Is Andre Michael Ward An ATG...???

Let me guess though, maidana beat floyd right? Hatton wasnt allowes to fight his fight? Excuses are for the weakest minded

 

Are you saying Ward never head butted, elbowed, wrestled, low blowed in his fights?

I mean he was doing this **** against guys with losing records coming up.....he was a horrendous P4P 1 guy, guys like Lomo, Canelo, Crawford, GGG never had to resort to this.

 

If you think the reason ward won fights because of a few fouls you aren't even worth talking to. The guy could box anyone with eyes can see thaf

 

Yes he could, I thought he put on a clinic against Froch and Barrerra but even in the Barrerra fight he still was hitting low, is he a great fighter, of course but he was horrible to watch and shouldn’t be one for the purists.

He was like a 168 Hatton, just more dirty.

 

A 168 pound hatton with 10 times the ability sounds like an atg to me and someone anyone should watch

 

Actually he fights more like Jordan Burroughs than Hatton.

 

Been a long day at the job....

I don’t believe I was inquiring with you originally Bailey, either way I appreciate the response.

I’ll address the Eubanks comment directly and summarize a response for the remainder of your post (although you did mention it wasn’t initially crafted for my eyes)

Eubanks being long toothed has more to do with the 50 somewhat bouts under his belt and those mini wars with Collins. I presumed that was already implied seeing that your somewhat of a historian on the subject of SMW. The aging process in boxing is completely relative, I can’t fathom anyone arguing that universal fact.

You may want to elaborate more on the paralleling points of comparing a 50 bout Eubanks w/two Collins battles to a 30 bout Froch w/Pascal and a 42 bout Kessler with Calz battle. It’s not quite apples and oranges but I believe Eubanks, at the time he fought Joe, was considerably more shopworn when compared to similarly aged versions of Froch/Kessler when they fought Ward. How far can we really get debating this when the differences are as marginal as it gets. The better question is how genuine is your measuring stick when your tendency to lean towards and draw conclusions that align with a sympathetic view of Joe's career is well documented and understood on ESB. I’ll try and provide you with the benefit of doubt and consider this an objective discussion.

I’ve never seen the Thompson fight with Haye so I can’t divulge. What I do know is it has little relevance pertaining to the subject at hand. Triangle theories don’t have the greatest reputations, although they aren’t the worse indicators when comparing fighters careers and hypothetical matchups. The other issue is the 3+ degrees of separation between Joe/Ward and Thompson/Haye which further makes any Thompson/Haye/Eubank reference that much more immaterial. I don’t see how Hayes gassing and stoppage at the hands of Thompson directly strengthens your position on Wards ATG status.

I’m grateful for all the data, detail and research, however, data should almost always tell a story. Where are your stories and interpretations of the data provided? How does this reinforce your theory? How does this contradict the argument that Ward deserves equal footing as an ATG alongside Joe?

It’s not uncommon or shocking to see fantasy match ups involving Ward and Joe get mentioned in this site. Are the match ups theorized because they are considered contemporaries or are folks just trolling because there is an insurmountable gap in their respective careers, accomplishments, success, skill, ability, dexterity, intelligence, determination and pedigree.

I’ll try and catch the Thompson bout with Haye to understand your perspective a little better.

 

You're just another cry baby. Is Ward an atg or not? Wait, nevermind.

 

Oh ok. Got it.

 

A close win for Kovalev and loss for Ward, according to most people.

 

"According to most people" don't officially score fights nor do they keep the record book.

 

Tell that to people who say Ward easily schooled Froch when he lost 5 of 12 rounds on two of the cards.

 

He beat Froch clearly I thought Froch won 4 rounds in that fight.

 

How does the referee micro manage incremental differences in punch placement on the belt line? First I get the naval ruling with no naval in sight and now I get the punch placement on the belt line excuse. Most boxing gloves cover the entire height of a standard belt line on a boxing trunk, how does a fighter effectively negotiate where on the trunk line to land mid fight. You’re attempting to argue intricate details that can’t possibly be determined on an exact science based on a number of independent variables.

If football is a games of inches then boxing is a game centimeters, only referees aren’t pausing the action reviewing the tape and calculating how close or how far the leather from your glove is relative to some inferred line. The idea of is completely outlandish.

Still, I’m looking for a response with real substance counteracting my rationale. Can you honestly hang your hat on unsubstantiated low blows as the principle reason for Kovalev’s loss? Have you watched the feliciano versus Gamez fight as a solid referencing tool. Same punches deemed completely legal and these same boys absorbed blows that apparently would fold Kovalev like a lawn chair.

It’s ok to see my point and acknowledge legitimacy in my argument. You won’t lose any points on the kinfolk leaderboard for doing so. I’m only replying with practical intentions because I’m curious as to how your mind operates, what drives your predispositions and naive realism type attitude with me.

Again I’m only being me....this is how I write and I apologize in advance if you find it patronizing or antagonistic. I’m not attempting to be more than I am, I’m just being myself.

 

I struggled to give him five rounds but watched the fight at least four times and decided five rounds was fine. I always enjoyed the cobra and his attitude. They don’t make them like that anymore.