly made utter assumptions in Kovalev's favor, on this point.

Your opinion on how the fight ended is based, in the largest part, on conjecture. It has to be explained that way by you, because it's the only way you can defend yourself against having been so wrong about your pre-fight analysis and prediction.

You are, therefore, clearly not being neutral.



Anyway - this is getting boring. But fortunately, I have plans for the rest of the day, which don't involve going around in circles with you - a partisan Kovalev flag-waver.

Congratulations on being identified as a fully-fledged 'Krusher Fan'. This is not a bad thing - just don't try to tell people you're being neutral when neutrality is the last thing your words have exhibited, from the outset.

Enjoy your days on the 'Bandwagon', on which you can share micro-moments of the fight and convince yourself of anything; even things that aren't real, to your heart's content. Over and Out!

 

'Kovalev Kids' doesn't have quite the same ring as '*****s' or '*******s' but maybe it'll stick?

So, anyone criticising Wards manner of victory or questioning the integrity of the referee, judges or other major players involved in this event are just bitter, twisted lunatics who can't handle losing/being proven wrong about fight predictions?

Ward/Kovalev 2 was a controversial event for valid reasons and people have the right to feel aggrieved at what they perceive to be injustice or corruption.
I may be considered one of these 'Kovalev Kids' as I bet huge on a SK victory and was pretty confident before the fight as I also had Sergey winning a UD the 1st fight, I also don't mind Kovalev as a personality and find Ward quite off-putting (although I have huge respect for him as a competitor).
I saw an improved Andre Ward in the sequel and I expected Kovalev to show more toughness than he did, but when Ward had licence to foul him in the most tender of places - no man could take punishment like that and not be rendered incapacitated.

I am disappointed Ward is receiving such acclaim from so many when this victory is so obviously flawed by the nature of how it was achieved. As disappointed as I would have been with Ward beating Kovalev cleanly and fairly, I would have gave Andre his props and my estimation of him would have rocketed but as is, with the manner of the 'W' and some of his comments/behaviour I can't do it. (I do recognise AW is an incredible fighter in his own style)

I still feel Kovalev beats him in a fair fight with a strict ref and competent, impartial judging (albeit a little less confident than before).

 

Good thread. Ward is a flat out fraud and will never be a legit champ at LHW. Also speaking from a neutral perspective

 

Sven Ottke vs Ward in Germany, who wins?