Why Ward/Mayweather R Successful. Set Low Expectations...

[HarvardBlue]

HeadShots is one of the many clueless posters that come on here and post pure BS every day. He doesn't know much about boxing but he likes a certain type of fighters. They're usually limited fighters with a faux entertaining style. He thinks if you you're not getting punched in the face repeatedly you're not trying to please the fans. The reason Mayweather and Ward are successful is because they take their sport seriously and they value winning over entertainment no matter what fans like HeadShot think.

[nauti4life85]

HeadShots is one of the many clueless posters that come on here and post pure BS every day. He doesn't know much about boxing but he likes a certain type of fighters. They're usually limited fighters with a faux entertaining style. He thinks if you you're not getting punched in the face repeatedly you're not trying to please the fans. The reason Mayweather and Ward are successful is because they take their sport seriously and they value winning over entertainment no matter what fans like HeadShot think.

Or he's being paid under the table from boxingscene.com to generate traffic on this otherwise boring website. Think about it. Without members like headshots there would be too much logical boxing talk going on. Therefore, we need members like him to keep it entertaining around here.

[Larry the boss]

Or he's being paid under the table from boxingscene.com to generate traffic on this otherwise boring website. Think about it. Without members like headshots there would be too much logical boxing talk going on. Therefore, we need members like him to keep it entertaining around here.

hell where is my damn check then?

[Mr Objecitivity]

So when they face someone that's some offensive juggernaut, all they have to do is slow-down the pace by excessive clinching with a defensive minded approach to not give many openings.... then in a slow round, it automatically goes to them. there's this sentiment that they are winning because they got the offensive opponent to fight at their pace.


This is why offensive fighters don't age well like Pac. They could still very well win a fight with their actual skills.... but the noticeable decline in their physical attributes give the impression they are losing. Oh how come he can't blast him like he did Margarito doe?

Same emotional phenom with GGG/Jacobs. Oh he couldn't even hurt Jacobs this round. So I'll give the round to Jacobs.

They set the expectations too high. at the cost of entertaining fans and being real fighters.

It truly is unfortunate that boxing Is A Sport Judged On Emotions.

I have to agree with you on this. It's as though if a boxer has a consistent record of winning bouts by a very big margin (winning a boxing bout as quick as possible whilst inflicting maximum damage upon the opponent and whilst receiving minimum damage in return from the opponent), then when that same boxer wins a boxing bout by a slightly smaller margin (taking longer to win the bout and inflicting lesser damage), it's presumed that this boxer lost even if they actually won.

We could use similar examples from other sports. If a football (soccer) team wins every one of their matches by a 5 goal margin (5-0), but then only win 1-0 in the finals, it's presumed by some people that they lost the final even though they actually won, only because they didn't win it by a bigger margin.

Or if a basketball team wins every one of their matches by a 100 point margin, but wins the final match by only a 10 point margin, it's automatically presumed by many people that they lost, only because they didn't win by a bigger margin or by the same margin that they usually do.

It's the same case with GGG vs Daniel Jacobs. GGG didn't beat Jacobs by the same big margin as he did to other past opponents like Mathew Macklin or Ishida, but he still won the fight based on the main criteria of judging a fight. However, some people think GGG lost because he didn't win by his usual standard that he set for himself.

Because someone like Andre Ward consistently wins his fights by the smallest possible margin (taking longer to win bouts whilst inflicting relatively very little damage upon his opponents), if he were to win against Daniel Jacobs like how GGG did, those same people wouldn't be likely arguing that Andre Ward lost or Daniel Jacobs won.

Let's be honest here, did Andre Ward beat Sullivan Barrera more convincingly or more comprehensively than GGG beat Daniel Jacobs? I don't think so! However, most of those same people claiming GGG lost against Jacobs aren't likely to argue Ward also lost against Barrera as well because the standards are different for GGG and Ward. It's clear bias and inconsistency!

We have to start being consistent and apply the same standards for every boxer!

If Andre Ward doesn't have to knock an opponent out to win, then neither does GGG.

If Andre Ward doesn't have to destroy an opponent to win, then neither does GGG.

If Andre Ward is allowed to win by inflicting very little damage to his opponents, then so does GGG.

[Mr Objecitivity]

HeadShots is one of the many clueless posters that come on here and post pure BS every day. He doesn't know much about boxing but he likes a certain type of fighters. They're usually limited fighters with a faux entertaining style. He thinks if you you're not getting punched in the face repeatedly you're not trying to please the fans. The reason Mayweather and Ward are successful is because they take their sport seriously and they value winning over entertainment no matter what fans like HeadShot think.

I can't speak in behalf of that user, but from what I know, that individual has shown to like boxers who win by the biggest possible margin (winning a bout as quick as possible whilst inflicting maximum damage upon the opponent and whilst receiving minimum damage from the opponent). This requires the highest level of skill to accomplish consistently!

Mind you, Manny Pacquiao isn't the best example anymore of such a boxer. However, those other boxers include the likes of Gennady Golovkin, Sergey Kovalev, Guillermo Rigondeaux, Vasyl Lomachenko and etc.

It takes more skill to win by a bigger margin than to win by a smaller margin (taking longer to win a bout whilst inflicting lesser damage upon the opponent).

[The Tribe]

They're successful because they are superior fighters. Plain and simple.

[rickJen]

They're successful because they are superior fighters. Plain and simple.

This brotha is sensitive. He put me on ignore in his salty thread.
Calls me a Philippino.

[Metho_4u]

Or he's being paid under the table from boxingscene.com to generate traffic on this otherwise boring website. Think about it. Without members like headshots there would be too much logical boxing talk going on. Therefore, we need members like him to keep it entertaining around here.

I need to try that then

[Metho_4u]

I have to agree with you on this. It's as though if a boxer has a consistent record of winning bouts by a very big margin (winning a boxing bout as quick as possible whilst inflicting maximum damage upon the opponent and whilst receiving minimum damage in return from the opponent), then when that same boxer wins a boxing bout by a slightly smaller margin (taking longer to win the bout and inflicting lesser damage), it's presumed that this boxer lost even if they actually won.

We could use similar examples from other sports. If a football (soccer) team wins every one of their matches by a 5 goal margin (5-0), but then only win 1-0 in the finals, it's presumed by some people that they lost the final even though they actually won, only because they didn't win it by a bigger margin.

Or if a basketball team wins every one of their matches by a 100 point margin, but wins the final match by only a 10 point margin, it's automatically presumed by many people that they lost, only because they didn't win by a bigger margin or by the same margin that they usually do.

It's the same case with GGG vs Daniel Jacobs. GGG didn't beat Jacobs by the same big margin as he did to other past opponents like Mathew Macklin or Ishida, but he still won the fight based on the main criteria of judging a fight. However, some people think GGG lost because he didn't win by his usual standard that he set for himself.

Because someone like Andre Ward consistently wins his fights by the smallest possible margin (taking longer to win bouts whilst inflicting relatively very little damage upon his opponents), if he were to win against Daniel Jacobs like how GGG did, those same people wouldn't be likely arguing that Andre Ward lost or Daniel Jacobs won.

Let's be honest here, did Andre Ward beat Sullivan Barrera more convincingly or more comprehensively than GGG beat Daniel Jacobs? I don't think so! However, most of those same people claiming GGG lost against Jacobs aren't likely to argue Ward also lost against Barrera as well because the standards are different for GGG and Ward. It's clear bias and inconsistency!

We have to start being consistent and apply the same standards for every boxer!

If Andre Ward doesn't have to knock an opponent out to win, then neither does GGG.

If Andre Ward doesn't have to destroy an opponent to win, then neither does GGG.

If Andre Ward is allowed to win by inflicting very little damage to his opponents, then so does GGG.

If you think Ward was not more convincing vs Barrera that goloofkin was vs Jacobs, you have no place here.

[Metho_4u]

I can't speak in behalf of that user, but from what I know, that individual has shown to like boxers who win by the biggest possible margin (winning a bout as quick as possible whilst inflicting maximum damage upon the opponent and whilst receiving minimum damage from the opponent). This requires the highest level of skill to accomplish consistently!

Mind you, Manny Pacquiao isn't the best example anymore of such a boxer. However, those other boxers include the likes of Gennady Golovkin, Sergey Kovalev, Guillermo Rigondeaux, Vasyl Lomachenko and etc.

It takes more skill to win by a bigger margin than to win by a smaller margin (taking longer to win a bout whilst inflicting lesser damage upon the opponent).

Kovalev just got a beat down, goloofkin isn't the same fighter even vs WW brook...a step up in class is all it took for him to look ordinary.the other I'll give you, but rigondeaux has been put down several times, even in winning his fights.