Who do you rank higher: Andre Ward or Joe Calzaghe

The low blows that was shown where as clear as day.

 

I agree with your points, but we now have the benefit of hindsight.

As things turned out, yes, it wasn't actually a tune up, because his career came to a halt shortly afterwards. But I stand by my original comment, which was that Andre initially took the Rodriguez fight as a tune up. I'm looking from his perspective in 2013.

 

Relax. I'm not being argumentative at all. You on the other hand?

It was a quality win. If you disagree, no big deal. I have some guys telling me they swear up and down that Alvarez beat GGG. I'm honestly not sweating it. I have come to realize some people just won't see things my way even if I feel strongly about them.

I think Roy's win over McCallum was a quality win... So was his win over Virgil Hill. I also think Khan had a good win over MAB. I think Danny had a good win over Morales. It is what it is.

My post isn't contradictory at all. The way you perceive my post isn't my problem, it's yours. Your strong feelings about this topic affect how you comprehend my post but, it's alright. I know from experience that it will take a lot to get you to understand my perspective since it doesn't align with your view. Not being able to pull the trigger like you once did, doesn't mean you are completely shot. Horn beat Manny...it was a quality win, but Manny isn't pulling the trigger like he once did either.

It's not silly, it's reality. To you it's silly, but that doesn't really mean much to me because I see how passionate you are about this and know how that can impact the ability to fully comprehend and be unbiased.

I realize there are levels and when you give into Father Time, you lose a step and are knocked down a level or two. But that still doesn't mean you are incapable of winning or pulling out an upset. It just didn't happen for Roy.

Anytime a fighter steps into the ring they deserve credit at this level. Anything can happen and when it includes a ring legend, it has a different impact on a fighters resume. Joe deserves credit for all his wins and accomplishments as a champion. You can discredit his resume, his legacy and wins all you'd like. But that doesn't effect or impact his status one bit at the end of the day. He's going down as a Hall of fame fighter and he's going to be viewed as an ATG. I think that says it all right there

 

No they weren't.

They had a low blow count, and many of them were looking from an angle that was looking towards the back of Kovalev.

 

I am relaxed.

If you can't see where you've contradicted yourself, you need to reread your posts.

There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension.

I'm not biased.

I have provided you with sufficient evidence which proves that Roy was no longer a top level fighter.

I have provided you with sufficient evidence where Joe repeatedly dismissed Roy as a fighter, even going as far as saying that he'd be disappointed to fight him because he'd been shot for 4 years.

If you think it was still a quality win despite the above, then you are rating the win solely on the name value, whilst ignoring the circumstances. And if you won't allow for the circumstances, then you aren't being objective. Which means that you are being both ignorant and biased, despite the fact that that's what you've accused me of being.

I can see no point in taking this further.

We'll agree to disagree.

 

It's not that serious....You can go back and re-read my posts if you'd like. It might help.

If you say there's nothing wrong with your reading comprehension and that you're not biased, it's cool with me. Roy wasn't an elite fighter when Joe faced him and I've said that. But it doesn't mean that Joe's win wasn't a good win or did not add to his legacy....it absolutely did.

But, sure....we can agree to disagree

 

I hope you've had a good weekend.

Where have I been biased?

I meant to ask you a question last week, but I forgot.

I always assumed that you thought that I had a deep dislike for Joe, because he beat my hero. But you said last week that you never thought that. So if that's the case, just out of interest, why do you think I have a deep dislike of him?

Again, I was a fan of Joe's for a long time. And even when I wasn't, I always respected him as a fighter. I only started to dislike him when he repeatedly played his: "I'm a victim of circumstances" card to the media, and the penny finally dropped, and I realised that he was more than content to fight all of the guys who put in front of him.

 

Ward definitely landed multiple low blows. That's not really up for debate. However, it's boxing and it's the job of the ref to enforce the rules. Kovalev was mentally beaten by that point. He was looking too much for the ref for help instead of taking the fight into his own hands. He should have gave Ward a taste of his own medicine and kept fighting....instead he let Ward get into his head and his frustration became overwhelming. Kovalev essentially gave up in a fight he was very much in, but losing

 

Don't let your boy Lance see this, it will be bound to evoke very unpleasant memories for him.

 

Kovalev lost trust in the system, the same system that he was competing in without difficulty in his previous fights.

 

There weren't multiple low blows.

There was one half way through the fight, and the last one in the final barrage was a little low.

All of the other supposedly low blows, were either on the red "Krusher" logo, which was situated on the white band at the top of his shorts, or they were in-between the "Krusher" logo and the "Hublot" logo.

 

I think that I've already discussed it with him.

 

I laugh at these people who think when you have everything stacked against you including the ref you should just forget about it all and go KO your opponent. Only if everything were that simple!

 

There were definitely multiple low blows that were not called by the ref. At the beginning of the fight the ref said on the belt line would be called low and many of those Ward body shots traveled south of Kovalev's belt line.