kenso

Klitschko Mayweather Ward Debate for the other 2

Draw rounds are almost never awarded for a reason. Look how f*cked up judging in boxing is across the board nowadays, now imagine if judges were encouraged to score close rounds as draws. We'd have even more bogus decisions and draws to deal with than we already have now. I disagree - in an extremely close round that could EASILY go either way - why not call it a draw? If anything it would cause more draws than bogus decisions. Feel out rounds should not be the difference maker in a fight, extremely close rounds should not be the difference maker in a fight. Rounds where one guy beat the other guy should be the difference maker. i would pick this over some p*ssy draw rounds............. the crying is endless. sick of this pac bradley crap............... Crying? Should we not be complaining about poor scoring in the sport? These decisions are BAD for the sport. Your view of the uproar about the decision being "crying" is actually idiotic. Taking the role of "doing nothing" does just that, nothing - to improve the sport. side note: you generally just seem dumb. Yeah, I kind of agree. I was thinking about that the other day. A guy who wins more definite rounds than the other guy deserves to win the fight. Especially for those first 2 feel out rounds in many fights where both fighters don't do much. Those type of rounds should not be deciding the winner of the fight. I only want draws in those low activity rounds though. In those close rounds with a ton of action, judges should still pick a winner. Feel out rounds definitely make the difference in decisions at the end of the day. I mean, a guy can still clearly win a feel out round - and it should be given to him. But there are those rounds where no one did much of anything, and the judges just HAVE to pick a winner. That is a joke! I disagree about picking a winner in high activity rounds. Sometimes both guys beat the HELL out of each other in a round - and they both took about the same amount from each other. Sometimes even the punch stats are nearly dead even. Why not score this a draw round? Do we want to avoid draws in boxing? Why? Lets take Williams-Martinez I for example - there were lots of people clamoring about how Martinez won the fight. If the scores would have been reversed - there would have been just as many claiming Williams won the fight. Let's face it though, the fight was REALLY close and it probably should have been a draw. I'm not saying draw rounds would have equated to that happening - but just the general avoiding of draws (both in rounds and final scores) in boxing results in saying one guy won when in reality it was super close.

This is the problem... why do you limit it to high profile? Oh, it's fine if somebody gets robbed if they don't have a name....... This boils down to an issue of "manpower". To go through the review and overturn process for a fight that about 15 people saw at a YMCA somewhere probably isn't necessary. Also I think this is less of a problem on the small time level for a few reasons. One reason being that "corruption" and "bias" are much less of a factor in judging for "no-names". In other words, there is not much incentive to wrongly give a fight to a guy. Crowds also aren't going wild for a guy with 5 fights on his record, in reference to the "crowd cheering affects judging" argument. Another reason is that on the amateur level, usually one guy is clearly better than the other. There aren't that many close fights. On the world class level, these guys are approaching the peak of skill and genetic potential - the skill disparity is much smaller.

Completely disagree, there is a reason effective defense and ring generalship are apart of the scoring system and that is to help separate a winner. Very rarely is a round truly even, hence why we rarely see them. Judges are paid to be just that judges, they are the experts not laymen like us. 9/10 times someone wins a round, even if it is slight or not universally recognized, but anytime judging is involved in a sport at all this will happen. Wanna solve judging in boxing do what Steward says and Knock more people out. 9/10 times someone does, indeed, win a round. one (maybe two) draw rounds in a 12 round fight is perfectly acceptable, and even probable. However, the current judging standard is something like 1 out of 100 rounds should be scored a draw. This is bogus and we both know it. Also, I'm pretty sure that all combat sports have clearly demonstrated that a large portion of these so called expert judges AREN'T really that much of experts. Obviously there are rounds that don't have a universally recognized, clear winner. What we do have though, are rounds in which people go "damn that was a really close round!". In a large number of those really close rounds - we need to be more open to scoring the round a draw.

I wouldn't mind it but I think it'd just turn into a popularity contest. I don't have much to say about Harold Lederman other than his Pacquiao-Bradley scorecard was extremely biased and equally horrible. No way it was even close to 11-1 or 10-2 like he gave it. He must have been listening to Lampley call the fight to produce a scorecard that terrible. I feel the exact opposite, I don't see how you could possibly have given bradley any more than 2 rounds. I see people giving Bradley 4 or 5 rounds and apparently, we are watching a different fight. Bradley clearly got beat down in that fight, it wasn't remotely close. I had the same scorecard as Ledderman, and I believe Dan Rafael from ESPN did as well. I feel both these guys are extremely credible. I just love how ts completely left out Pac-Marquez,lol!! :lol1: I had pacquiao winning a close fight the first two times, and the third one a draw. Lots of people had the similar results. All three fights were very close. Some pacquiao fanboys believe that he destroyed marquez every time, and some pacquiao haters believe that marquez boxed circles around pacquiao. Truth is - the fights were close, I am a fan of both fighters and there is no result that could have been given that wouldn't have been regarded as controversial by the boxing community. To suggest otherwise... well you'd just be wrong. In reality when those guys fought, a large number of the rounds should have been considered a draw. Score those super close rounds as draw rounds and I bet your scorecard reflects what really happened a lot better.

Sorry, this is how it went down. Pre fight "Haye is a glass jawed bum, Wlad will knock him out with a jab" Post fight "Blah blah blah" You can't have it both ways, your boy won, but either David has a better chin than you were all ranting and raving about or Wlad has less power, its one or the other At no point in the fight did Haye take a true 100% solid punch. If he were to take the punch that Calvin Brock took, I'm sure he, along with most boxers, would go down. If Haye's chin was SO bad that he couldn't even take a Lennox Lewis jab, then he never would have made it to the championship level period. Haye lasting 12 rounds isn't a testament to the punching power of Wladimir. It has more to do with Wladimir not wanting to take any risks, and Haye avoiding engagement at all costs.

He's got power yes but he's not a heavyweight thomas hearns Haye got hit with his straight right a few times and didnt go down and he has one of the worst chin's i have ever seen Klitschko apologists will say "he didnt land 100% flush" but he got close enough and according to them he was going to be out cold from a jab so... Reality is he didn't land 100% flush. If he did Haye would've been out. If Haye would have fought like he claimed he was, he would've surely gotten KO'd IMO. The Calvin Brock KO was a pretty sick 1 punch KO. I'm really surprised he got up from it at all. He also KO'd Chambers cold with a single left hook. He has KO power in both hands. He just beats people down with the jab, then takes them out. A lot of people don't like it, but Klitschko has become a master at what he does and no one is close right now.

What about Vitali? He took the most flush uppercut Lewis ever delivered. He also took a perfect straight-on-the-chin shot from Sanders. He doesn't get hit much, but he has taken a few bombs along the way like they were nothing.

The first round is almost always a feeling out process with both fighters measuring and observing. Unless something explosive happens like round 1 of Vitali/Sanders,these rounds should be scored even as much as possible. Close rounds where there is no clear dominant fighter should be declared even as well. The last few rounds of Bradley/Pacquiao were very Evenish to me and shouldnt have been placed on the same level as Pacquiao's forceful early rounds. This is the only way to stop the robberies. Make the fighters earn that 10-9 instead of judges gifting hair-split decisions to their favorite. As much as I dislike 99% of your opinions, I have to agree with this one. I've been preaching this for years. The idea that 99% of the rounds are NOT even is ridiculous. If the round is really close, then score that ***** even. The idea of "swing rounds" should be banished. What a joke, right? Off the top of my head, you are probably the poster I disagree with the most on this forum, but you know what? I'm gonna green rep you, we all have to get behind things like this.

Let's be ****ing real for a second. MMA ****ing crushes boxing in the way of how well it is ran. Look at it, there is one major MMA organization and NO one else is even close. You don't see relentless ducking, paper champions, and there are far fewer controversial decisions. The PPV events are well ran, and there aren't bogus "promotional wars". Pacquiao vs. Mayweather? Everyone knows that if the UFC was dealing with that ****, it would have got made. The list goes on and on and on... the reality is that boxing is an AWESOME sport, ran by the biggest egos of all time. Literally, the only reason boxing is still functioning is because it is awesome. Considering the DISGUSTING sanctioning bodies, cherry-picking, and egotistical promoters, boxing is lucky to still be around. There has to be a turning point, or the statement "boxing is dying" will start to become very true. To talk **** on MMA for any "outside" reason is to take an even bigger dump all over boxing, because right now, MMA is destroying boxing in terms of how smooth everything is ran. Side note: The only people who aren't fans of MMA are simply pissed that MMA may have taken some steam away from boxing. This isn't true because boxers are still making just as much (and more) as they always have. Spew your trash-talk in a more adequate direction - towards the sanctioning bodies and promoters, with hopes that one day they will be completely disassociated with boxing.

First two rounds were easily Pac's, come on.... Third was Marquez with a knockdown. Let's be ****ing real, the 4th round was a draw. 5th was Pacquiao with a knockdown and a severe beating. 6th - done I thought Pacquiao was dominating the fight, but he got caught. Marquez had a concussion, it was probably actually dangerous for him to continue the fight.

The was a very prime, focused, cramp free, motivated, Pac's chosen weight ever that Marquez put to sleep.:boxing: Case Closed-------- Marquez > Pac What grade did you drop out in? I forget what round the knockout was but he really only lost the 3rd round because of the knockdown. Even then it was competitive. He came back and knocked him down. He was winning the round he got KTFO. He should have stepped off the gas when he heard the last 10 seconds. Such a shame since it would have been a very good finishing fight if it lasted a little longer. Either way, Pac should take easy fights to gain some money and then retire. No JMM, No Floyd, etc. Finish off with something like Rios etc. He loses another fight and that's it. I don't know. I'd rather him retire than take 3 or 4 soft fights. Rios is a good fight to comeback in. An easy win over a pretty good fighter. I think as long as he isn't mentally ruined, then he is still a serious force. I'd still like to see the Mayweather fight, because if he fought like he did last night - he'd surely give anyone problems. Marquez caught him clean, but lets be real - Marquez was getting the hell beat out of him before he caught Pac. Depending on how Pacquiao looks in his next fight, I'd like to see Marquez 5 and perhaps Mayweather. One thing that he does NOT need to do is fight Sergio.

No, because he knocked him out. And the right hand was landing consistently despite the fact he wasn't winning the fight. Conversely, Pacquiao was landing monster shots with his left as well. Marquez appeared to be on his way out and he just landed the perfect shot. That's how it happens, but don't act like he had the upper hand in the fight - he was getting beat down pretty bad.

You don't think the new, improved Marquez can give him a better fight? With over 100,000 of his countrymen cheering him on? Plus it would give him the biggest payday of his career so that he can go into retirement very comfortably. Marquez didn't magically acquire the skills to beat a fighter that he didn't win a single round against. Marquez is an ATG great, don't get me wrong - but as we all know "styles make fights", and Marquez hasn't really changed his style. This thread is dumb.

Nope proves Wlads power has always been overrated as well as his stamina and ability to pick his heavy shots. Soon as he gets in the ring with a average c rate boxer who is taller than him, he struggled to point him away and at one put he himself wobbles He threw 90% jabs and Wach wasnt going to get knocked out by them The guy was there for the taking, Wlad simply cudnt throw a clean combo, by round 8 he had thrown so many jabs he was knackered What a bunch of nonsense. Wladimir was sinking some of the hardest, cleanest shots I have ever seen taken by anyone. Your post is just pure...stupidity.

Wlad is higher than Pacquaio though. Both fighters have become over rated for different reasons. 1-Pacquaio because of Media Hype 2- Wladimir because of people UNDER RATING HIM. Because people under rate Wladimir, idiots tend to think he's greater than he is. It's call the 'under over effect'. Certain fighters became so underrated, they get over rated.... Let's call a spade a spade. Pacquaio is a 2nd tier ATG. Wladimir is 3rd tier ATG. neither are 1st tier ATG. You are a complete fool. They are CLEARLY both undeniably top tier ATGs. Wladimir is in the middle of a historic title reign. Despite who he is facing, he is DESTROYING every single fighter with ease. He is one of a few fighters who was seriously flawed and proceeded to address these flaws and put together a very large string of victories. Pacquiao went on one of the best runs in boxing history, moving up in multiple weight classes, DESTROYING many HOF fighters in the process. You idiots can discredit ANY fighter in history if you want - but if you are going to discredit Klitschko and Pacquiao, then go ahead and discredit every single fighter that you are a fan of because no fighter in history can live up to the narrow, downright unfair criteria that you've implied. You can't outline this idiotic criteria for one fighter and then 'loosen it' for the ones you like, that is subjective. So if you are going to sh*t on these guys for historic careers, be sure you sh*t on guys like Tyson, Duran, Lewis, Ali, Haggler, because that is what you'll need to do if you want to avoid being a hypocrite. Idiot.

It was obvious that Marquez was loading up for something big, and he had already knocked Pacquiao down. I was actually expecting Marquez to get finished, but Pacquiao was being overly careless trying to get him out of there, so I'd have to go with Bradley's decision. Any fighter can get KO'd at any given time in a fight, and it can be shocking - but Bradley's decision was the worst decision in boxing history (at least that I am aware of). Maybe Roy Jones' robbery in the olympics was worse, but that wasn't as significant to the boxing world. I've seen fighters get KO'd before, but I have never seen a robbery even CLOSE to that.

Ok.. Let's do this comparison than. Sugar Ray Leonard is a 1st tier ATG.. You saying Wladimir is on par and a 1st tier ATG as well? Fine . Let us see. Sugar Ray Leonard Top wins: In whatever order Roberto Duran Tommy Hearns Marvin Hagler Wilfred Benitez Ayub Kalule Wladimir Klithscko top wins: In whatever order Chris Byrd Sultan Ibragimovic David Haye Tony Thompson Ruslan Chagev Eddie Chambers Ya... they are both 1st tier ATGS.. lol. In fact, Wladimir's BEST WIN: Chris Byrd. (who he UDed) Was already beaten by a 20 fight Novice name Ike.. Brutally beaten. People like you can't be reasoned with, there is no "debating" with you, because for every reason that you criticize Pac, Wlad, whoever... you give the fighters you like a free pass for the exact same reasons. You are an idiot, and everyone who isn't like you knows it.

Great resume? Sugar Ray Leonard Good resume? Carl Froch And I'm not criticizing Froch all that much, just saying his wins have been elevated above the norm because they were under the Super 6 umbrella. My point is that the same criticism you are throwing at Froch can be thrown at even some of the greatest fighters of all time. Your analysis is not only unfair, but it is plain out wrong. Froch isn't being heralded as an ATG, and not even a future HOFer yet. However, he is recognized as a good, solid fighter and champion. To imply that he hasn't done all the he can do to earn that is simply wrong. The super 6 was a great tool to build anyones resume. It prevented the politics of boxing from interfering with the best in the division fighting each other. Froch's resume benefited as a result, as it should have. Let's look at Froch's most recent string of fights: Pascal Taylor Dirrel Kessler Abraham Johnson Ward Bute Mack Name me ONE fighter who has taken 9 fights in a row without even ONE being a "gimme" fight. None of these fighters may be ATGs, but that is one hell of a run right there. The super 6 may have facilitated this string of tough matches, but it did not in any way change the fact that he has been consistently taking on some of the toughest matches available. What is his next move? Looks like he's aiming for rematches with Kessler and Ward. We all know Froch isn't the champ right now, but he is one of the few fighters in the sport that we should not be criticizing. Your argument is that Froch's resume wouldn't look as good without the super 6. You may be right, but that doesn't change who he has fought, and that is in no way a negative thing at all. He committed to fighting the best available, and he has been doing pretty dang good.

He lost to Kessler too. Is Glen Johnson a 'great win' ? I want to hear your opinion.. thanks. Let's be honest, the loss to Kessler was very very close. I had the fight a draw, I think a draw would have been fine with many people. The win over Glen Johnson was a good win, but perhaps not a great one in itself. Glen Johnson was coming off of a KO win against Green. However, wins over Taylor, Dirrel, Abraham, Johnson, Pascal, Bute are great when they are strung together. I'm fairly sure that every single one of these fighters were ranked in the top 10 when he fought them. Many of them had titles, or were former champions. Who has Froch NOT fought? Froch only legitimately fell short in one fight, against Ward. The guy doesn't duck anyone, consistently finds a way to win, and makes great fights. He's flawed, sure. The only way Froch's resume would be better is if he had won the fights with Ward and Kessler. Name a fighter with a great resume. ANY fighter. Mayweather? Oh what is Mayweather's best win? De La Hoya? Cotto? Cotto was washed up, he got KO'd by Pacquiao and plastered by Marg. De La Hoya was on the decline. Who else... Oh yea, Mayweather actually had the audacity to fight BALDOMIR! Can you believe that? Is Baldomir a great win? The argument I've given above is the exact same kind of logic that you have used here in this thread. We all know Mayweather is a great fighter. While Froch isn't as great as Mayweather, all fighters resumes are subject to the same kind of idiotic analysis that you are listing. If someone is consistently going out and winning/KOing top 10 contenders, champions, and former champions - then you are simply stupid for criticizing them. Pick someone who is worth critizing, like Alexander Povetkin. Now there is a true paper champ.

They packed up decent/good fighters and sold them to you as world beaters. I keep seeing a 43 year old, 2-5 in last 7 fights and coming down in weight 7 lbs Glen Johnson used as an example as to why Carl Froch's resume is great. Or Abraham who is clearly very limited and 5-3 at 168 with only a faded Taylor which could be called a 'good' win on his resume... after that you're looking at wins over Edison Miranda and.. uh.. nothing. Andre Dirrell is yet to win a title and he's 29, is he really all that? his biggest win is Arthur Abraham, after that.. who is on his resume? I like Carl and commend him for his attitude but it's ridiculous how overrated some of these Super 6 wins are getting. You can do idiotic analysis like this of ANY fighter's resume. Froch has consistently fought the top contenders and champions in the division and won, this is all that we can ask of any champion. The only person he has lost to is Andre Ward, who is already making a case for being the p4p champ. Your post is a joke.

Can't say for sure, but the shot that Martinez caught Pwill with was pretty frickin scary.

Let's be real for a second. Legacies are not based solely on resumes, they are also based on dominance. Floyd Mayweather's legacy will always be tarnished for not fighting Manny Pacquiao, but the same cannot be said about Vitali Klitschko. He fought the best available, but sadly he didn't have the quality opponents that Floyd had. Does anyone honestly believe that he would have ducked other ATG fighters? Truth is, that he doesn't have a resume full of great fighters - because they weren't there to be fought. What he does have though, is a long string of pure annihilation to back up his case. He also has a fight where he was decisively, clearly beating Lennox Lewis. Despite the controversial outcome, Vitali had one of the worst cuts in boxing history and was still winning the fight. You can't give Vitali credit for beating a string of ATG fighters, but you also can't dismiss what he has accomplished - dominating the hell out of the division aside from his brother.

How is this even a question? Fury ****ing sucks, Pulev would OBLITERATE him. Povetkin, Wilder, and even Arreola would all crush him. And to think there are some guys that think Fury is the truth and can beat Klitschko. PLEASE bet some real $ with me if that is the case.

Joan Guzman Zab Judah Roy Jones(He should've retired after Ruiz or never fought at HW) James Toney Oscar De La Hoya Riddick Bowe Andre Ward Roy Jones isn't a slam-dunk ATG? And Joan Guzman???? You must be high.

Jermain Taylor had the talent. He didn't use it as wisely as he should have. Now he's brain-damaged.. I'm gonna have to disagree. Looking back on Taylor's career, he was a guy that was definitely solid, but wasn't really good enough to be Middleweight champ. Pavlik completely exposed him, and then Pavlik was exposed shortly after. Taylor took advantage of Bernard's style of low-output in extremely close fights, and sadly, that will always be the highlight of his career. As far as this thread goes, I felt that Zab Judah could've been so much more than what he was - but I won't go as far as to say among the greatest. The speed and athleticism was real though. I really don't know if there were many fighters who could've been among the greatest that really weren't. Vitali Klitschko does come to mind, as a previous poster mentioned. I think most people realize that Vitali would've given any heavyweight from any era a serious run for their money, if not beaten them all. Let's be real, he was going to win the Lennox rematch, if they had it. In my mind, that was probably the greatest modern era fight that we were robbed of.

David Tua, that is definitely a name I can get behind. What a terrifying guy in his prime. God damn imagine if Emmanuel Steward had him. The Ruiz KO is the scariest KO I may have ever seen. And how can anyone dispute that Floyd and Manny are already ATGs? They are consensus the best two fighters of the past decade. Manny went on one of the most terrifying and historic runs in boxing history - knocking out HOFs. Mayweather definitely did some cherry picking, and as a human being he's a complete piece of **** (gangster, burns money, beats women), but to say that he's not at least approaching ATG status is stupid. Is he the GOAT? **** no. But if he quit after Pacquiao, regardless of the result, he's in the ATG category. Also, let's not forget that Pacquiao won fighter of the ****ing decade. If you're the best fighter in an entire decade, you are, historically, an ATG.

Lol u serious? You're not allowed to blatantly push off repeatedly in fights. Biased refs? Bull****, the refs he has overseas have been strongly biased in his favor for not deducting points and issuing warnings. It's not like this is Wlads first time, it happens in ALL of his fights! Did you see his fight with Alexander Povetkin? Absolutely disgraceful he wasn't deducted points. He could have been deducted points as early as round 1!!! And the ref allowed him to do it the entire fight. He clearly has a nasty habit of bending the rules which he does to his advantage. Dude, it wasn't BLATANT Mark Coleman style shoving though. It wasn't even a shove, it was literally just keeping Jennings off of him for a bit with some nudges. Some level of ****ing contact should be given. HOWEVER, boxing rules do state that pushing isn't allowed. NO ****ing rules state that clinching isn't allowed. The ref took a point here, clearly. How many times did Jennings dive in with his head low leaving ONE possible outcome? A CLINCH. Dude if he's so low that he can't be hit, it's basically him coming in with a free shot if clinching isn't allowed. If clinching is to be banned, so should coming in with your head low and getting under someone's armpit and slamming them in the ribs. The point still REMAINS though, is a referee justified in deducting a point for something that is clearly ALLOWED in modern boxing rules?

How can you be a boxing fan and not even know the rules? Rules for Championship Fights - World Boxing Council A list of common fouls that may be committed by boxers (or seconds, where the context is appropriate) that may be cause for penalty or disqualification is as follows: 13. Excessive holding the opponent or maintaining a clinch. I stand corrected. I Googled boxing rules before the fight, but not WBC rules. I'd never heard of this rule and I bet many haven't either. It's not on the BoxRec rules. +rep

I'm sorry, but if you watch Jennings arms when Vlad came in close he put his arms around Vlad's waist,he did not try and fight any clinches or holding off, he was equally willing to hold and let Vlad hold him. Usually I agree Vlad holds and normally should be deducted a point because his opponent most of the time is a victim of Vlad's holding. They try to fight out or push Vlad off. Jennings however, accepted and also reached out to hold Vlad just as much as Vlad tried to hold him. Every time Vlad got inside Jennings reached out to hug and put his arms around Vlad. Jennings rarely pushed Vlad away. As for the ref he was way to one-sided, although you can to some extent excuse his warnings about holding, everything Vlad did the ref warned him over and over Whether it be pushing off or just Vlad using his jab. Now we know why Vlad never fights it the US. Jennings is getting way to much credit for just running around the ring all night. He was just in it to go 12rds. He never threw a head shot and his body punches were half-hearted at best. As for Vlad's trainer, Johnathon Banks, he needs to be fired. He gave Vlad horrible advice. He gave him advice as if it was he who was fighting Jennings. Telling Vlad to use his legs and box around the ring. As if Vlad is a mover like Mayweather. Giving a guy who is 6'6" directions to dance around the ring. Jameel Mccline is a perfect example of what happens to a fighter who is above 6'5" and tries to dance around the ring using their legs like a featherweight. I agree on all points. Why on earth was the HBO crew worshiping Jennings so hard? Cause he didn't get KTFO so quickly? That goes to show you how destructive Klitschko has been - that an undefeated top contender doesn't get KOd in 6 rounds and he's a BEAST. The ref was extremely biased. Klitschko was losing focus when told not to clinch, and push. Don't push? God what a bias ref. With that said, Klitschko needs to develop a serious inside game in case he runs across another bull**** ref like that again. His inside game up to this point has been to literally neutralize the other fighter when he gets inside. Tonight, he clearly was thrown off by the trash reffing. I believe we will see a better, more typical Klitschko performance next time.