Why do some boxers get praised for winning by decision whilst others get discredited?

People are clueless. Same reason Golovkin can't start at a measured pace vs an opponent he finds a threat, if he at any point is not bullrushing and throwing to the wind he's being exposed and out-boxed. But if it's Mayweather giving up the first few rd's, he's just analyzing.

Now I see the problem. You keep harping on what YOU think is the deal. I'm giving you example after example where SANCTIONED JUDGES gave a call based on how they were trained to do it. The point is, I would gladly trust SANCTIONED JUDGES over random people on boards or in the streets with respect to punches. And no, it's not "rare" this kind of thing happens. What people keep ignoring is what I see in every outcome: judges will punish you for not fighting like they think you should be fighting. They're creating mental blueprints for how you fight and how you've been successful in past fights, and they expect you to stick with it, or they'll punish you. Pac/Bradley 1 Mayweather/Pacquiao Canelo/Golovkin Pac/Horn Ward/Kov 1 All these "controversial" outcomes where in my eyes, the "NSB darling" clearly lost according to how SANCTIONED JUDGES behave. The only exceptions where that wasn't true was Canelo/Golovkin, where I had G up by 1 round, and Ward/Kov 1 where I had Kov up by 1 round, mostly due to the knockdown. But my opinion doesn't matter. Pacquiao isn't getting "robbed", he's no longer doing what people expect him to do, which is blow through his opponent. It doesn't make sense to the human eye that he can dominate a larger Margarito over 12 and stop a powerful Cotto, yet can't take Chris Algieri or face-first Jessie Vargas out. Can't stop a shot Rios, can't stop Bradley over THREE fights, never could stop Marquez...it doesn't make sense. Yet Floyd only really loses rounds when he throws his "usual" fight style to the wind. We saw that against McGregor and Maidana. When he sticks to what people expect him to do, he wins rounds. DESPITE his punches not causing damage. Which is why I preferred openly announced scoring round by round, so a fighter doesn't have a false sense that they're winning the fight when they're really not simply because they're aggressive. In the old days you saw guys go out there and change styles to try and affect the scoring in their favor, which is how fights got fan friendly. My point, as I said before and that Floyd has proven time and again, is that it's not only about damage caused by punches. Ring generalship and defense play equal parts to the scoring. But when you're a one-dimensional fighter who relies too much on power and throwing (Lemieux) and you come across a more rounded fighter, you're going to lose in the eyes of SANCTIONED JUDGES. 1) I'm giving you example after example where SANCTIONED JUDGES gave a call based on how they were trained to do it. Except, 'sanctioned judges' don't create the rules on how a boxing bout is supposed to be judged. They are only meant to follow the rules that have already been established and created by those in a higher position of authority. And if their judgement of a boxing bout doesn't go in accordance to the rules of how a boxing bout is supposed to be judged, then that's when one can justifiably call the judgement a 'robbery' or 'incorrect'. That's why film study videos exist after bouts to prove using video evidence as to who won a boxing bout according to the rules and whether the judge was correct with their decision. And judges aren't always correct with their decisions as a matter of fact. 2) The point is, I would gladly trust SANCTIONED JUDGES over random people on boards or in the streets with respect to punches What are those exact things that are related to 'punches' that you are going to trust from 'sanctioned judges'? And I would rather trust the official rule book that have been already established by those in a higher position of authority than 'SANCTIONED JUDGES'. 3) And no, it's not "rare" this kind of thing happens. Yes, it is rare. For every example of a bad or incorrect decision you provide, an opposite can also be provided. 4) judges will punish you for not fighting like they think you should be fighting. They're creating mental blueprints for how you fight and how you've been successful in past fights, and they expect you to stick with it, or they'll punish you. Have you got any evidence based on the official rules of boxing that states a boxer must box in a specific way all the time? And that if he doesn't, he would lose? So going by this rule, a boxer can never change the way he boxes and must box the same way all the time? And this rule gives the impression that a boxer is only allowed to use one method to achieve the objective of boxing (land effective punches on opponent whilst getting punched less) and that the boxer is not allowed to use any other methods to accomplish the same objective. Why should that be the case? Why shouldn't the boxer be allowed to change his way of boxing circumstantially based on the type of opponent he is boxing against? Since different techniques and tactics are suitable against different types of opponents who are stylistically different. I've never encountered any evidence that such a rule exists. Do you even realize how ridiculous such a rule is? Since according this rule, the way a boxer moves has greater precedence than the main objective of boxing (which is to land punches on the opponent). So why should boxing, still be called 'boxing' any longer and not some kind of a dancing contest? My point, as I said before and that Floyd has proven time and again, is that it's not only about damage caused by punches. Ring generalship and defense play equal parts to the scoring. Floyd proved the initial point that I've already made. Which is that when two boxers are equal in the 'effective' or 'damaging' punches landed department, then those other scoring criteria come into play. However, effective and damaging punches landed are the primary scoring criteria for boxing. The other criteria are secondary ones. Hence, if Floyd Mayweather doesn't land any damaging or effective punches on his opponent (as is usually the case at 147 pounds) and his opponent also don't land any effective / damaging punches on him either (as is usually the case too at 147 pounds), then those other secondary scoring criteria are used to establish who wins that particular round. If Floyd Mayweather Jr gets dropped or knocked out (two of the most effective punches in boxing respectively), he would either lose the entire bout or round, irrespective of all those secondary criteria and how much better he was on them.

Really? Then explain the outcome of Paul Williams vs. Erislandy Lara. https://img.youtube.com/vi/yLuJTDPmvmw/0.jpg https://blogimg.goo.ne.jp/user_image/15/c2/fe48499de940c36bcb6aee8b48c880db.jpg Explain the outcome of Roy Jones Jr vs Si Hun park in the 1988 Olympic finals. It's called 'incorrect / erroneous decisions' which are bound to happen from time to time in the sport of boxing that is judged by imperfect human beings. Finding rare examples of a boxer losing through an erroneous decision doesn't disprove my point. Or how about the knockout rule. Or the knockdown rules? Why do they exist? As in, why does a boxer deserve to win a bout if a boxer knocks his opponent out with a single punch, even if that boxer loses every round and gets out-landed and out-punched in every other round other than the round where he knocks his opponent out? It's because a knockout punch is the most effective punch in pro boxing and it has precedence over all other ineffective punches. Similarly, a punch that causes an opponent to be knocked down in a round is the second most effective punch in boxing and if a boxer lands one punch that knocks his opponent down, that boxer is going to win that round, irrespective of how many less effective punches his opponent lands. Seriously! This is common knowledge. Professional boxing has ALWAYS been about effective punches which inflict damage. Whilst amateur boxing is the total opposite. I'm not sure how this is even debatable!

Depends on the circumstances. If an underdog wins via decision, it is impressive either way . But if the favorite is expected to dominate by KO but ends up winning barely by decision, he will get discredited. Paul Williams-Carlos Quintana 1 comes to mind. Quintana was fkin dope in that fight. Everything clicked for him that night.

You're skipping the most important: Did your punch cause your opponent to constantly reset? It was an effective punch. We saw that against Lemieux recently, and Floyd is a master of it as is Loma and Saunders. Did your punch cause you to start dictating the pace of the fight because you're beating the opponent to the punch? Effective punch. Is your punch clearly frustrating your opponent? Loma and Floyd. Clearly effective punch. It's not only about punches that hurt. It's about punches that ultimately make you look terrible. Which is why Saunders looked so dominant against Lemieux. Which is why Loma looked so dominant against Rigo and Walters. Which is why Floyd looked so dominant against Manny, Canelo and McGregor. None of those losers showed any damage whatsoever - except to their egos after getting embarrassed by effective punches and moving. Did your punch cause your opponent to constantly reset? It was an effective punch. We saw that against Lemieux recently, and Floyd is a master of it as is Loma and Saunders. I already mentioned that when I stated: "forcing an opponent to move backwards ". It's pretty much akin to forcing an opponent to reset. Did your punch cause you to start dictating the pace of the fight because you're beating the opponent to the punch? Effective punch. Well, in this instance, a boxer can be effective and ineffective. If boxer A beats boxer B to 10 punches and they inflict no damage whatsoever on boxer B or have no effect on boxer B. Whilst boxer B lands one punch in that round that causes boxer A to get knocked down or to be stunned. Who was the more effective puncher and who's punches have more value? Obviously boxer B based on professional standards of scoring boxing bouts. Is your punch clearly frustrating your opponent? Loma and Floyd. Clearly effective punch. This one is totally subjective and unverifiable. There is no possible way to verify whether a boxer is truly frustrated or not. Especially if said boxer usually shows very little to no emotion usually. It's not only about punches that hurt. In professional boxing, an 'effective' punch always has some degree of damage to it. Any punch that 'effects' the opponent is an 'effective' punch by my standard. That is not to say that a boxer couldn't win a bout without throwing or landing effective or damaging / hurtful punches. If there are two boxers who are both only throwing ineffective, light tapping punches. Then the one who lands more of those punches deserves to win. In another scenario, if there is a power puncher who only throws effective and powerful / hurtful / damaging punches whilst facing an opponent who happens to be a non-power puncher who usually throws ineffective and light tapping punches. If the ineffective puncher lands 10 ineffective punches whilst the power puncher lands 0 effective punches in a round, then the ineffective puncher should win that round. However, if a light tapping ineffective puncher lands 10 punches that have no effect on his opponent whilst the opponent lands 1 punch which staggers the ineffective puncher, that 1 effective punches will have more value than 10 ineffective punches. In professional boxing, punches that inflicts greater damage have more value than punches that inflict less damage. Whilst in the amateurs on the other hand, it's the total opposite. Therefore: Quality > quantity in professional boxing. Quantity > quality in amateur boxing.

This started because you called out general NSB for hypocrisy. I give an example of the general NSB hypocrisy, and you proceeded to dispute it. You can do your own research on this very board about how many people criticize Floyd - not because of "contractural" weight, but simply because he was bigger than Marquez. That's my point. Yet, they give Loma a pass for doing the same damn thing. In YOUR mind, you are hung up on the contractural part. That's fine, But that's not what general NSB was harping about. The double standard is the fact that you're mixing in your opinion to try to dilute the fact, as per the bold. You're free to have your opinion about who deserves credit, but that's not what we're discussing. A jab is a jab. You land or you don't. That's in the rule books. Thus, if Fighter A wins a fight with an effective jab, Fighter B wins a fight with an effective jab. You can't say Fighter B's jabs are too weak to win. He landed, period. I challenge you to point me to any AUTHORITATIVE source that says a SANCTIONED JUDGE must consider punch force. You won't find it. What you will find is connects for jabs vs. power punches. Power punches have a SPECIFIC definition. A jab upstairs CANNOT be a power punch. However, the rules say any body shot should be counted as a power punch. What happens with Floyd is that he loves throwing jabs to the body - why? Because it's quick, easy to land, and he knows certain scorers will count them as power punches, and since CompuBox is just humans tapping buttons, he always comes off dominant despite the appearance of doing nothing but jabs. I say again. If Fighter A wins a fight with an effective jab, Fighter B wins a fight with an effective jab. That's by the rule book, not by your narrow opinion of punch force which is NOT a scoring metric. This started because you called out general NSB for hypocrisy. I give an example of the general NSB hypocrisy, and you proceeded to dispute it. You can do your own research on this very board about how many people criticize Floyd - not because of "contractural" weight, but simply because he was bigger than Marquez. That's my point. Yet, they give Loma a pass for doing the same damn thing. In YOUR mind, you are hung up on the contractural part. That's fine, But that's not what general NSB was harping about. Oh no I totally agree that it is incorrect to call one boxer a 'weight bully' and not the other when it comes to Floyd Mayweather Jr and Vasyl Lomachenko. The position of those individuals is incorrect and I happen to not fall in that category. My criticism against Floyd Mayweather Jr is purely based on him weighing above the contractual weight. Nothing more and if Vasyl Lomachenko did the same, I would rightly criticize him equally. And If I were not to, that'd definitely make me a hypocrite with double standards then. However, that isn't the case. Although there was a bigger reason for the Lomachenko vs Rigondeaux bout to happen due to the huge public demands. Whilst from what I recall, very few demanded a Mayweather vs Marquez bout. However, neither is still a 'weight bully' based on just those single bouts. The double standard is the fact that you're mixing in your opinion to try to dilute the fact, as per the bold. You're free to have your opinion about who deserves credit, but that's not what we're discussing. A jab is a jab. You land or you don't. That's in the rule books. Thus, if Fighter A wins a fight with an effective jab, Fighter B wins a fight with an effective jab. You can't say Fighter B's jabs are too weak to win. He landed, period. I challenge you to point me to any AUTHORITATIVE source that says a SANCTIONED JUDGE must consider punch force. You won't find it. What you will find is connects for jabs vs. power punches. Power punches have a SPECIFIC definition. A jab upstairs CANNOT be a power punch. However, the rules say any body shot should be counted as a power punch. What happens with Floyd is that he loves throwing jabs to the body - why? Because it's quick, easy to land, and he knows certain scorers will count them as power punches, and since CompuBox is just humans tapping buttons, he always comes off dominant despite the appearance of doing nothing but jabs. I say again. If Fighter A wins a fight with an effective jab, Fighter B wins a fight with an effective jab. That's by the rule book, not by your narrow opinion of punch force which is NOT a scoring metric. I believe there exists a misunderstanding again here. I'm not claiming at all that Mayweather deserved to lose against Pacquiao because his jab wasn't as good as Golovkin's against Jacobs and that only Golovkin deserves his victory over Jacobs. I believe both were rightful victors. My point was simply that Golovkin's performance was better from a 'skills' perspective. Particularly when it comes to 'offensive skills' as both were equally good defensively or close to it. Me claiming that Golovkin showed better 'offensive skills' against Daniel Jacobs than Mayweather did against Pacquiao is no more my opinion than me claiming that a basketball team that scores more points against an opponent compared to another team who scores less points against the same opponent showed more 'offensive skills'. This is common sense! The offensive objective in basketball is to score points. Thus, when two teams play against a common opponent, the team that scores more points would obviously have shown better 'offensive skills'. Likewise, the same applies to boxing as well. The objective of boxing is offense (land punches on opponent whilst inflicting damage) and defense (avoid getting punched by opponent). Thus, the boxer who lands more punches on his opponent should be considered the more skilled boxer 'offensively', than another boxer who lands fewer punches on his opponent. And a boxer who inflicts greater damage upon his opponent should be considered the more skilled boxer offensively. All of this is based on the OBJECTIVE of boxing. It isn't my opinion. And it's a particular standard that I am very consistent with because I stick to it, pretty much all the time. As for 'punch force'. No, I can't find any rule that uses punch force as a scoring criteria because it can't be numerically measured by modern technology. However, I can find a rule that scores punches based on 'effectiveness'. Effectiveness = how much effect a punch has. And in professional boxing, a single punch that is more effective has greater value than 10 ineffective punches. Hence, if a boxer knocks his opponent down with a single punch, he will receive more credit for that one punch than if his opponent were to land 20 punches that are ineffective. Knocking an opponent down, knocking an opponent out, visibly stunning an opponent, inflicting visible damage upon an opponent (such as blood), snapping an opponent's head back, forcing an opponent to move backwards and forcing opponent to show signs of discomfort / pain through landed punches are all ways to determine the 'effectiveness' of a punch and those punches have the most value in professional boxing. Whereas in the amateurs, punch effectiveness and damage isn't taken into consideration.

Go read all my responses, you'll see... Dude, you're talking about sports fans, not theoretical physicists. I already pointed out Ward gets three times the criticism of these two. Drivel... More drivel!!! There's nothing objective about you. This whole exchange is agenda driven and you've failed miserably. Still with the drivel I see. Thank you! Come again. Go read all my responses, you'll see... I have! I've yet to see any point you've made that is any more 'coherent' than mine. So perhaps proof or it didn't happen? Dude, you're talking about sports fans, not theoretical physicists. No, I'm talking about basic logic which applies to every walk of life, including sports. And if you think basic arithmetic is 'theoretical physics', then you need to take some logic courses as you seem to have a lack of competency with basic logic that even a pre-teen should be familiar with. I already pointed out Ward gets three times the criticism of these two. Except, that hasn't been proven to be true and until it has, it remains a valueless claim. Drivel... Prove / substantiate that claim or it didn't happen! More drivel!!! Prove / substantiate that claim or it didn't happen! There's nothing objective about you. Prove / substantiate that claim or it didn't happen! This whole exchange is agenda driven and you've failed miserably. Prove / substantiate that claim or it didn't happen! Still with the drivel I see. Still with the lack of proving and substantiation of your claims? I see! Thank you! Come again. You're welcome!

And what coherent point have you made?Go read all my responses, you'll see... Right! So what you're essentially claiming is that boxing fans don't follow the rules of logic and for some, 1+1 =5 and for others, 1 + 1 = 10? Gotcha! Dude, you're talking about sports fans, not theoretical physicists. And that's totally fine with me. Except, be prepared and don't be surprised if someone holds you to your own standard and criticizes your favorite boxers (in this case, Andre Ward) using the same standard that you use to criticize other boxers (in this case, Alexander Povetkin and Artur Beterbiev).I already pointed out Ward gets three times the criticism of these two. And also be prepared and don't be surprised if such 'boxing fans' are called 'fan boys / 'fan girls' because then, it is totally justifiable BY DEFINITION. There is a huge difference in being a boxing fan and being a fan of a boxer. Compared to being a boxing fan boy or fan girl.Drivel... A fan boy / fan girl praises everything their favorite boxer does, without ever criticizing that particular boxer, even though those same fan boys would criticize other boxers for performing a specific action that their own favorite boxer performs and not criticize their favorite boxer for doing the same thing.More drivel!!! On the other hand, a normal fan can enjoy a particular boxer but still remain objective whilst sticking to a single standard like myself.There's nothing objective about you. This whole exchange is agenda driven and you've failed miserably. So you've pretty much committed a false dilemma fallacy with your restricted definition of what it means to be a boxing fan.Still with the drivel I see. Thank you! Come again.

Now you're doing what you accuse others of doing. Mayweather/Marquez vs. Loma/Rigo: the bottom line is, both were above weight of their opponents, clearly outsized their opponents. That's factually accurate, regardless of weight class. So either both are weight bullies, or neither are weight bullies, period. Mayweather/Pacquiao vs. Golovkin/Jacobs: As I said before in my other thread, people need to make up their mind about jabs. A jab is a jab. There is NO scoring criteria for "punch force" - it's irrelevant. You land or you don't. Thus, if Golovkin neutralized Jacobs with an effective jab, Mayweather neutralized Manny with an effective jab. Period. I'm not claiming Mayweather is a 'weight bully' for boxing against Juan Manuel Marquez or that Lomachenko is a 'weight bully' for boxing against Rigondeaux. For me, one or two bouts against someone naturally smaller in size doesn't make one a 'weight bully', at least according to my definition. Having consistent bouts against smaller sized opponents, especially when consistently having 5+ or 10+ pounds of weight advantage over opponents on fight night is when one fulfills the criteria of a 'weight bully' according to my definition and I am pretty consistent with that definition too. My retort was that Mayweather deserves greater criticism for his performance against Marquez than Lomachenko does because Maywather FACTUALLY weighed above the contractual weight limit whilst Lomachenko didn't. Thus, my criticism against Mayweather has nothing to do with either being a 'weight bully' but instead to do with Mayweather breaking a rule that Lomachenko did not. If both Lomachenko and Mayweather weighed above the contractual weight limit and I were to only criticize Mayweather for it and give Lomachenko a pass, then that'd be an example of me showing double standards but that's not the case here! Also, in regard to comparing Golovkin's jabs against Jacobs to Mayweather's jabs against Pacquiao and in regards to: There is NO scoring criteria for "punch force" - it's irrelevant. Actually, punch force is very relevant in professional boxing. It's only irrelevant in amateur boxing where any kind of landed punch, irrespective of how powerful or forceful it is, is scored evenly. In the pros however, one punch that snaps an opponent's head back and forces an opponent's leg to become shaky has greater value than 10 light taps which have no effect. This is why in pro boxing, a single punch that knocks an opponent down is more valuable and worthy than 10 punches which doesn't knockdown or knockout an opponent. Hence, the 10/8 scorecard rule. Again, I'm very consistent with this rule as well. For me, a boxer who inflicts greater damage upon his opponent with his punches (Golovkin) shows greater 'offensive skills' than another boxer who inflicts less damage upon his opponents with his punches (Floyd Mayweather Jr). Thus, if two boxers get hit by their opponents the same number of time as each other and therefore show equal defensive skills, the one who inflicts greater damage upon his opponent will prove to be the more skilled boxer OVERALL due to better offensive skills with defensive skills being even. This is exactly the case with Golovkin's performance against Jacobs compared to Mayweather's performance against Pacquiao. Hence why Golovkin deserves more credit from me when it comes to who's performance was more 'skillful'. So there aren't any double standards from me in either example.

My point has been the same since day one. Every boxer get criticized for different reasons. Boxing fans don't go by "standards", they support who they want to support. Pick another topic, this one has been beat to death and you've yet to make ONE coherent point. this one has been beat to death and you've yet to make ONE coherent point. And what coherent point have you made? Every boxer get criticized for different reasons. Boxing fans don't go by "standards", they support who they want to support. Right! So what you're essentially claiming is that boxing fans don't follow the rules of logic and for some, 1+1 =5 and for others, 1 + 1 = 10? Gotcha! And that's totally fine with me. Except, be prepared and don't be surprised if someone holds you to your own standard and criticizes your favorite boxers (in this case, Andre Ward) using the same standard that you use to criticize other boxers (in this case, Alexander Povetkin and Artur Beterbiev). And also be prepared and don't be surprised if such 'boxing fans' are called 'fan boys / 'fan girls' because then, it is totally justifiable BY DEFINITION. There is a huge difference in being a boxing fan and being a fan of a boxer. Compared to being a boxing fan boy or fan girl. A fan boy / fan girl praises everything their favorite boxer does, without ever criticizing that particular boxer, even though those same fan boys would criticize other boxers for performing a specific action that their own favorite boxer performs and not criticize their favorite boxer for doing the same thing. On the other hand, a normal fan can enjoy a particular boxer but still remain objective whilst sticking to a single standard like myself. So you've pretty much committed a false dilemma fallacy with your restricted definition of what it means to be a boxing fan.

1) Yes? And what exactly did you bring to the conversation that was new? 2) You're being a 'fanboy' of Ward BECAUSE you're applying different standards to other boxers whilst not applying those same standards to Ward himself. On the other hand, I'm pretty consistent. I have a standard and I stick to it. I evaluate every boxer objectively using the same standard. 3) Yes and I've already explained why. Anyone with double digit IQ should be able to understand why, after I've already explained the reason in one of my previous posts. 4) Beterbiev is merely one of many examples of a boxer being evaluated with different standards compared to other boxers and it doesn't matter how many fights he was criticized for. That's totally irrelevant! The main relevance is to find out why such is the case and to expose the double or more standards of posters like you whilst holding you to your own standards. 5) Likewise, Andre Ward was given a huge pass for low blows (to the dick which has rarely ever been done before) and headbutts whilst some also blame his opponents for his fouls. So what's your point now? My point has been the same since day one. Every boxer get criticized for different reasons. Boxing fans don't go by "standards", they support who they want to support. Pick another topic, this one has been beat to death and you've yet to make ONE coherent point.

I'll ignore everything you said in the beginning because you added nothing new to to the conversation. If I'm being a fanboy for Ward, what do you call what you're doing? And of all the boxers in the world you're doing it for Beterbiev and Povetkin??? I could understand if this was Golovkin or Lomachenko but these fighters? Beterbiev got criticized for ONE fight and you're spending weeks going back and forth with me. Povetkin was given a huge pass for being a drug cheat and some people blame his opponent. Yet you're all bent out of shape because he got criticized for ONE fight. You're probably the only the person that saw that fight. I'll keep entertaining you because I hope you become a better person/poster from now on... You picked the wrong horses to defend and the wrong topic to go all scorched earth on. I'll reiterate that I actually like Beterbiev. 1) I'll ignore everything you said in the beginning because you added nothing new to to the conversation. Yes? And what exactly did you bring to the conversation that was new? 2) If I'm being a fanboy for Ward, what do you call what you're doing? You're being a 'fanboy' of Ward BECAUSE you're applying different standards to other boxers whilst not applying those same standards to Ward himself. On the other hand, I'm pretty consistent. I have a standard and I stick to it. I evaluate every boxer objectively using the same standard. 3) And of all the boxers in the world you're doing it for Beterbiev and Povetkin??? Yes and I've already explained why. Anyone with double digit IQ should be able to understand why, after I've already explained the reason in one of my previous posts. 4) Beterbiev got criticized for ONE fight and you're spending weeks going back and forth with me. Beterbiev is merely one of many examples of a boxer being evaluated with different standards compared to other boxers and it doesn't matter how many fights he was criticized for. That's totally irrelevant! The main relevance is to find out why such is the case and to expose the double or more standards of posters like you whilst holding you to your own standards. 5) Povetkin was given a huge pass for being a drug cheat and some people blame his opponent. Likewise, Andre Ward was given a huge pass for low blows (to the dick which has rarely ever been done before) and headbutts whilst some also blame his opponents for his fouls. So what's your point now?

Case-in-point: Mayweather beats Manny with a jab: "The rat-a-tat jab, it's NOT ENOUGH!!!! It's NOT ENOUGH TO WIN THE FIGHT!!!! Round 4!!!! Round 6!!!!!" Golovkin beats Jacobs with a jab: "His jab is like a power punch, that's why he won". Case-in-point: Salido bullies Loma to a win: "Salido is Loma's DADDY!!!" Jeff Horn bullies Manny to a win: "F that ref, he let him go full MMA, Arum robbed Manny". Case-in-point: Saunders sticks and moves and makes Lemieux look like a C-level fighter: "Sweet Pea Saunders!!!" Mayweather sticks and moves and makes Manny look like a B-level fighter: "what a punk, all he did was RUN!" Case-in-point: Mayweather comes in 2 POUNDS heavy over Marquez and schools him: "Mayweather is a weight bully, I don't count that win!" Loma comes in 7.4 POUNDS heavy over Rigo and schools him: "Masterclass, this guy is the best, P4P #1, he beats Floyd @ 130" Case-in-point: Compubox says Floyd outworked Manny: "Compubox lies, you can't believe it, they don't know what they're seeing, let's make up our own scoring with slo-mo videos, it's not just about Compubox, there's other criteria, Manny was the aggressor." Compubox says Manny outworked Jeff Horn: "See, Horn didn't win that, Compubox says so, his aggression was bullying and shouldn't count". It's just how NSB works, man. Some very good examples and I agree for the most part. Although some of them were somewhat inaccurate. In Vasyl Lomachenko's case against Rigondeaux and Floyd Mayweather Jr's case against Marquez. Lomachenko actually weighed within the correct, agreed contractual weight. Whilst Floyd Mayweather Jr weighed above the agreed contractual weight. So that's not the best example. Lomachenko also didn't weigh above what was accepted in the rehydration clause as the rehydration weight limit. That's why Lomachenko's victory against Rigondeaux is more impressive than Floyd Mayweather Jr's victory against Juan Manuel Marquez. Also, Golovkin out-jabbed Daniel Jacobs whilst also forcing him to move backwards through their entire bout. Golovkin also inflicted much greater visible damage upon Jacob's face via the use of his jab. All while taking into consideration Jacobs was the heavier boxer compared to Golovkin. On the other hand, Mayweather was the naturally bigger sized boxer compared to Manny Pacquiao and didn't inflict anywhere near the damage on Pacquiao as Golovkin inflicted upon Jacobs. This is why Golovkin's performance against Jacobs is justifiably more impressive than Mayweather's performance against Pacquiao.

Because, sadly, *GUY GETS 20 KOS IN 20 FIGHTS AND WINS WORLD TITLE. NEXT FIGHT GUY STEPS UP IN COMPETITION AND INSTEAD OF A KO HE GOES 12 ROUNDS AND GETS A SUCESSFUL DEFENSE BY UD. PPL WHO HATE THE CHAMP FOR ANY REASON: YOU GUYS SAID HE WAS A WORLD-BEATER, YOU GUYS SAID HE WAS A BEAST, YOU GUYS SAID THE GUY IS A TITANIUM CYBORG FROM THE FUTURE WHO BUILT THE HOSPITAL HE WAS BORN IN. (no proof anyone ever said that about the champ) EXPOSED!!!!!!!!!! Can't make everyone an objective fan.:ugh:

I'm trying to save his soul, he is obviously misguided.:lol1:

Well then in this case, my criticism of Andre Ward's performance against Alexander Brand is equally legit and Ward deserves the exact same criticism for his performance against Alexander Brand as Beterbiev received for his performance against Koelling. In fact, Ward probably deserves greater criticism because Ward failed to drop or stop Alexander Brand, despite winning every round and despite not getting hit much. On the other hand, Beterbiev likewise won every round and didn't get hit much, but at least managed to drop Koelling multiple times and managed to stop him, something Ward failed to do to Brand. Likewise, Ward's performance against Brand didn't make him seem like a legit candidate to topple Beterbiev because he is light years better than Brand. Likewise, if Andre Ward scored a spectacular early KO over Alexander Brand, he would've received all the credit. Fair enough. If Beterbiev should receive blame for his 'lacking' performance against Koelling, then Ward should receive greater criticism for his performance against Brand that was even more 'lacking'. I'm not blaming anybody. I'm questioning why someone (who is actually complaining that happens to not be me) should blame a bout to be boring on the offensive boxer who threw over 1000 punches throughout 12 rounds and not the ultra-defensive boxer who isn't even attempting to win, but only looking to survive. One must ask the question: who is causing a boxing bout to be 'boring' if someone does find the bout to be 'boring'. Maybe, maybe not. This thread has nothing to do with who is criticized most between boxers. This thread is about why one boxer's performance be criticized more than another boxer's performance when both boxers perform equally well / bad as each other. Also, Alexander Povetkin probably gets criticized just as much, if not more than Ward. Particulary by Americans. When the likes of Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield were blowing away the competition in the 80's and 90's, they were praised as ATG's. When Povetkin does the same to his opponents who aren't any worse than the competition in the 80's and 90's, most of those same Amero-fans aren't even going to consider rating Povetkin anywhere near as highly or equally. The same with the Klitschko brothers. They have been the most dominant heavyweight champions in the history of boxing, compiling the best heavyweight records of all time. Yet, very few, if any of those same Amero - fans consider them anywhere near the top and would rather rank former cruiser weights like Muhammad Ali / Cassius Clay, Joe Frazier, Sonny Liston and the likes ahead of the Klitschko brothers. Those don't have anywhere near the record at actual heavyweight (when boxers weigh above 200 pounds) as good as the Klitschko brothers. In fact, none of the past heavyweights prior to Lennox Lewis do. Most of the so called 'heavyweights' prior to Mike Tyson were feasting on opponents who would be considered cruiser weights or light heavyweights today. Yet, they are somehow seen as greater than the Klitschko brothers. The Klitschko brothers are 2 of the greatest ambassadors for the sport of boxing. They are the only 2 champions to possess PHD's. They remain professional and respectful, nearly all the time. They appear to be excellent role models for young kids all over the world. Yet, all we hear is how they are boring. How they are robotic. How they are stiff. How they are mechanical. How they are lucky to be in a weak era (no proof provided for this in anyway). Never mind their actual results and record they have compiled. Which is the most relevant point anyway. So please spare me your Andre Ward's victim position. Likewise, there are slew of boxing fans who attribute Povetkin's entire success in boxing on drugs. Which is equal! His resume below 175 pounds is totally irrelevant. At 175 pounds, his only feat that might be considered better than Beterbiev's is beating Sergey Kovalev. Who Artur Beterbiev also beat in the amateurs two times whilst boxing within the rules, without needing to foul. You might claim: Kovalev improved since then. Well, so has Beterbiev. Apart from Ward's win over Kovalev, he was one win over Sullivan Barrera that clearly avoided Artur Beterbiev. Other than that, Ward doesn't have much accomplishments at 175 pounds that is better than Beterbiev's. Likewise, if Beterbiev had a bad night against Koelling, it was also still a dominant performance. Likewise, Andre Ward is a prove headbutting cheat, low blow cheat, holding and hitting cheat and etc. Oh, but somehow cheating with those fouls is acceptable but being a drug cheat isn't? Right, so you pick and choose who you criticize as a 'cheat'? Yup, you've exposed your fanboyism for Andre Ward and your lack of objectivity. Multiple double or more standards you've displayed. I'll ignore everything you said in the beginning because you added nothing new to to the conversation. If I'm being a fanboy for Ward, what do you call what you're doing? And of all the boxers in the world you're doing it for Beterbiev and Povetkin??? I could understand if this was Golovkin or Lomachenko but these fighters? Beterbiev got criticized for ONE fight and you're spending weeks going back and forth with me. Povetkin was given a huge pass for being a drug cheat and some people blame his opponent. Yet you're all bent out of shape because he got criticized for ONE fight. You're probably the only the person that saw that fight. I'll keep entertaining you because I hope you become a better person/poster from now on... You picked the wrong horses to defend and the wrong topic to go all scorched earth on. I'll reiterate that I actually like Beterbiev.

It's not much of a matter of points being accepted. I'm merely holding others to their own standard to see how they respond. So far in doing so, I've forced some to have exposed their own double or more standards when forming conclusions on things related to boxing. For such individuals, it follows this reasoning: 1) When a boxer I don't like does a specific thing, then it warrants criticism 2) When a boxer that I like does the same thing, it doesn't warrant the same criticism and at times, it may even deserve praise. You can read the posts of the last poster I responded to. That poster blames Povetkin for being a drug cheat, but not Andre Ward for being a cheater in the ring who uses incessant fouls. Likewise, that poster also blames Beterbiev for his 'lacking' performance against Koelling but doesn't give the same blame to Ward for his even worse performance against Brand. Let's not forget Ward went 9 ugly rounds with Paul Smith, a career domestic middleweight who he dragged up to light heavy lol

Lmfao, this back and forth 'debate' is turning into mud slinging because neither dude's points are being accepted. :rofl: It's not much of a matter of points being accepted. I'm merely holding others to their own standard to see how they respond. So far in doing so, I've forced some to have exposed their own double or more standards when forming conclusions on things related to boxing. For such individuals, it follows this reasoning: 1) When a boxer I don't like does a specific thing, then it warrants criticism 2) When a boxer that I like does the same thing, it doesn't warrant the same criticism and at times, it may even deserve praise. You can read the posts of the last poster I responded to. That poster blames Povetkin for being a drug cheat, but not Andre Ward for being a cheater in the ring who uses incessant fouls. Likewise, that poster also blames Beterbiev for his 'lacking' performance against Koelling but doesn't give the same blame to Ward for his even worse performance against Brand.

Lmfao, this back and forth 'debate' is turning into mud slinging because neither dude's points are being accepted. :rofl:

All those crticisms are legit. It's also fair to say that his performance against Koelling didn't make him seem like a legit candidate to topple Ward because he is light years better Koelling. If Beterbiev had scored a spectacular early KO he would've received all the credit. Why shouldn't he receive the blame if the performance was lacking. You're seriously blaming the other guy for Beterbiev's performance? All those crticisms are legit. Well then in this case, my criticism of Andre Ward's performance against Alexander Brand is equally legit and Ward deserves the exact same criticism for his performance against Alexander Brand as Beterbiev received for his performance against Koelling. In fact, Ward probably deserves greater criticism because Ward failed to drop or stop Alexander Brand, despite winning every round and despite not getting hit much. On the other hand, Beterbiev likewise won every round and didn't get hit much, but at least managed to drop Koelling multiple times and managed to stop him, something Ward failed to do to Brand. It's also fair to say that his performance against Koelling didn't make him seem like a legit candidate to topple Ward because he is light years better Koelling. Likewise, Ward's performance against Brand didn't make him seem like a legit candidate to topple Beterbiev because he is light years better than Brand. If Beterbiev had scored a spectacular early KO he would've received all the credit. Likewise, if Andre Ward scored a spectacular early KO over Alexander Brand, he would've received all the credit. Why shouldn't he receive the blame if the performance was lacking. Fair enough. If Beterbiev should receive blame for his 'lacking' performance against Koelling, then Ward should receive greater criticism for his performance against Brand that was even more 'lacking'. ou're seriously blaming the other guy for Beterbiev's performance? I'm not blaming anybody. I'm questioning why someone (who is actually complaining that happens to not be me) should blame a bout to be boring on the offensive boxer who threw over 1000 punches throughout 12 rounds and not the ultra-defensive boxer who isn't even attempting to win, but only looking to survive. One must ask the question: who is causing a boxing bout to be 'boring' if someone does find the bout to be 'boring'. Skin color has nothing to do with it. Maybe, maybe not. Andre Ward gets criticized more than Beterbiev, Kovalev, and Povetkin combined. This thread has nothing to do with who is criticized most between boxers. This thread is about why one boxer's performance be criticized more than another boxer's performance when both boxers perform equally well / bad as each other. Also, Alexander Povetkin probably gets criticized just as much, if not more than Ward. Particulary by Americans. When the likes of Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield were blowing away the competition in the 80's and 90's, they were praised as ATG's. When Povetkin does the same to his opponents who aren't any worse than the competition in the 80's and 90's, most of those same Amero-fans aren't even going to consider rating Povetkin anywhere near as highly or equally. The same with the Klitschko brothers. They have been the most dominant heavyweight champions in the history of boxing, compiling the best heavyweight records of all time. Yet, very few, if any of those same Amero - fans consider them anywhere near the top and would rather rank former cruiser weights like Muhammad Ali / Cassius Clay, Joe Frazier, Sonny Liston and the likes ahead of the Klitschko brothers. Those don't have anywhere near the record at actual heavyweight (when boxers weigh above 200 pounds) as good as the Klitschko brothers. In fact, none of the past heavyweights prior to Lennox Lewis do. Most of the so called 'heavyweights' prior to Mike Tyson were feasting on opponents who would be considered cruiser weights or light heavyweights today. Yet, they are somehow seen as greater than the Klitschko brothers. The Klitschko brothers are 2 of the greatest ambassadors for the sport of boxing. They are the only 2 champions to possess PHD's. They remain professional and respectful, nearly all the time. They appear to be excellent role models for young kids all over the world. Yet, all we hear is how they are boring. How they are robotic. How they are stiff. How they are mechanical. How they are lucky to be in a weak era (no proof provided for this in anyway). Never mind their actual results and record they have compiled. Which is the most relevant point anyway. So please spare me your Andre Ward's victim position. There's a slew of boxing fans that attributes his entire success in boxing to illegal tactics. Likewise, there are slew of boxing fans who attribute Povetkin's entire success in boxing on drugs. Which is equal! Wards resume speaks volumes. His resume below 175 pounds is totally irrelevant. At 175 pounds, his only feat that might be considered better than Beterbiev's is beating Sergey Kovalev. Who Artur Beterbiev also beat in the amateurs two times whilst boxing within the rules, without needing to foul. You might claim: Kovalev improved since then. Well, so has Beterbiev. Apart from Ward's win over Kovalev, he was one win over Sullivan Barrera that clearly avoided Artur Beterbiev. Other than that, Ward doesn't have much accomplishments at 175 pounds that is better than Beterbiev's. If he had a bad night against Brand it was still a dominant performance. Likewise, if Beterbiev had a bad night against Koelling, it was also still a dominant performance. Povetkin is a proven drug cheat. Likewise, Andre Ward is a prove headbutting cheat, low blow cheat, holding and hitting cheat and etc. Oh, but somehow cheating with those fouls is acceptable but being a drug cheat isn't? Right, so you pick and choose who you criticize as a 'cheat'? You're comparing apples and peanuts. Yup, you've exposed your fanboyism for Andre Ward and your lack of objectivity. Multiple double or more standards you've displayed.