Why does Andre Ward have lower number of wins by knockouts stoppages compared to GGG?

"The fact that the right hurt Sergi shows he was mentally checked out" makes absolutely no sense at all. The right hurt Seregy because it was a damn good punch with a lot behind it. Although it was a greatly placed punch. Sergi is tough and andre HAD zero power at 168. He’s not moving up and rocking LHWs.... Makes perfect sense

Nice points the first thing he did when ref jumped in was to look to sky.Watch it that is not a man who wanted to keep fightin. I think its clear that Sergey was done, he got beat up pretty badly but getting beaten up and not disputing the stoppage doesn't equate to the guy quitting.

The fact that the right hurt sergi shows he was mentally checked out. Ward has very limited power. I’m sure if he was a good actor he would have pretended to go down from that punch. But that would be expecting to much. Hell, he couldn’t even act like he was mad the fight was stopped until a week later. "The fact that the right hurt Sergi shows he was mentally checked out" makes absolutely no sense at all. The right hurt Seregy because it was a damn good punch with a lot behind it.

You haven't taught me anything and I don't need to reread anything. I know and that my young friend is YOUR problem

Dude I'm done trying to teach you! Go back and reread posts till it comes to you. You haven't taught me anything and I don't need to reread anything.

yes, they can. Do you even know what statistics are. I can show you by statistics: 1) The fighters a boxer beats. 2) When a boxer beats another boxer. 3) How a boxer beats another boxer. That was your claim. That one has to 'see' those things. I can represent those things statistically. Do you seriously think I can't? If not, do you want to challenge me? Dude I'm done trying to teach you! Go back and reread posts till it comes to you.

no It cant and I'm done sayin the same things to you. yes, they can. Do you even know what statistics are. I can show you by statistics: 1) The fighters a boxer beats. 2) When a boxer beats another boxer. 3) How a boxer beats another boxer. That was your claim. That one has to 'see' those things. I can represent those things statistically. Do you seriously think I can't? If not, do you want to challenge me?

I just said watch them all fight(or as much as you can) I also responded by claiming that's what I do!

You do realize that pretty much everything you've metnioned, can be demonstrated via statistics? For me, an official decision usually is the ultimate decision. However, I do analyze the contexts of bouts where the outcome is controversial. no It cant and I'm done sayin the same things to you.

I do watch fights. My statistics are usually based on what I see with my own eyes first. Statistics can take into consideration 'padded records' as well. You do realize this too, right? you're arguing statistics don't mean much but you aren't able to offer an alternative to statistics. Whatever alternative you do offer, turns out that they can also be represented via statistics. Ergo, statistics are the most meaningful way to infer something. I just said watch them all fight(or as much as you can)

Not looking at records!!! You need to see the fighters they beat and when they beat them and how(bad dec,unfair reffs.YOU GETTING DRIFT NOW.Did not say stats mean nothing at all just MUCH LESS than other sports. Its obv You do realize that pretty much everything you've metnioned, can be demonstrated via statistics? For me, an official decision usually is the ultimate decision. However, I do analyze the contexts of bouts where the outcome is controversial.

Watching them FIGHT!! really is it that hard to understand??? Padded records fighin big name great fighters past their prime.Looking at a boxers record or his wins and losses mean ALOT less than say Football where there is parity also baseball or any other sport. Get what I'm sayin now?? I do watch fights. My statistics are usually based on what I see with my own eyes first. Statistics can take into consideration 'padded records' as well. You do realize this too, right? you're arguing statistics don't mean much but you aren't able to offer an alternative to statistics. Whatever alternative you do offer, turns out that they can also be represented via statistics. Ergo, statistics are the most meaningful way to infer something.

Everything you stated can be statistically demonstrated. If I wanted to infer something, what would be the best way to infer that something? If I wanted to infer who is a better heavyweight boxer between two boxers. What would be the best way to infer that? If I wanted to infer who is the best knockout artist. What would be the best way to infer that? Are you now getting the drift? Not looking at records!!! You need to see the fighters they beat and when they beat them and how(bad dec,unfair reffs.YOU GETTING DRIFT NOW.Did not say stats mean nothing at all just MUCH LESS than other sports. Its obv

What are some of the things that mean more in boxing than stats! Go ahead and share so that you can enlighten me with those 'meaningful' factors that I haven't yet discovered. Watching them FIGHT!! really is it that hard to understand??? Padded records fighin big name great fighters past their prime.Looking at a boxers record or his wins and losses mean ALOT less than say Football where there is parity also baseball or any other sport. Get what I'm sayin now??

But stats don't mean much when it comes to quality of opp either because you are still going by records and kos and stuff. Wins and losses tell us less about fighters than any other sport.It not how many you beat or even how you beat them.Its WHO and WHEN you beat them that really shows something. Everything you stated can be statistically demonstrated. If I wanted to infer something, what would be the best way to infer that something? If I wanted to infer who is a better heavyweight boxer between two boxers. What would be the best way to infer that? If I wanted to infer who is the best knockout artist. What would be the best way to infer that? Are you now getting the drift?

Stats are facts. Facts are reality in terms of what actually happened. So no, stats don't mean less in boxing compared to opinions or subjective claims. Just so you know, a stat can also include and take into consideration quality of opposition as well. But stats don't mean much when it comes to quality of opp either because you are still going by records and kos and stuff. Wins and losses tell us less about fighters than any other sport.It not how many you beat or even how you beat them.Its WHO and WHEN you beat them that really shows something.

Stats still mean less in boxing then anyother sport.Im not sayin they mean nothing but much less than others imo. What are some of the things that mean more in boxing than stats! Go ahead and share so that you can enlighten me with those 'meaningful' factors that I haven't yet discovered.

Stats are facts. Facts are reality in terms of what actually happened. So no, stats don't mean less in boxing compared to opinions or subjective claims. Just so you know, a stat can also include and take into consideration quality of opposition as well. Stats still mean less in boxing then anyother sport.Im not sayin they mean nothing but much less than others imo.

I never said ignore the stoppage where Lomachenko's opponents quit and certainly didn't say that about TKO's. I'm saying, I take into consideration that he was facing in-house opponents with no injuries and no doctor's recommendation for them to stop. When was the last time you saw 3 opponents in a row (world class opponents) quit because they were so overwhelmed and didn't want to suffer a KO? As a long time observer of the sport that is the first. We can say it's because Lomachenko is that good, but is he? Would it be a great marketing strategy to paint him as a fighter so good his opponents literally quit? You don't think throwing him with Salido in his 2nd fight was a strategic move? Marketing Golovkin as fighter who no wanted to fight worked great for him. The same way Mayweather's perfect record worked for him. Regardless, I'll just go back to the original point of almost everyone with an opposing view than you. It's about the level of competition. If fighter X fights 10 opponents with a losing record and gets a stoppage each time, I would not consider that the same level of accomplishment as fighter Y fighting 10 opponents with a winning record but only has 3 or 4 stoppage. By your theory fighter X is the more offensive fighter because he has 10 stoppages. Ok fine! But would it be wrong of me or anyone else to also weigh in the level of opponent as the reason fighter X was more successful? I'm not against the facts you're using to make your point. I'm making the distinction between level of opposition, offensive skills at the highest level (not just KOs/percentages), and other varying factors. Your original point was that Rigondeaux has more knockouts. This ignores the fact that he has had more bouts. Therefore, you were exposed using a false equivalence logical fallacy! My comparison was about their knockout record with both having the same number of bouts. In that regard, they are fairly even! When was the last time you saw a boxer like Lomachenko with a record like him in just 10 bouts? So what is your point? Just because other boxers in the past haven't forced their opponents to retire consecutively in 3 fights in a row doesn't mean that such a thing isn't logically possible. It may have not happened in the past, but it has now. Just like how no other boxer in the past had a record like Lomachenko in just 10 bouts but now, such a record exists. So perhaps you need to deal with new things occurring in the boxing world which didn't occur in the past. Lomachenko beats his opponents up and forces them to quit. It's really as simple as that! Maybe you're refusing to believe the reality that exists by being deluded. That's on you! However, just because other past boxers weren't capable of doing what Lomachenko is doing (having the record he has in just 10 bouts and being able to force 3 opponents to retire consecutively) doesn't mean Lomachenko and other upcoming boxers aren't also capable of these feats in the modern era. You're 'marketing strategy' theory is just that, PURE SPECULATION! I don't even need to address them as they are baseless and totally unsubstantiated. As for quality of opposition, you can't use them as an excuse because my statistics and analysis also takes quality of opposition into consideration as well. If you haven't noticed already after all this time, this thread is about comparing Golovkin's knockout to Andre Ward's knockout record of both against the same / similar level of opposition. Golovkin has faced and stopped the following boxers: 1) Kell Brook 2) Martin Murray 3) David Lemeiux 4) Nobuhiro Ishida 5) Grzegorz Proska Andre Ward has faced and failed to stop the following boxers: 1) Alexander Brand 2) Edison Miranda 3) Allan Green 4) Henry Buchanan 5) Edwin Rodriguez This is a fair comparison of both against similar level / quality of opposition (unless you're arguing either Golovkin's or Ward's opponents are superior compared to the other's). So even when comparing both of their knockout record against similar level of opposition, Golovkin still has a more impressive knockout record in terms of percentage, quantity and time taken to get his knockouts. Therefore, he has the better 'offensive skills'! Either way, my point stands and is correct. It's purely based on factual data.

The last time I checked, a retirement stoppage counts as a stoppage. As in, it is included in one's knockout percentage. Ergo, if anybody is cherry picking, it is you who is cherry picking since it is you who is ignoring OFFICIAL stats. The fact that Lomachenko has forced as many opponents to quit actually proves that his opponents were afraid to suffer their inevitable fate, which was getting knocked out eventually. So they quit before the inevitable knockout occurred. therefore, a retirement stoppage is a legitimate stoppage. It's not Lomachenko's fault his opponents gave up / retired / quit and subsequently took away his opportunity to get a proper clean knockout. if you want to go by that standard, let's also ignore TKO's as well then whilst we're at it. Lomachenko has 3 consecutive clean 10 count KO's. All under 10 fights. On the other hand, Rigondeaux only as 2. Ergo, Lomachenko still has Rigondeaux beat in another department. In judging 'offensive skills', the first factor I judge is the quantity of 'effective punches'. Not total punches that amount to ineffective punches mostly. In other words, 1 effective punch which scores a knockout, knockdown or stuns an opponent is worth more than 30 ineffective punches which does none of those things. Therefore, a boxer who lands one punch that knocks an opponent out whilst getting out landed wins the fight. Therefore, the boxer who lands one punch which drops the opponent wins the round, even if they get out landed in that round but don't get dropped themselves. In other words, an effective punch > ineffective punch. In other words, a few effective punches which causes knockouts, knockdowns, opponent to get stunned, opponent's body to be damage > higher number of ineffective punches which does none of the former things. Yes, the team who scores most goals has the best offense. In the end, everything is a means to an end, which is to score goals from the perspective of offense. I never said ignore the stoppage where Lomachenko's opponents quit and certainly didn't say that about TKO's. I'm saying, I take into consideration that he was facing in-house opponents with no injuries and no doctor's recommendation for them to stop. When was the last time you saw 3 opponents in a row (world class opponents) quit because they were so overwhelmed and didn't want to suffer a KO? As a long time observer of the sport that is the first. We can say it's because Lomachenko is that good, but is he? Would it be a great marketing strategy to paint him as a fighter so good his opponents literally quit? You don't think throwing him with Salido in his 2nd fight was a strategic move? Marketing Golovkin as fighter who no wanted to fight worked great for him. The same way Mayweather's perfect record worked for him. Regardless, I'll just go back to the original point of almost everyone with an opposing view than you. It's about the level of competition. If fighter X fights 10 opponents with a losing record and gets a stoppage each time, I would not consider that the same level of accomplishment as fighter Y fighting 10 opponents with a winning record but only has 3 or 4 stoppage. By your theory fighter X is the more offensive fighter because he has 10 stoppages. Ok fine! But would it be wrong of me or anyone else to also weigh in the level of opponent as the reason fighter X was more successful? I'm not against the facts you're using to make your point. I'm making the distinction between level of opposition, offensive skills at the highest level (not just KOs/percentages), and other varying factors.