Kovalev's resume really isn't that good

[HarvardBlue]

Resume doesn't mean much any more. As long as the tribe you belong to think you're good is all that matters.

Kovalev is better than his resume but Ward made him look less than stellar and his conditioning got called into question.

[Beercules]

yes, they are. at least most of the people that i discuss boxing in twitter are really into it.

we also have NBA on espn and other channels too. it's very popular

Good ****

[Motorcity Cobra]

Good ****

Yep, it's a wrap tonight.

The Kardashian's are here in full force. Is this a good thing? pic.twitter.com/XiGTDZp5DM

— Jason Gibbs (@BGSUGibbs) June 10, 2017

[daggum]

People who insist that fights like that are "clear" have entirely closed minds and can't be reasoned with. The first step is accepting that it was a close fight and different people could score it different ways without being wrong.

People liked to forget that his sport, by design, has judges and isn't broken down to simple point fighting.

i can be reasoned with but you can't actually. i can post videos showing kov clearly win 7 rounds. and by clear i mean landing more and landing the cleaner/harder shots. sure what is cleaner/harder is subjective but if you are going to convince me wards punches were that then i will disagree 100 percent. so if you are going to try and convince me that the guy landing less punches, less cleanly, and frankly with a high percentage of his punches being landed while holding and hitting/low blows then no i probably can't be reasoned with since i know the rules of how to score boxing. sure if you dont know the rules you can pretend any fight is a "it could have gone either way" type of fight but if you stick to the rules you wont fall into fanboy traps of overemphasizing things that your fighter does. juts look at the punches. it was kovalev

[The Hammer]

You could make a case that Gvozdyk's resume is just as good as Kovalev's. And it's certainly not better than Stevenson's.

Andre Ward should be an option in the poll.

[All in]

People who insist that fights like that are "clear" have entirely closed minds and can't be reasoned with. The first step is accepting that it was a close fight and different people could score it different ways without being wrong.

People liked to forget that his sport, by design, has judges and isn't broken down to simple point fighting.

Very true. Scoring is subjective. It was close. I had kovalev winning. You had ward. The only people that are wrong are the ones that say it wasn't close. Props to both for rematching in a timely manner.

[Beercules]

Yep, it's a wrap tonight.

The Kardashian's are here in full force. Is this a good thing? pic.twitter.com/XiGTDZp5DM

— Jason Gibbs (@BGSUGibbs) June 10, 2017

Oh no


Steph is going to dunk

[Redd Foxx]

i can be reasoned with but you can't actually. i can post videos showing kov clearly win 7 rounds. and by clear i mean landing more and landing the cleaner/harder shots. sure what is cleaner/harder is subjective but if you are going to convince me wards punches were that then i will disagree 100 percent. so if you are going to try and convince me that the guy landing less punches, less cleanly, and frankly with a high percentage of his punches being landed while holding and hitting/low blows then no i probably can't be reasoned with since i know the rules of how to score boxing. sure if you dont know the rules you can pretend any fight is a "it could have gone either way" type of fight but if you stick to the rules you wont fall into fanboy traps of overemphasizing things that your fighter does. juts look at the punches. it was kovalev

People who are convinced that their way is the only way just collect dust as the world passes them by. 3 judges with good reputations and a hell of a lot more experience than you came to the same conclusion that I did so I'm OK with my scoring.

[daggum]

People who are convinced that their way is the only way just collect dust as the world passes them by. 3 judges with good reputations and a hell of a lot more experience than you came to the same conclusion that I did so I'm OK with my scoring.

well scoring is subjective but kovalev landed more and his punches were cleaner/harder while ward landed less and often borderline legal punches/things that were nothing more than taps to the body so you have to do some pretty strong mental gymnastics to have ward winning. you can only twist the rules so far and i understand being a fan but the substance just isnt there in this case.

good reptuations? they completely effed up the 10th which was a clear kovalev round. there is simply no way that roudn was a ward round. confirmation bias reers its ugly head over and over with your posts. the judges scored it for ward therefore they have good reputations? that was a sh-it job and you know it. oh wait scoring is subjective so any bad card is ok because you are so open minded right? pac-bradley 1 could have gone either way. canelo-floyd was really a draw. you just have to be open minded right?

[daggum]

Very true. Scoring is subjective. It was close. I had kovalev winning. You had ward. The only people that are wrong are the ones that say it wasn't close. Props to both for rematching in a timely manner.

if you give all the close or somewhat close roudns then it was a close koavlev win. if you give all the close or somewhat close roudns it was a wide kovalev win. no one disputes that but getting to 7 roudns for ward is just terrible. especially now that we can rewatch it. watching it live maybe someone can get caught up in the energy, flow, commentary but now that we can watchc it again there is no excuse for pretending ward won