Levity

Official cards 77-75 Camp x2 77-75 Fonfara

Whoah. Does this make you look at Kovalev in a different light? It makes me think Kovalev is a lot better than Fonfara.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BR2EwxmCIAEkjKC.jpg:large

Campillo is Kovalev's best win. But here Campillo just got beat by Fonfara. So maybe that win doesn't carry as much prestige as we initially thought. Campillo might be done. Maybe Kovalev finished him? Campillo was dominating the fight anyway. Kovalev destroyed him and looked miles better than Fonfara (who is probably top 15) did.

What? Mendez beat the F*CK out of Usmanee. Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android I had it 115-113 Mendez and I don't see how to score the fight for Usmanee, but Mendez didn't beat the F*CK out of Usmanee or even dominate. He spent about 2 minutes of every round with his back on the ropes landing some shots and getting hit with some shots, and every now and then he'd put together flashy and accurate combos that didn't seem to hurt Usmanee, but at least racked up points.

Chavez Cabrera was 120.102 120.102.120.105 Interesting. Thanks for that.

Chinny Willie would be stopped.

Sure, it's easy to say Kovalev looks better than Kelly. But you also have to ask yourself, who fought the better opposition during the build up to fighting Hopkins: Kovalev or Pavlik? Who fought better opponents, Jermain Taylor or Bernard Hopkins? As far as recent opposition goes, Kovalev and Hopkins have beaten a similar level of opposition, and Kovalev is fighting the 2014 version of Hopkins, not some earlier version.

No he didn't.

I didn't see the holes B-Hop could exploit, but I saw some Stevenson could. Kovalev was wide open to the left hand, he repeatedly got caught with it and only really took control of the fight when Caparello stopped throwing it. Repeatedly? I'll have to watch again because I didn't see Caparello landing repeatedly.

Reminder. Kovalev has never faced anyone Like Bernard Hopkins Neither had Taylor. Pavlik hadn't faced anyone like Taylor either.

lol- if BHOP loses it's a robbery. That wouldn't explain how the relatively unproven Pavlik beat the undisputed MW champ Taylor, who was coming off wins against the one and only Hopkins.

And B-Hop isn't Craperello, Cleverly, Campillo or Cornelius White Obviously he isn't, just like Kovalev isn't Karo Murat or Shumenov. I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that Kovalev will beat Hopkins simply because he also beat Nathan Cleverly, yet I've seen countless predictions of Hopkins' victories supported by nothing more than the fact that Hopkins beat Pavlik years ago at a different weight.

Bernard. Not even close. How in the Lords name could you ask that question. It's a rhetorical question that is very easy to understand if you've followed the thread. Do you not know what a rhetorical question is? Again, I think you're taking the Pavlik comparison the wrong way. No one is saying Hopkins will beat Kovalev because he beat Pavlik several years ago. What I'm saying is "IF" Hopkins beats Kovalev, a victory over Kovalev won't be a bigger win than his win over Pavlik I've seen many predictions in which the only or main piece of evidence for a Hopkins' win is his fight with Pavlik. Your point about the Pavlik win being bigger is arguable but I can see why you'd think that.

That type of triangle theory doesn't apply because Ward hasn't lost. He also convincingly beat a fighter who in their next bout defeated Froch.

Regardless of how many times Ward has fought recently, he has the best wins among him and Froch and clearly beat him head to head. The recent advantage for Froch is a bit overblown considering 3 of his last 5 fights have been against Yusaf Mack and George Groves, the former of whom was a mediocre opponent for someone at Froch and Ward's level, the latter of whom was no more proven or clearly better than Edwin Rodriguez entering the first bout. People have scoffed each of my suggestions about Rodriguez, but I'm not sure how beating a novice Degale (shortly after hurt and pushed very close by Pitor Wilzecwski or however you spell it), Paul Smith, and shopworn Fransico Sierra types is obviously superior to stopping Grachev in one, outpointing Rosinsky and George, and beating other guys like McGirt Jr. and Pryor Jr. Groves was a very large underdog entering the first Froch bout, which reflected his lack of high-level experience and doubts about his ability, and only after did he become a supposedly top SMW. The problem with that logic is that it ignores the possibility that Froch struggled with someone who is really no better than people thought he was, while assuming that since Groves did well he must be a top fighter, better than the likes of Rodriguez. By the same logic, Ward should've received more credit for beating Rodriguez had been dropped and losing before coming back to beat him.

he was the draw he claimed, he would have been on tv ads and earning big like big stars do He would be earning big like big stars do? Is he not the highest paid athlete in the world?

If you didn't read it I don't know how you are qualified to say it was ****. How about addressing the points I made? Rodriguez didn't make weight, but that hardly means that Ward beat an inferior version of him; perhaps he was even more difficult to beat because of the added size.

The Kessler Froch fought both times would smacked the beshizzle out of the Kessler that was in Oakland in 2009 for sure. I doubt it. Kessler fought Froch shortly after he faced Ward and he fairly beat him; he didn't get outclassed and arguably lose every round, and he didn't bring anything that he didn't also show against Ward. The Kessler who rematched Froch, on the other hand, had been seriously struggling with injuries and couldn't even stay on his feet against Allan Green shortly before the rematch.

Quillin may well lose to Korobov, but it's a winnable fight for Kid Undercard and I slightly favor him.

he head butted him to death, any other rational country, i.e denmark/uk would have DQED ward. Not one of the 3 cuts were his pathetic pitter patter punches...All head butts. BTW froch outlanded kessler in the rematch as much as Ward(headbutted) in the first fight. Froch beat Arthor Abraham alot better than ward did, do you want a piece of cake for that piece of info.. And lmao at the "so what if rodriguez was a super middle fight". That is my complete point. Dawson and rodriguez are basiclly null and void fights i terms of ranking at super middle due to the fact that one had never fought at the weight and was literally dehydrated to **** and the other one couldnt even make the weight in his "biggest ever fight". Froch beat bute who if i am correct was ranked above ward by some ranking bodies. Plus he brutlised him in 5 rounds... Ward outclassed Kessler in nearly every round and hardly got touched, and that was true before Kessler became seriously marked up. Kessler also didn't change the way he seemed to be fighting, so I'm doubtful about whether the headbutts were the major factor many claim that are. Froch later beat Kessler, but that was after Kessler was seriously struggling with injuries which forced him to withdraw from the Super Six. He had also been hurt and dropped by Allen Green shortly before rematching Froch and was showing signs of slowing, hardly being the fighter he was when he fairly beat Froch, which as I've mentioned came immediately after he lost widely to Ward. Froch may have beaten Abraham more convincingly than Ward did, but it's a fairly close call as both thoroughly dominated him. It's not comparable to Ward outclassing Kessler just before Kessler beat Froch. I think it's nonsensical to say the Dawson and Rodriguez fights don't count, rather than including them but accounting for the particulars of each bout. Ward was still a SMW, Dawson made the limit, and Rodriguez is a career SMW who was only slightly over the limit. I certainly see the argument for Dawson being off form, but I don't see much evidence that Rodriguez was a different fighter than he usually is--very comparable to Groves and superior to Yusaf Mack. And of course, Ward clearly beat Froch.

ward headbutted kessler to death, tis a horrible fight to watch and i feel for kessler who should have been awared the win or a no contest at minimum for that shocking refereeing. Sergey Kovalev would obliterate froch, ill admit that, but FROCH IS RANKED HIGHER AT SUPER MIDDLE WEIGHT. the is fact. Doesnt mean kovalev is less of a fighter, it just means hes been doing his thing at his weigt class. As for rodriguez, it was his biggest fight of his career and he weight a massive 2 pounds over. Im sorry that makes the fight irrlevant at 168. I am on about rankings at 168, not head to head, not triangle theories, not whether froch could beat dawson. but 168. The fact are froch has beaten since his close decision lss IN AMERICA(Wards never left oakland barely) to andre ward, far better ranked and high activity than ward. Therefore he should be ranked above ward. they are the facts...2011 was 2011, demand and suplly froch is schooling ward for money as well I don't think the headbutts had much to do with Ward's victory over Froch and I believe the Rodriguez bout should be considered when ranking Ward, as I've said in previous posts. You're not adding anything to your arguments, so you can check my earlier posts to see my response. Froch-Ward was close on two cards only, both of which reflected poor judging as it was fairly clear to a keen observer that Ward won convincingly, as he outboxed, outlanded, and even outfight Froch in a sizebale majority of rounds. If you go simply by official cards Canelo-Mayweather arguably a closer fight, as was Shumenov-Hopkins. I agree that recent results should be considered when ranking fighters, but I don't see how Froch's recent results are enough to overcome what Ward has generally accomplished over the past 5 years. Ward clearly beat Froch, he clearly beat a guy who shortly after beat Froch, and overall his resume is of a similar quality. Froch has accomplished more recently, but of his last five bouts one was a competitive bout with a shopworn Kessler, already beaten easily by Ward when he was fresher; one was over Yusaf Mack, who had no place fighting Froch; and two were over someone no more proven than Rodriguez, who Ward beat within the past year. As for who is a bigger draw, it's Froch no question, but that's irrelevant to who should be ranked higher.

now ive schoold dirk and won the debate overall im off to bed. Hopefully you guys will come back better from this defeat like froch did in 2011 and become the number 1.... Congrats bro. Winning on the internet is great, huh?

It's a logical fallacy to say an argument is superior because of its source rather than its content. Once good fighters regularly say questionable stuff. Jameel McCline suggested that Adamek would struggle with Kevin McBride's heavyweight speed; would a 'southern wet blanket' be wrong if they disagreed with him?

He clearly doesn't though. Froch: Pascal, Taylor, Bute, Kessler, Groves x 2, Abraham, Johnson, Dirrell Ward: Kessler, Froch, Dawson, Bika, Miranda, Abraham, Rodriguez, Green. I'd say Froch's resume is a fair bit stronger. I didn't say he has the best resume overall, I said he has the best wins. By that I mean his clear victories over Froch and non injury-riddled Kessler, the version who beat Froch one fight later, are superior to anything Froch has done.

It doesn't matter. It's a myth in boxing that you're automatically worse if you fight someone a year or two later. I've asked Kessler myself, and he said he felt 5 times the fighter against Froch in 2010 than he did against Ward in 2009. There were a lot of things that went wrong for Kessler in the build up to the fight. You mean the Allan Green who almost swallowed his tongue after Kessler rendered him completely unconscious with one left hook? Kessler didn't just fight Froch a year or two later, he fought him over 3 years later following serious injuries that didn't plague him against Ward or Froch in the first fight. He withdrew from the tournament based on those injuries, meaning they were likely having a negative impact on his health and performances. He returned and beat lower-tier opponents like Bouadla and Magee, but he was hurt and dropped by Green when he hadn't been put down by such an opponent at any previous time in his career. Sure, he won by KO shortly after, but he had problems that he hadn't faced even against several opponents better than Green, which I think it evidence of him being past his best. He also hasn't fought since the Froch bout, which you would expect him to if he weren't past his best. As for what Kessler told you, I'd take it with a grain of salt. Fighters typically have excuses for poor performances as a way of rationalizing them and avoiding the possibility that they simply aren't as good as those they lost to. By doing that it allows them to say 'oh ya, I was just off for this fight, but look what happens when I'm not off. I'll be in my regular form if I face X again so this time I'll win." Facts are that Ward dominated Kessler just before Kessler beat Froch, and he convincingly beat Froch when they actually fought, not when they simply argued about who was better or who the bigger draw was. These aren't the be all end all of how I determine rankings, but they are a large part.

Except that's not true. Kessler had injuries dating back to before the Calzaghe fight. Those injuries you are talking about, was an eye-injury - that coincidentally happened vs Ward and was in fact bothering him against Froch in their first fight too, with a lot of unhealed scar tissue - so that's not true either. It came from 4-5 "accidental" headbutts that made Kessler's face look like this: http://b.bimg.dk/node-images/987/2/2048x-u/2987934-.jpg Mind you, none of these were caused by punches. Kessler had double vision for that fight. He also had a conflict with his former trainer Richard Olsen, whom let go after the Ward fight because nothing was right in the build up. Then there was the almost full hour delay, the headbutts, the clinching etc. A lot of other things that you obviously don't know about or choose to dismiss. I wouldn't exactly say Kessler beat Froch convincingly, but he did beat him. Everyone who knows Kessler, knows he'd tell the truth instantly. He's by far the most honest guy i've ever met in boxing. By far. It's true that Kessler rematched Froch over 3 years after their first fight rather than the disingenuously mentioned 1 to 2 years, and it seems true that he was struggling with injuries that didn't plague him against Ward to the same extent that they did after the bout. If the later is incorrect, why did he withdraw from the Super Six tournament citing injury after beating Froch rather than after losing to Ward? As for Kessler's return to the ring, I think his legs have generally looked significantly worse, he's been dropped by a level of opponent that never had him down before, and he hasn't fought in over a year and has nothing on schedule, which doesn't seem characteristic of someone who entered their last bout with a lot left. Despite this, I thought he was still significantly more competitive with Froch in their rematch than he was against Ward. As for his face, some of those were caused by butts but you have no way of proving that they all were. Ward was hitting him regularly and the bruising on his face is a common result of being punched. Loads of fighters have excuses and many fighters have things go wrong in training and behind the scenes. Personal problems, issues with ones' team, and other setbacks are fairly common and often strikes both fighters, with many issues probably not becoming public. You may know Kessler and believe he's genuine, but I'm sure there are people like you associated with virtually every boxer that has made an excuse.

In what sport? Because in the sport of boxing, "the man" is the man who beat the man. You never heard the boxing adage "to be the man, you have to beat the man"?. Cotto beat the man. This is boxing as it's always been in its proud heritage and illustrious history. And guess what? It was like this in 1914, and its like this in 2014. That being lineal champion makes someone the top fighter in the division is simply one opinion among many. BoxRec rankings, for example, don't automatically rank someone #1 for beating the highest ranked fighter in the division or whoever is generally consider lineal champion. I'm not sure why proponents of lineal champ = #1 think their opinion is some metaphysical certainty. People have challenged this notion for years, and it is especially out of place in today's boxing landscape where politics takes precedence.

Again, it is not subjective to say that the lineal champ of a division is the no.1 fighter in that division. That is the one and only requisite for being "the man/the champ", based on the heritage, history and traditions of boxing for centuries, NOT just my opinion. We were all born into the heritage and customs of this sport, and it is not up to us to challenge this. Im a firm believer in respecting the culture. Yes, it is entirely subjective to say that winning a lineal title makes someone the number one fighter in the division. The idea you support has been challenged for years and is not a fact or universally accepted custom, especially today in an environment that is much different than other generations. Nah. Wlad became lineal when he defeated Chagaev as he was the highest ranked possible contender (save for Vitali). What about Ali refusing to fight no.1 ranked Holmes for years? He then lost to Leon Spinks. When exactly did Ali lose his right to be called the TRUE champ? What made Chagaev the highest ranked possible contender?

Again more and more denial of my point, and no assertion of your own point. This is slimy. You outrightly refuse to point out what is the universally held custom/tradition in boxing that defines who the man is in a weight class. It seems that you dont believe there is one, and that you believe that there is no custom in boxing that defines who the champion of a weight class is? Do you think there is no custom that does this, or are you just unwilling/unable to define it? It's simply one or the other. There is no reason why my argument that being lineal champion doesn't make someone the top fighter in the division relies on the existence of another accepted method for determining who 'the man' in the division is. I don't believe there is currently an established and largely agreed upon method for determining who the top fighter in the division is. There could be several different possible methods, such as going by lineage, number of title defenses or belts held, or assessments of a fighter's quality of opposition and performances. In each case subjectivity is involved, and a more objective measure isn't necessarily a better one; ranking fighters based on how often they wore Everlast gloves would be entirely objective.