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

[Mr Objecitivity]

All of this bull**** quoting is seriously giving me a headache. Clean, effective punching damage does NOT = how a fight is scored...the judges look at the fighters, who is landing the better punches that are clean and THAT'S IT!

You wrote all this long, boring **** out to defend golovkin, which is sad, and ultimately is your whole agenda.

Asking a fighter to "try harder" because his opponent doesn't mark up the same? LMAO, that is literally the dumbest ****ing thing I've seen. Not a single person who knows this sport...REALLY knows it will agree with you. By that logic, Ward should be like THE best puncher at lhw because his opponent claimed that he hit like a girl until he got his ass rocked and did the Russian shuffle.

I'm sorry, but all of your logic is completely flawed, and again, the fact that you're saying all this really in defense of golovkin is just laughable.

And LMAO again @ winning by a wide margin!!!...wtf cares? Do football teams need to do the same? I take it back, you're just a flat out idiot.

All of this bull**** quoting is seriously giving me a headache.

Not my problem!

Clean, effective punching damage does NOT = how a fight is scored

Yes, it is! EFFECTIVE PUNCHES LANDED is the main criteria when it comes to scoring / judging a boxing bout.

.the judges look at the fighters, who is landing the better punches that are clean and THAT'S IT!

It seems like you're contradicting yourself there. What is a 'better' punch? How do we determine which punch is 'better' if not by the effectiveness of a punch (which you claimed isn't how a fight is scored)?

You wrote all this long, boring **** out to defend golovkin, which is sad, and ultimately is your whole agenda.

I'm stating facts and clarifying misconceptions spread by liars / ignorant individuals. It appears that it's you who has the agenda against Golovkin which is sad.

Asking a fighter to "try harder" because his opponent doesn't mark up the same?

Well yes, a boxer should punch with more force (if they aren't already) if their weaker punches aren't already inflicting sufficient damage. It's not just about 'marking' the opponent but hurting / damaging the opponent in anyway, be it by stunning them, snapping their head / body back with landed punches and so forth.

LMAO, that is literally the dumbest ****ing thing I've seen.

Maybe because you are dumb!

Not a single person who knows this sport...REALLY knows it will agree with you.

That professional boxing is about inflicting damage? So what is it about then? Merely touching the opponent? Please feel free to enlighten everybody about what professional boxing is about.

By that logic, Ward should be like THE best puncher at lhw because his opponent claimed that he hit like a girl until he got his ass rocked and did the Russian shuffle.

No, because Ward couldn't KO Kovalev (standing stoppage from a low blow isn't a clean knockout). In addition, Andre Ward has a career 50% knockout record, which is surpassed by many other light heavyweights.

I'm sorry, but all of your logic is completely flawed,

I'm sorry, but what is 'flawed' is claiming someone else's logic is 'flawed' without being able to explain / prove how it's 'flawed'. Mere claiming it's 'flawed' doesn't cut it in an actual debate / discussion.

and again, the fact that you're saying all this really in defense of golovkin is just laughable.

My argument isn't just exclusively in defense of Golovkin but in general.

winning by a wide margin!!!...wtf cares?

Anybody who cares to rank boxers from different divisions in a P4P sense.

On it's own, it doesn't matter whether a boxer wins by a big or small margin, as long as they win. However, when two or more boxers are compared, the boxer who wins his fights by a bigger margin CONSISTENTLY against same / similar caliber of opposition should be viewed as the better boxer. Thus, the likes of Guillermo Rigondeaux, GGG and co are better boxers than Andre Ward.

Do football teams need to do the same?

No, but what I wrote above also applies to football teams.

I take it back, you're just a flat out idiot.

Perhaps that's what you are?

[Mr Objecitivity]

When is it a requirement to win a match by a wide margin? I still don't get that argument. I'll give you Russell Jr but Walters quit in the ring. He wasn't there to win. How is calling Ward a cheater a fact when he has never disqualified for cheating, he hasn't been sanctioned for cheating. He might have lost a point here or there but we can compile a long list of fighters that lost a point in a fight. I stopped reading when you added Klitschko. Surely you can't be talking about his last 3 or 4 years. If your argument is that constantly hugging an opponent is clean boxing you just made my point.

When is it a requirement to win a match by a wide margin?

When one boxer is claimed to be better than another boxer, especially from different divisions. The boxer that wins his fights by a bigger margin more CONSISTENTLY against same / similar caliber of opposition should be viewed as better than another boxer who wins by a smaller margin against same / similar opposition.

I'll give you Russell Jr but Walters quit in the ring.

It doesn't matter. He quit because Lomachenko caused him to quit. Lomachenko was winning every single round, prior to Walters quitting in a shutout victory. That's whilst taking into consideration Nicholas Walters was undefeated, prior to fighting Vasyl Lomachenko and had a 75% knockout percentage. care to explain how in the world was Orlando Salido better than Walters?

How is calling Ward a cheater a fact when he has never disqualified for cheating, he hasn't been sanctioned for cheating.

It is a 'FACT' because he performs moves that are against the rules consistently. This following video proves my argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1R8e0Ynrms

Just because the referee doesn't disqualify him for cheating when he deserves to be disqualified, doesn't mean he's innocent or isn't a cheater.

Head butting is against the rules. That's a fact! Now if a referee doesn't warn / penalize a boxer for headbutting accordingly, does that all of a sudden mean headbutting becomes acceptable and isn't considered cheating? No, it doesn't. It means the referee isn't doing his / her job properly. This is the case with Andre Ward's fights. The referees don't do their jobs properly during his fights. What's the cause of this? It's most likely due to the fact that he is an American boxer competing in USA and is one of the most hyped up boxers from USA.

Is it a surprise that Andre Ward has only fought two times outside USA? Not to me it isn't.

I stopped reading when you added Klitschko.

You can stop reading, but Klitschko has beaten many top opponents without cheating to the extent of Andre Ward.

Surely you can't be talking about his last 3 or 4 years.

Depends on which opponent, but there have been many opponents Wlad had beaten using clean boxing without cheating, at least not to the same extent as Andre Ward.

If your argument is that constantly hugging an opponent is clean boxing you just made my point.

No it isn't, but Wlad didn't have to constantly hug Ruslan Chagaev, Sultan Ibragimov, Chris Byrd, Ray Mercer and so forth so on when he beat them in lopsided fashion.

Name me one top caliber opponent Ward had beaten convincingly and un-controversially without some form of cheating as a factor to his victory? I doubt you can!

[Metho_4u]

Not my problem!



Yes, it is! EFFECTIVE PUNCHES LANDED is the main criteria when it comes to scoring / judging a boxing bout.



It seems like you're contradicting yourself there. What is a 'better' punch? How do we determine which punch is 'better' if not by the effectiveness of a punch (which you claimed isn't how a fight is scored)?



I'm stating facts and clarifying misconceptions spread by liars / ignorant individuals. It appears that it's you who has the agenda against Golovkin which is sad.



Well yes, a boxer should punch with more force (if they aren't already) if their weaker punches aren't already inflicting sufficient damage. It's not just about 'marking' the opponent but hurting / damaging the opponent in anyway, be it by stunning them, snapping their head / body back with landed punches and so forth.



Maybe because you are dumb!



That professional boxing is about inflicting damage? So what is it about then? Merely touching the opponent? Please feel free to enlighten everybody about what professional boxing is about.



No, because Ward couldn't KO Kovalev (standing stoppage from a low blow isn't a clean knockout). In addition, Andre Ward has a career 50% knockout record, which is surpassed by many other light heavyweights.



I'm sorry, but what is 'flawed' is claiming someone else's logic is 'flawed' without being able to explain / prove how it's 'flawed'. Mere claiming it's 'flawed' doesn't cut it in an actual debate / discussion.



My argument isn't just exclusively in defense of Golovkin but in general.



Anybody who cares to rank boxers from different divisions in a P4P sense.

On it's own, it doesn't matter whether a boxer wins by a big or small margin, as long as they win. However, when two or more boxers are compared, the boxer who wins his fights by a bigger margin CONSISTENTLY against same / similar caliber of opposition should be viewed as the better boxer. Thus, the likes of Guillermo Rigondeaux, GGG and co are better boxers than Andre Ward.



No, but what I wrote above also applies to football teams.



Perhaps that's what you are?

Dude, you seriously have wayyyyyyy to much time on your hands to sit, quote and do all of this.

Let me explain something to you ok?

1. Winning is winning. You can say Rigondeaux's a great fighter, but Ward just fought the top guy at lhw, he won...twice, Ward adapted, did what he needed to do, and he won. Who has Rigondeaux beaten that was an upper level fighter? Ward won the super six, Ward would absolutely OWN golovkin....assuming otherwise is just ******.

2. Your statements are hypocritical. Golovkin has made a career of fighting NOBODIES, when he stepped up, he didn't look good, and didn't win by a wide margin...yet ward fights a high level fighter and STOPS him, but that's not good enough? Ward won th e super 6 and has beaten p4p level fighters...who did golovkin beat that was p4p? Oh yeah, nobody.

3. You're still going back to taking damage in fights, but clean effective punching does NOT mean causing damage in all cases that you can see. Effective and clean means just that. Does the guy get buzzed? Hurt? Does the punch cause the other guy to change his plan? Not be able to fight his fight? By your definition, Mayweather should've lost his fights because at 147 and up he wasn't a power puncher. You spend too much time whacking off to golovkin and kovalev highlights, and not enough time looking at real skill.
4. Flawed ... as I already explained above...golovkin fights a bunch of bums and gets a bunch of KOs, he FINALLY steps up, fights Jacobs, didn't get the stoppage, didn't even win the fight by a wide margin. Thus, you claiming that he's somehow exempt from your ****** ass criteria of how YOU think a fighter should win by some wide margin. Jacobs isn't p4p, golovkin didn't win big...so why is he even on the p4p list? Jacobs has also been stopped once, and was knocked down by a feather fisted Mora...so what does that make your lame argument? FLAWED! Are you understanding that yet?

Btw...the guy you worship is a hypejob...cong****.

[KingHippo]

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.

Mayweather clutched for a grand total of 15 times during their whole fight. Do you even know what a check hook is?

[Metho_4u]

It's funny that yet again we have ANOTHER golovkin fan that's whining because Ward b1tched him, and then all of their hopes and dreams on kovalev got crushed too...NOW a guy needs to win by a wide margin to REALLY be the winner LMAO! Can you kovalev fans accept that Ward beat kovalev...twice? It's over people...gonna have to hope the next euro fighter can beat Ward lol. Watch kovalev now go downhill REALLY fast...he'll be the next Pavlik

[HarvardBlue]

When one boxer is claimed to be better than another boxer, especially from different divisions. The boxer that wins his fights by a bigger margin more CONSISTENTLY against same / similar caliber of opposition should be viewed as better than another boxer who wins by a smaller margin against same / similar opposition.



It doesn't matter. He quit because Lomachenko caused him to quit. Lomachenko was winning every single round, prior to Walters quitting in a shutout victory. That's whilst taking into consideration Nicholas Walters was undefeated, prior to fighting Vasyl Lomachenko and had a 75% knockout percentage. care to explain how in the world was Orlando Salido better than Walters?



It is a 'FACT' because he performs moves that are against the rules consistently. This following video proves my argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1R8e0Ynrms

Just because the referee doesn't disqualify him for cheating when he deserves to be disqualified, doesn't mean he's innocent or isn't a cheater.

Head butting is against the rules. That's a fact! Now if a referee doesn't warn / penalize a boxer for headbutting accordingly, does that all of a sudden mean headbutting becomes acceptable and isn't considered cheating? No, it doesn't. It means the referee isn't doing his / her job properly. This is the case with Andre Ward's fights. The referees don't do their jobs properly during his fights. What's the cause of this? It's most likely due to the fact that he is an American boxer competing in USA and is one of the most hyped up boxers from USA.

Is it a surprise that Andre Ward has only fought two times outside USA? Not to me it isn't.



You can stop reading, but Klitschko has beaten many top opponents without cheating to the extent of Andre Ward.



Depends on which opponent, but there have been many opponents Wlad had beaten using clean boxing without cheating, at least not to the same extent as Andre Ward.



No it isn't, but Wlad didn't have to constantly hug Ruslan Chagaev, Sultan Ibragimov, Chris Byrd, Ray Mercer and so forth so on when he beat them in lopsided fashion.

Name me one top caliber opponent Ward had beaten convincingly and un-controversially without some form of cheating as a factor to his victory? I doubt you can!

If a fighter says he's better than another fighter and he beats them, guess what he's the better fighter. There's no rule that the win has to be by wider margin. That's a really juvenile theory. I'm assuming you realize a head to head match between Ward and Golovkin wouldn't bode well for the latter right? Lomachenko didn't do anything special to make Walters to quit. Maybe it was a "screw you" to Arum for putting his career on pause. Again you carefully selected the victories you wanted to prove Klitschko is a clean boxer but you neglected the ones where he was doing more hugging than punching.

A fact has to be irrefutable but I'll let you keep going on with the theory that Ward is dirty. Like I said you're not the first one to be wrong about that.

Atleast make it interesting the next time you respond. You're starting to bore me with your weak attempts to make your points.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Dude, you seriously have wayyyyyyy to much time on your hands to sit, quote and do all of this.

Let me explain something to you ok?

1. Winning is winning. You can say Rigondeaux's a great fighter, but Ward just fought the top guy at lhw, he won...twice, Ward adapted, did what he needed to do, and he won. Who has Rigondeaux beaten that was an upper level fighter? Ward won the super six, Ward would absolutely OWN golovkin....assuming otherwise is just ******.

2. Your statements are hypocritical. Golovkin has made a career of fighting NOBODIES, when he stepped up, he didn't look good, and didn't win by a wide margin...yet ward fights a high level fighter and STOPS him, but that's not good enough? Ward won th e super 6 and has beaten p4p level fighters...who did golovkin beat that was p4p? Oh yeah, nobody.

3. You're still going back to taking damage in fights, but clean effective punching does NOT mean causing damage in all cases that you can see. Effective and clean means just that. Does the guy get buzzed? Hurt? Does the punch cause the other guy to change his plan? Not be able to fight his fight? By your definition, Mayweather should've lost his fights because at 147 and up he wasn't a power puncher. You spend too much time whacking off to golovkin and kovalev highlights, and not enough time looking at real skill.
4. Flawed ... as I already explained above...golovkin fights a bunch of bums and gets a bunch of KOs, he FINALLY steps up, fights Jacobs, didn't get the stoppage, didn't even win the fight by a wide margin. Thus, you claiming that he's somehow exempt from your ****** ass criteria of how YOU think a fighter should win by some wide margin. Jacobs isn't p4p, golovkin didn't win big...so why is he even on the p4p list? Jacobs has also been stopped once, and was knocked down by a feather fisted Mora...so what does that make your lame argument? FLAWED! Are you understanding that yet?

Btw...the guy you worship is a hypejob...cong****.

Dude, you seriously have wayyyyyyy to much time on your hands to sit, quote and do all of this.

Yes, I do! So what?

Dude, you seriously have wayyyyyyy to much time on your hands to sit, quote and do all of this.

I've never denied that.

but Ward just fought the top guy at lhw, he won...twice, Ward adapted, did what he needed to do, and he won.

So what? He technically lost the first fight (but was given the win officially). Second fight was filled with controversy which included fouls, illegal moves and so forth so on. Even so, what exactly is your point?

Who has Rigondeaux beaten that was an upper level fighter?

He beat Nonito Donaire more convincingly, cleanly and dominantly than Andre Ward beat any opponent. He did it without any controversy too unlike Andre Ward.

Ward would absolutely OWN golovkin

Let that bout happen in a foreign location (outside USA, Russia or Kazakhstan) and we'll see how Ward will 'own' Golovkin. I'm not going to ignore the high quan****** of illegal moves Andre Ward has to use to win every one of his big fights whilst getting away with them, which is most likely due to being a home fighter.

assuming otherwise is just ******.

So having a different opinion is ******? I'll tell you what's ******, which is to claim that something else is ****** without explaining how.

Golovkin has made a career of fighting NOBODIES

Define 'nobodies'. Nearly every boxer has fought bums / journeymen (including GGG). However, GGG has also fought and beat many top caliber opposition.

when he stepped up, he didn't look good, and didn't win by a wide margin

That's all relative! He didn't look as good as he did against lesser quality opposition (which is expected). However, he still looked more often better against top quality opposition than Andre Ward usually does against those same tiered opposition. GGG also beats bums / journeymen more by a wider margin than Ward beats bums / journeymen. GGG also more consistently beats top quality opposition by a wider margin than Ward beats top quality opposition.

yet ward fights a high level fighter and STOPS him, but that's not good enough?

No, it isn't good enough because he won through cheating in a very controversial bout. Also, such a feat is an exception for Andre Ward and not the norm.

Ward won th e super 6 and has beaten p4p level fighters

Never denied such a thing.

who did golovkin beat that was p4p?

Which so called top level fighter did Andre Ward beat outside of USA? Oh yeah, nobody.

Furthermore, Golovkin has been avoided by most of the top fighters in his division, which is the reason why he hasn't fought as many top fighters at middleweight. That's not a fault of his own.

but clean effective punching does NOT mean causing damage in all cases that you can see.

What does it mean then if not damage inflicted? How do we determine whether a punch was effective or not?

Does the guy get buzzed? Hurt?

You've just contradicted yourself. You stated in your previous statement that effective punching does not mean causing damage. Now, in the next statement above, you claim effective punching is about buzzing and hurting the opponent with punches (which is related to inflicting damage). So make your decision up. Which is it? Is effective punching determined by inflicting damage or not? If not, then how is it determined?

Does the punch cause the other guy to change his plan? Not be able to fight his fight?

These are totally unknowable / immeasurable criteria. How an earth can we know for sure if a boxer changed his plan because of getting punched? The boxer could change his plan for different reasons. There's no way to know for sure.

However, we can know for sure if a punch is inflicting physical damage such as bleeding, swelling, cuts and so forth so on. Or if a punch causes an opponents head / body to snap back. Or if a punch stuns an opponent. These are all validatable criteria. These are what constitutes as effective landed punches.

By your definition, Mayweather should've lost his fights because at 147 and up he wasn't a power puncher.

No, because by my definition, when one boxer lands more effective punches than his opponent, he wins. However, if neither are landing any effective punches or are landing the same amount, then total punches landed (including ineffective punches landed) are also taken into consideration. So in this case, the boxer who landed more ineffective punches would win.

So even though Floyd Mayweather Jr wasn't an effective puncher at 147 pounds, his opponents failed to land many effective punches on him either (which wasn't the case with Kovalev vs Ward in the first fight as Kovalev landed many more effective punches on Ward than vice versa and which isn't the case with Floyd Mayweather Jr and his opponents at 147 pounds because Floyd Mayweather Jr never got hit by as many effective punches by any of his opponents in a single bout as Ward did against Sergey Kovalev).

You spend too much time whacking off to golovkin and kovalev highlights, and not enough time looking at real skill.

Define 'skill'. To me, boxing skill is about landing more punches on the opponent whilst receiving less. Sometimes, it's also about landing more effective / damaging punches on the opponent whilst receiving fewer damaging / effective punches in return.

GGG and Kovalev have very high level skills defensively and especially offensively.

as I already explained above...golovkin fights a bunch of bums and gets a bunch of KOs

So what? Almost everyone fights bums at some point in their career (including the likes of Andre Ward). At least GGG knocks every single one of his bum type opponents out and most of them brutally. Or would you rather him go 12 rounds against bums like how Ward has done against many of his journeymen / bum type opponents?

he FINALLY steps up, fights Jacobs, didn't get the stoppage,

So what? Andre Ward couldn't get the stoppage against Carl Froch when he stepped up. Andre Ward couldn't get the stoppage against many other opponents when he stepped up. In fact, Andre Ward failed to stop many journeymen / bums like Alexander Brand. What exactly is your point?

At least GGG came closer to stopping Daniel Jacobs than Andre Ward did against many of his 'step up' opponents. Thus, even if he couldn't stop Jacobs, he still won by a bigger margin.

didn't even win the fight by a wide margin.

Compared to what exactly though? He didn't win by a bigger margin compared to some of his own previous bouts. However, he won by a bigger margin than the margin by which Andre Ward beat Carl Froch, Arthur Abraham, Alexander Brand, Edwin Rodriguez and a bunch of other opponents. GGG, even in his worst bout (against Daniel Jacobs) still won more convincingly than Ward did in his worst bout (against Sergey Kovalev during the first bout).

Thus, you claiming that he's somehow exempt from your ****** ass criteria of how YOU think a fighter should win by some wide margin.

When did I claim GGG should be exempt from that criteria?

Jacobs isn't p4p,

I don't care! P4P is totally subjective, thus irrelevant to me as I am an objective boxing analyst.

golovkin didn't win big

GGG's performance against Jacobs is an exception and not the norm. Plus, he still won by a bigger margin than most of the other boxers against similar level of opposition despite it not being his best performance.

so why is he even on the p4p list?

Again, I really could care less about P4P rankings because they are all subjective. I rank GGG as a middleweight and not in a P4P sense.

To me, the best P4P boxer is the best heavyweight (since the best heavyweight would beat any boxer below heavyweight).

Jacobs has also been stopped once, and was knocked down by a feather fisted Mora

So what? Jacobs was stopped long time ago. Meaning, it has very little relevance to the current Daniel Jacobs (who has improved since).

so what does that make your lame argument? FLAWED! Are you understanding that yet?

No, I'm not understanding it yet because I don't see how any of that makes my argument 'FLAWED'. Care to elaborate? Otherwise, it's you who is flawed.

Btw...the guy you worship is a hypejob...cong****.

I don't worship anybody. I just state it as I see it.

[Mr Objecitivity]

If a fighter says he's better than another fighter and he beats them, guess what he's the better fighter. There's no rule that the win has to be by wider margin. That's a really juvenile theory. I'm assuming you realize a head to head match between Ward and Golovkin wouldn't bode well for the latter right? Lomachenko didn't do anything special to make Walters to quit. Maybe it was a "screw you" to Arum for putting his career on pause. Again you carefully selected the victories you wanted to prove Klitschko is a clean boxer but you neglected the ones where he was doing more hugging than punching.

A fact has to be irrefutable but I'll let you keep going on with the theory that Ward is dirty. Like I said you're not the first one to be wrong about that.

Atleast make it interesting the next time you respond. You're starting to bore me with your weak attempts to make your points.

If a fighter says he's better than another fighter and he beats them, guess what he's the better fighter.

If two boxers fight each other and one boxer wins un-controversially, then the winner is obviously the better boxer between the two.

However, if we have two boxers (especially from different weight divisions) that haven't or can't fight each other, then the boxer who wins his fights by a bigger margin, more consistently against similar caliber of opposition should be viewed as the better boxer.

If me and you fight 20 common opponents and I knock every one of them out in 1 round whilst you go the 12 round distance against each of them, then who is the better boxer based on that evidence? It's obviously me! Why? Because I won my bouts against common opponents by a much bigger margin consistently.

However, if you then go on to beat me later on in a non-controversial fashion, then it's you who then becomes the better boxer between us.

There's no rule that the win has to be by wider margin.

No, there isn't any official rule. However, there isn't any official rule that is used to determine how good a boxer is in a P4P sense.

However, when one boxer wins by a bigger margin, his win is more convincing, thus better. It takes more skill to win by a bigger margin than by a smaller margin.

I'm assuming you realize a head to head match between Ward and Golovkin wouldn't bode well for the latter right?

If the bout takes place in a foreign location (outside USA, Kazakhstan or Russia), then I think GGG would win.

If Ward isn't allowed to use his typical illegal moves and is forced to compete in a clean bout, I see no reason why GGG wouldn't be the favorite to win.

Lomachenko didn't do anything special to make Walters to quit.

Yes, he did. Otherwise, you have to point out exactly which other opponent of Walters ever did what Lomachenko did to him during the fight. No other boxer won every single round in a shutout performance against Nicholas Walters in such a big margin. That in itself is 'special' because 'special' means doing something nobody else have ever did or something very few people have done.

Again you carefully selected the victories you wanted to prove Klitschko is a clean boxer but you neglected the ones where he was doing more hugging than punching.

No, I agree Wladimir Klitschko also cheats. The point was, Wlad, unlike Andre Ward has won many of his bouts (the ones I already listed) without needing to cheat as well.

On the other hand, I can't find a single bout which Andre Ward won against a top level opponent without cheating. Not one!

So I can select bouts that Wladimir Klitschko won cleanly because they exist. On the other hand, even if I tried, I am unable to select any bout which Andre Ward won cleanly (because they don't exist).

I'm not trying to prove Wlad Klitschko is a clean boxer, but that he has won many bouts against top level opposition cleanly unlike Andre Ward.

A fact has to be irrefutable

Well, it is irrefutable that Andre Ward cheats.

It is an irrefutable fact that headbutting is illegal.

It is an irrefutable fact that Andre Ward consistently headbutts and has won some of his fights because of it.

Thus, it is an irrefutable fact that Andre Ward is a cheater.

It's really as simple as that!

Like I said you're not the first one to be wrong about that.

Well, I'm not wrong! Am I wrong in stating Andre Ward headbutts? Am I wrong in claiming Andre Ward excessively clinches in many of his bouts? Am I wrong in claiming that those moves are illegal?

Perhaps think about it more deeply. If you're going to pretend that Andre Ward doesn't cheat or ignore all the illegal moves he performs, then you're just going to expose yourself as a bias fan / individual.

The video I posted is available to see. These moves Andre Ward performs are FACTUALLY illegal but he still performs them.

Just because the referee doesn't penalize him accordingly, doesn't mean he isn't guilty or doesn't deserve to be penalized.

If a person commits a murder and doesn't get arrested, does that mean they are innocent and not guilty? Of course not!

Likewise, if Andre Ward commits a foul and doesn't get penalized accordingly, then it doesn't mean he is innocent or is not guilty. It just means that the officials are incompetent / corrupted / bias.

[HarvardBlue]

If two boxers fight each other and one boxer wins un-controversially, then the winner is obviously the better boxer between the two.

However, if we have two boxers (especially from different weight divisions) that haven't or can't fight each other, then the boxer who wins his fights by a bigger margin, more consistently against similar caliber of opposition should be viewed as the better boxer.

If me and you fight 20 common opponents and I knock every one of them out in 1 round whilst you go the 12 round distance against each of them, then who is the better boxer based on that evidence? It's obviously me! Why? Because I won my bouts against common opponents by a much bigger margin consistently.

However, if you then go on to beat me later on in a non-controversial fashion, then it's you who then becomes the better boxer between us.



No, there isn't any official rule. However, there isn't any official rule that is used to determine how good a boxer is in a P4P sense.

However, when one boxer wins by a bigger margin, his win is more convincing, thus better. It takes more skill to win by a bigger margin than by a smaller margin.



If the bout takes place in a foreign location (outside USA, Kazakhstan or Russia), then I think GGG would win.

If Ward isn't allowed to use his typical illegal moves and is forced to compete in a clean bout, I see no reason why GGG wouldn't be the favorite to win.



Yes, he did. Otherwise, you have to point out exactly which other opponent of Walters ever did what Lomachenko did to him during the fight. No other boxer won every single round in a shutout performance against Nicholas Walters in such a big margin. That in itself is 'special' because 'special' means doing something nobody else have ever did or something very few people have done.



No, I agree Wladimir Klitschko also cheats. The point was, Wlad, unlike Andre Ward has won many of his bouts (the ones I already listed) without needing to cheat as well.

On the other hand, I can't find a single bout which Andre Ward won against a top level opponent without cheating. Not one!

So I can select bouts that Wladimir Klitschko won cleanly because they exist. On the other hand, even if I tried, I am unable to select any bout which Andre Ward won cleanly (because they don't exist).

I'm not trying to prove Wlad Klitschko is a clean boxer, but that he has won many bouts against top level opposition cleanly unlike Andre Ward.



Well, it is irrefutable that Andre Ward cheats.

It is an irrefutable fact that headbutting is illegal.

It is an irrefutable fact that Andre Ward consistently headbutts and has won some of his fights because of it.

Thus, it is an irrefutable fact that Andre Ward is a cheater.

It's really as simple as that!



Well, I'm not wrong! Am I wrong in stating Andre Ward headbutts? Am I wrong in claiming Andre Ward excessively clinches in many of his bouts? Am I wrong in claiming that those moves are illegal?

Perhaps think about it more deeply. If you're going to pretend that Andre Ward doesn't cheat or ignore all the illegal moves he performs, then you're just going to expose yourself as a bias fan / individual.

The video I posted is available to see. These moves Andre Ward performs are FACTUALLY illegal but he still performs them.

Just because the referee doesn't penalize him accordingly, doesn't mean he isn't guilty or doesn't deserve to be penalized.

If a person commits a murder and doesn't get arrested, does that mean they are innocent and not guilty? Of course not!

Likewise, if Andre Ward commits a foul and doesn't get penalized accordingly, then it doesn't mean he is innocent or is not guilty. It just means that the officials are incompetent / corrupted / bias.

Now you're saying Golovkin's resume is on par with Ward's? Now we're getting to the heart of the whole reason you're here. If Golovkin even thought he was a better fighter than Ward why didn't he move up and challenge him. After Ward cleaned out the 168 division he moved up and targeted the most accomplished fighter in that division. Controversial or not he beat him. There are a few fans like yourself still holding on to the idea that Golovkin is better but that camp is getting smaller everyday.

Headbutts are illegal but there are accidental fouls which has been part of the sport for awhile now. If your claim is that Ward ONLY win by cheating you can't be taken seriously because you're either biased against him or you're ignoring the other 90% of things he does very well in the ring.

Let's agree to disagree about Lomachenko/Walters. I actually like Lomachenko but the way Walters quit is suspect. Its about as suspect as Brook's corner throwing in the towel after their fighter had one bad round.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Now you're saying Golovkin's resume is on par with Ward's? Now we're getting to the heart of the whole reason you're here. If Golovkin even thought he was a better fighter than Ward why didn't he move up and challenge him. After Ward cleaned out the 168 division he moved up and targeted the most accomplished fighter in that division. Controversial or not he beat him. There are a few fans like yourself still holding on to the idea that Golovkin is better but that camp is getting smaller everyday.

Headbutts are illegal but there are accidental fouls which has been part of the sport for awhile now. If your claim is that Ward ONLY win by cheating you can't be taken seriously because you're either biased against him or you're ignoring the other 90% of things he does very well in the ring.

Let's agree to disagree about Lomachenko/Walters. I actually like Lomachenko but the way Walters quit is suspect. Its about as suspect as Brook's corner throwing in the towel after their fighter had one bad round.

Now you're saying Golovkin's resume is on par with Ward's?

Overall, yes it is roughly. However, GGG is evidently a 'better', more 'skilled' boxer because he consistently wins his bouts by a bigger margin than Andre Ward does against similar caliber of opposition.

If Golovkin even thought he was a better fighter than Ward why didn't he move up and challenge him.

Golovkin seems like a humble person who doesn't necessarily think he is better than boxers from other divisions.

I can provide the same challenge to you, by claiming if Ward thought he was a better fighter than Wladimir Klitschko, why didn't he move up and challenge him?

In other words, I'm not going by what Golovkin thinks. I'm going by what has actually happened.

There are a few fans like yourself still holding on to the idea that Golovkin is better but that camp is getting smaller everyday.

Based on consistent evidence, GGG is better!

Headbutts are illegal but there are accidental fouls which has been part of the sport for awhile now.

I know the difference between an 'accidental' foul / headbutt and an intentional one.

A rare, unusual or an uncommon foul committed by a boxer can be considered an accident. However, when a foul is committed CONSISTENTLY, over and over again by a specific boxer, then that has to be considered intentional and not 'accidental'. Someone can't foul consistently whilst it being an accident.

An accidental foul is when Roy Jones Jr unintentionally hit Montell Griffin when he was down during the heat of the moment and got disqualified. Why? Because Roy Jones jr never did such a thing again.

However, Andre Ward consistently commits fouls / illegal moves such as headbutts, excessive clinching, holding and hitting, landing punches with the illegal parts of the gloves and so forth so on. There are at least 3 former opponents of Andre Ward who have complained (Sergey Kovalev, Carl Froch and Mikkel Kessler) that Andre Ward is a dirty fighter and especially a headbutter in the ring. When such a thing happens, you have to be extremely biased, deluded and narrow minded to think Andre Ward is committing such illegal moves accidentally.

If your claim is that Ward ONLY win by cheating you can't be taken seriously because you're either biased against him or you're ignoring the other 90% of things he does very well in the ring.

So you're admitting that Andre Ward cheats for 10% of his fights and fights cleanly the other 90%?

Ignoring all of Ward's fights against journeymen / bums, every bout he has won against a top level opponent had illegal move / fouls which contributed to his win.

How about you highlight those other 90% of legal boxing moves that Andre Ward uses to win his bouts?

I actually like Lomachenko but the way Walters quit is suspect.

Lomachenko was winning every round against Walters. He quit, most likely because he didn't believe he could've won.

However, the point is whether Walters is a better boxer than Orlando Salido. Are you seriously still arguing that Orlando Salido is a better boxer than Nicholas Walters?

Its about as suspect as Brook's corner throwing in the towel after their fighter had one bad round.

If you're referring to Kell Brook against GGG, then you do realize that after the fight, Kell Brook had to have a surgery / operation on his eye socket, where his eye ball had to be removed?

Are you honestly going to argue that Kell Brook wouldn't have even more damage to his eyes had the fight continued past the 5th round (the round when Brook's corner threw in the towel)?

What exactly is suspect about throwing in the towel when the boxer who the corner threw in the towel for, had an eye operation / surgery after the bout?

I'm not sure if you're being serious with claiming Brook's corner throwing in the towel against GGG was suspect.