Comments Thread For: Roach: I've Changed My Mind, Golovkin CAN'T Beat Andre Ward!

[Mr Objecitivity]

nah I'm good

Kovalev should whack Ward with that big rulebook

Sure! Though first make sure to tell Ward to meet Kovalev outside Oakland, USA and meet him in a neutral land. If he wants to have a no ruled fight, he's more than welcome to do it there. If he wants to have a PROPER boxing match, he is also welcomed to do it there too.

Ward can't 'whack' any top level fighter if his opponents aren't handicapped.

[Reloaded]

The argument you're using is an 'appeal to popularity' logical fallacy. Because others have cheated in the past, doesn't make it OK or correct! Others have committed murder in the past, doesn't make it OK now. Others were slave trading in the past, doesn't make it OK now and so forth so on....

'Skillful boxers' don't need to resort to 'non boxing moves' such as grappling, elbowing, head butting and etc. Some of these are wrestling moves, some of these are muay thai moves and some are from various other martial arts. However, they certainly aren't 'boxing moves'. Hence, boxers resorting to such moves can't be classified as 'skillful boxers' as they're not even using 'boxing moves' in the first place.

There are many examples of 'skillful boxers' who don't have to resort to such illegal moves. Vasyl Lomachenko, James Toney (except the occasional bending below the waist), Gennady Golovkin, Manny Pacquiao, Oleksandr Usyk and etc.

When folks like Andre Ward have to resort to such illegal 'non-boxing' moves, it just proves they're boxing skills aren't high enough to compete with just boxing moves alone.

Count the number of times Bernard Hopkins had to clinch Joe Calzaghe due to his incompetent boxing skills as they weren't enough to neutralize Joe Calzaghe so was forced to resort to non-boxing moves. On the other hand, count the number of times James Toney (a true skillful boxer) had to clinch Vasily Jirov in their bout. I can barely count on one hand James Toney had to resort to such non-boxing moves like Bernard Hopkins did against Calzaghe. Why? Because James Toney's 'boxing skills' are good such that he doesn't need to resort to such illegal moves.

You are trying to paint a sharp edged line where it can only be grey and blurred.


These rules you say are broken and so cheating, is like trying to distinguish a point where cold becomes hot, slow becomes fast, there is no point that says where that is its all a judgment call.

When is grappling holding, who decides the exact point one becomes the other, and if the refs idea of where that point is is different than yours, you then cry cheat because youre guy was on the other end of it, that's whats going on here, your guy lost and you sing the losers song which is to always crys cheating of some sort.

That's how it works with many rules in boxing so the real good pros know where the limits are to best suit their style of fighting, and the referees makes his own judgment's on those rules at his discretion.

If the smaller man has a hard time keeping the bigger guy off him he has no choice but to tie up, grapple or inside fight, or a mixture of all 3 which is what Ward does, at what point is it cheating define that exact point for me.

If the faster man is able to out maneuver and land the most punches while getting hit the least, when does scientific boxing become running, again only in the eyes of the losers fans is that point crystal clear.

Boxing is fighting, all man did was make it civilized by adding rules, those rules can all be bent and still be within the rules of a fair fight which is the reason they exist, grappling in boxing is as important as firing straight punches.

Ward is not a dirty fighter he is a very good grappler inside fighter, he doesn't just windmill he wrestles and works shots in, he ties you up and hits you in the tie , he holds when he wants the ref to break giving distance , that is pro boxing.

[Mr. Philadel]

Exactly...Ward would own him

[Marvlus Marv]

i half believed that until ward fought kovalov. ggg has yet to take even half as big a risk as that

Golovkin has been almost solved by Brook and especially Jacobs. It's an easy win for Ward.

[Mr Objecitivity]

You are trying to paint a sharp edged line where it can only be grey and blurred.


These rules you say are broken and so cheating, is like trying to distinguish a point where cold becomes hot, slow becomes fast, there is no point that says where that is its all a judgment call.

When is grappling holding, who decides the exact point one becomes the other, and if the refs idea of where that point is is different than yours, you then cry cheat because youre guy was on the other end of it, that's whats going on here, your guy lost and you sing the losers song which is to always crys cheating of some sort.

That's how it works with many rules in boxing so the real good pros know where the limits are to best suit their style of fighting, and the referees makes his own judgment's on those rules at his discretion.

If the smaller man has a hard time keeping the bigger guy off him he has no choice but to tie up, grapple or inside fight, or a mixture of all 3 which is what Ward does, at what point is it cheating define that exact point for me.

If the faster man is able to out maneuver and land the most punches while getting hit the least, when does scientific boxing become running, again only in the eyes of the losers fans is that point crystal clear.

Boxing is fighting, all man did was make it civilized by adding rules, those rules can all be bent and still be within the rules of a fair fight which is the reason they exist, grappling in boxing is as important as firing straight punches.

Ward is not a dirty fighter he is a very good grappler inside fighter, he doesn't just windmill he wrestles and works shots in, he ties you up and hits you in the tie , he holds when he wants the ref to break giving distance , that is pro boxing.

Firstly, you're making plenty of assumptions, such as assuming I am a fan of any of the boxers mentioned. All of that is irrelevant. I am 100% analyzing this entire thing objectively, without any form of bias.

Secondly, cheating is very easy and clear to determine using very clear criteria. It's easy for me to distinguish between a boxer who consistently sticks to the official rules of boxing and a boxer who consistently breaks the rules of boxing. Are you really unable to tell the difference between boxers like James Toney and Vasyl Lomachenko (boxers who rarely break the rules) and boxers like Andre Ward and Bernard Hopkins (boxers who consistently break the rules).

Every boxer in the odd occasion may break a rule here and there, but I go by consistency. In terms of consistency, boxers like Andre Ward, Wladimir Klitschko and Bernard Hopkins break the rules regularly.

The argument you're using right now is a logical fallacy by the name of 'Shifting the goal post'. The rules have already been made. The rules can't randomly be changed to favor a specific boxer.

How do I know when one is grappling? It's when they fulfill the definition of grappling, which is holding an opponent.

How do I know when one is elbowing? It's when they fulfill the definition of elbowing, which is striking an opponent with the elbows.

Bare in mind, an illegal move should only be deemed as 'illegal' only when it can be established that the boxer is performing the move intentionally. How is that established? By the consistency of the move being performed. When a boxer lands the odd low blow or the odd headbutt, it can be disregarded as an unintentional move. However, when a boxer consistently uses an illegal move, then it's pretty convincing evidence that the boxer is being intentional. Wladimir Klitschko was consistently clinching Alexander Povetkin. Therefore, it can be deemed as intentional from Wladimir Klitschko's behalf. Orlando Salido consistently low blowed Vasyl Lomachenko, so thus it can be inferred Salido was being intentional and so forth so on.

Also bare in mind that by 'illegal moves', I'm referring to actual moves that have been officiated. Moves like 'running' (I don't believe a boxer can literally run at the highest level of a boxing bout) don't count as an 'illegal move' as there is no rule which says per say. As long as a boxer is landing more punches than receiving, it doesn't matter how much that boxer is moving. If a boxer purposefully tries to not get hit without offering any ambition to attack in return by excess movement, then the referee has every right to stop the fight and give the loss to the boxer who is unwilling to attack. So the amount of movement (running) is irrelevant. It's mainly a matter of if the said boxer is intending to land punches at his opponent, even if he is using a lot of movement.

Andre Ward is evidently a dirty fighter. So is Bernard Hopkins. James Toney and Vasyl Lomachenko aren't dirty fighters. They are true technicians of the sport.

Clinching shouldn't be encouraged any more than low blows or elbows or headbutts. They're all against the rules. However, there are rare instances where it maybe inevitable. In such an instance, it can be allowed. However, these are merely exceptions and not the rule. When it becomes consistent (like with Andre Ward and Wladimir Klitschko), that's when it shouldn't be allowed.

Boxing is as much 'fighting' as greco roman wrestling is, or freestyle wrestling is, or muay thai kickboxing is. If grappling should be allowed in boxing, then grappling should be 100% allowed. Meaning, the referee should never separate boxers when they're grappling and let them continue boxing whilst they're grappling for as long as they want, like they do in Muay Thai bouts. Also, boxing should be renamed to 'grappling boxing' instead of just 'boxing'. Otherwise, grappling (excluding in rare circumstances) shouldn't be allowed in boxing anymore than punching should be allowed in wrestling. There already exists sports that corporate grappling, such as Olympic wrestling, judo, jiu jitsu and etc. So if Ward really wants to grapple, he is more than welcomed to compete in those grappling combat sports. Otherwise, he should stick to the official rules of boxing like everybody else.

[aboutfkntime]

Firstly, you're making plenty of assumptions, such as assuming I am a fan of any of the boxers mentioned. All of that is irrelevant. I am 100% analyzing this entire thing objectively, without any form of bias.

Secondly, cheating is very easy and clear to determine using very clear criteria. It's easy for me to distinguish between a boxer who consistently sticks to the official rules of boxing and a boxer who consistently breaks the rules of boxing. Are you really unable to tell the difference between boxers like James Toney and Vasyl Lomachenko (boxers who rarely break the rules) and boxers like Andre Ward and Bernard Hopkins (boxers who consistently break the rules).

Every boxer in the odd occasion may break a rule here and there, but I go by consistency. In terms of consistency, boxers like Andre Ward, Wladimir Klitschko and Bernard Hopkins break the rules regularly.

The argument you're using right now is a logical fallacy by the name of 'Shifting the goal post'. The rules have already been made. The rules can't randomly be changed to favor a specific boxer.

How do I know when one is grappling? It's when they fulfill the definition of grappling, which is holding an opponent.

How do I know when one is elbowing? It's when they fulfill the definition of elbowing, which is striking an opponent with the elbows.

Bare in mind, an illegal move should only be deemed as 'illegal' only when it can be established that the boxer is performing the move intentionally. How is that established? By the consistency of the move being performed. When a boxer lands the odd low blow or the odd headbutt, it can be disregarded as an unintentional move. However, when a boxer consistently uses an illegal move, then it's pretty convincing evidence that the boxer is being intentional. Wladimir Klitschko was consistently clinching Alexander Povetkin. Therefore, it can be deemed as intentional from Wladimir Klitschko's behalf. Orlando Salido consistently low blowed Vasyl Lomachenko, so thus it can be inferred Salido was being intentional and so forth so on.

Also bare in mind that by 'illegal moves', I'm referring to actual moves that have been officiated. Moves like 'running' (I don't believe a boxer can literally run at the highest level of a boxing bout) don't count as an 'illegal move' as there is no rule which says per say. As long as a boxer is landing more punches than receiving, it doesn't matter how much that boxer is moving. If a boxer purposefully tries to not get hit without offering any ambition to attack in return by excess movement, then the referee has every right to stop the fight and give the loss to the boxer who is unwilling to attack. So the amount of movement (running) is irrelevant. It's mainly a matter of if the said boxer is intending to land punches at his opponent, even if he is using a lot of movement.

Andre Ward is evidently a dirty fighter. So is Bernard Hopkins. James Toney and Vasyl Lomachenko aren't dirty fighters. They are true technicians of the sport.

Clinching shouldn't be encouraged any more than low blows or elbows or headbutts. They're all against the rules. However, there are rare instances where it maybe inevitable. In such an instance, it can be allowed. However, these are merely exceptions and not the rule. When it becomes consistent (like with Andre Ward and Wladimir Klitschko), that's when it shouldn't be allowed.

Boxing is as much 'fighting' as greco roman wrestling is, or freestyle wrestling is, or muay thai kickboxing is. If grappling should be allowed in boxing, then grappling should be 100% allowed. Meaning, the referee should never separate boxers when they're grappling and let them continue boxing whilst they're grappling for as long as they want, like they do in Muay Thai bouts. Also, boxing should be renamed to 'grappling boxing' instead of just 'boxing'. Otherwise, grappling (excluding in rare circumstances) shouldn't be allowed in boxing anymore than punching should be allowed in wrestling. There already exists sports that corporate grappling, such as Olympic wrestling, judo, jiu jitsu and etc. So if Ward really wants to grapple, he is more than welcomed to compete in those grappling combat sports. Otherwise, he should stick to the official rules of boxing like everybody else.

I can see your lips moving, but all I hear is waaaaaah





what does Kovie use those things on the end of his arms for?


my boy Toney absolutely is a " dirty " fighter, bless him

he had the best, shoulder bump/uppercut, in the game

[Reloaded]

Firstly, you're making plenty of assumptions, such as assuming I am a fan of any of the boxers mentioned. All of that is irrelevant. I am 100% analyzing this entire thing objectively, without any form of bias.

Secondly, cheating is very easy and clear to determine using very clear criteria. It's easy for me to distinguish between a boxer who consistently sticks to the official rules of boxing and a boxer who consistently breaks the rules of boxing. Are you really unable to tell the difference between boxers like James Toney and Vasyl Lomachenko (boxers who rarely break the rules) and boxers like Andre Ward and Bernard Hopkins (boxers who consistently break the rules).

Every boxer in the odd occasion may break a rule here and there, but I go by consistency. In terms of consistency, boxers like Andre Ward, Wladimir Klitschko and Bernard Hopkins break the rules regularly.

The argument you're using right now is a logical fallacy by the name of 'Shifting the goal post'. The rules have already been made. The rules can't randomly be changed to favor a specific boxer.

How do I know when one is grappling? It's when they fulfill the definition of grappling, which is holding an opponent.

How do I know when one is elbowing? It's when they fulfill the definition of elbowing, which is striking an opponent with the elbows.

Bare in mind, an illegal move should only be deemed as 'illegal' only when it can be established that the boxer is performing the move intentionally. How is that established? By the consistency of the move being performed. When a boxer lands the odd low blow or the odd headbutt, it can be disregarded as an unintentional move. However, when a boxer consistently uses an illegal move, then it's pretty convincing evidence that the boxer is being intentional. Wladimir Klitschko was consistently clinching Alexander Povetkin. Therefore, it can be deemed as intentional from Wladimir Klitschko's behalf. Orlando Salido consistently low blowed Vasyl Lomachenko, so thus it can be inferred Salido was being intentional and so forth so on.

Also bare in mind that by 'illegal moves', I'm referring to actual moves that have been officiated. Moves like 'running' (I don't believe a boxer can literally run at the highest level of a boxing bout) don't count as an 'illegal move' as there is no rule which says per say. As long as a boxer is landing more punches than receiving, it doesn't matter how much that boxer is moving. If a boxer purposefully tries to not get hit without offering any ambition to attack in return by excess movement, then the referee has every right to stop the fight and give the loss to the boxer who is unwilling to attack. So the amount of movement (running) is irrelevant. It's mainly a matter of if the said boxer is intending to land punches at his opponent, even if he is using a lot of movement.

Andre Ward is evidently a dirty fighter. So is Bernard Hopkins. James Toney and Vasyl Lomachenko aren't dirty fighters. They are true technicians of the sport.

Clinching shouldn't be encouraged any more than low blows or elbows or headbutts. They're all against the rules. However, there are rare instances where it maybe inevitable. In such an instance, it can be allowed. However, these are merely exceptions and not the rule. When it becomes consistent (like with Andre Ward and Wladimir Klitschko), that's when it shouldn't be allowed.

Boxing is as much 'fighting' as greco roman wrestling is, or freestyle wrestling is, or muay thai kickboxing is. If grappling should be allowed in boxing, then grappling should be 100% allowed. Meaning, the referee should never separate boxers when they're grappling and let them continue boxing whilst they're grappling for as long as they want, like they do in Muay Thai bouts. Also, boxing should be renamed to 'grappling boxing' instead of just 'boxing'. Otherwise, grappling (excluding in rare circumstances) shouldn't be allowed in boxing anymore than punching should be allowed in wrestling. There already exists sports that corporate grappling, such as Olympic wrestling, judo, jiu jitsu and etc. So if Ward really wants to grapple, he is more than welcomed to compete in those grappling combat sports. Otherwise, he should stick to the official rules of boxing like everybody else.

All that typing and I cant find the point where grappling infighting and wrestling becomes holding, youre definition is it is when it is , just like from cold to hot its cold until its hot, very loose blurred definition if you ask me where a 100 people can have a different point in time where one becomes the other.

You are lost in perfect ideals that are not real world and you don't understand the nature of judgments formed in the eyes of the referee, this is not an exact science it is a dynamic constantly changing fight and because of that rules will always be tested and pushed to the point of the ref saying you broke the rules, usually he will warn then hard warn then deduct a point, fighters will always push those boundary's.

[Larry the boss]

Like how he knocked out Alexander Brand or Sullivan Barrera?

A guy with a 50% KO percentage (included against lighter than self opponents and poor quality opposition) is somehow going to KO a boxer that has never even been dropped in nearly 400 fights (amateur and pro included), never mind knocked out. Andre Ward is the last boxer that I would bet on to KO GGG.

In a bout where the official marquees rules are 100% enforced and if the bout takes place in a neutral arena, with everything being 100$ neutral, both GGG and Sergey Kovalev would stop Andre Ward.

It's not as 'risky' when one is competing in their home country (Andre Ward) with officials favoring them and skewing / modifying the rules temporarily to favor them (Andre Ward). Let Andre Ward fight either GGG or Sergey Kovalev in a neutral country with consistent rules / standards, then I'll accept it as something 'risky' for Andre Ward.

As it stands, GGG coming over to USA, competing in a foreign land, earning new fans in a foreign land, whilst having to learn a new language in a foreign land, whilst regularly competing against local fighters is riskier than anything Andre Ward has done in his career.

Can you imagine Andre Ward having to move over to a foreign land, leaving his hometown and competing in a totally foreign land whilst adapting to the foreign environment like GGG has?

this is a freedom alt

[Larry the boss]

Strawman fallacy! Perhaps actually understand my points before responding?

I happened not to claim Ward hasn't competed at the 'highest level'. Instead, my point was that Ward gets away with performing 'ILLEGAL MOVES' at the highest level against opponents in the pro, such as against Sergey Kovalev, whilst his 'HIGHEST LEVEL' opponents don't. In other words, Andre Ward has a handicapped advantage when competing in USA, particularly in Oakland against other foreign boxers like Sergey Kovalev. That's pretty much a fact!

BTW, GGG has competed in far more INTERNATIONAL amateur tournaments than Andre Ward has. Just something to keep in mind since you've raised the topic of amateur boxing (whilst I was only referring to the pros).

So as long as Andre Ward wins his bouts by using illegal moves (such as ducking below the waist, elbowing, headbutting, excessively clinching and etc.), one will have every justifiable right to be critical and complain.

GGG doesn't cheat by using illegal moves. He is a clean fighter who sticks to the rules of boxing.

BostonGuy this is clearly Freedom

[Mr Objecitivity]

All that typing and I cant find the point where grappling infighting and wrestling becomes holding, youre definition is it is when it is

OK, let me break it down / simplify it even further so you can understand / comprehend my points better. I'm not sure if it's genuine misunderstanding from your behalf or intentional ignoring of what I'm stating, but here it goes:

Clinching / grappling / holding is identified when one boxer's hands are locked / tied up, to the point where that boxer is unable to throw any punches freely due to his arms being locked by his opponent. At that point, the boxer that is preventing the opponent from throwing punches by tying / locking their arms is performing an illegal move.

I wonder what your next excuse is going to be for allowing illegal moves? My guess is: how can a referee identify if a boxer's arms are tied up? Really? I hope you don't ask that question because that's the only other possible question / excuse I can think of that could come from you in relation to the criteria I've outlined in terms of establishing how clinching / grappling / holding /wrestling can be identified. Any person with functional eyes can establish this.

just like from cold to hot its cold until its hot, very loose blurred definition if you ask me where a 100 people can have a different point in time where one becomes the other.

That's a point you've made about a subjective / relative concept. What's cold to one person is not cold to another person. However, clinching / grappling / wrestling in boxing isn't a subjective / relative concept that is interpreted differently BY different people. If a boxer locks / ties up their opponent to the point where they are unable to throw any punches, then that would be classified as 'clinching' irrespective of who the referee is or the judges are.

You are lost in perfect ideals that are not real world and you don't understand the nature of judgments formed in the eyes of the referee, this is not an exact science it is a dynamic constantly changing fight and because of that rules will always be tested and pushed to the point of the ref saying you broke the rules, usually he will warn then hard warn then deduct a point, fighters will always push those boundary's.

Rules are simply meant to be followed and enforced properly, consistently and without any double standards. If rules should be broken, then they should be broken consistently and everybody should be able to break those same rules. This means, if clinching should be allowed, it should be allowed for everybody equally, whilst at the same time, it should be a permanent part of a boxing bout without the referee ever stopping / breaking the boxers from clinching, just like how clinching is allowed in Muay Thai where when the fighters are in a clinch, they are allowed to stay there without the referees intervening.