Joe and Kovalev are 2 completely different fighters.
You are looking at 2 completely different fights.
Yes, Andre had a very close fight with Kovalev.
Yes, he fought 20 rounds against him. Which means what? That he couldn't have beaten Joe?
What sort of logic is that?
Andre couldn't have beaten Joe over 12 rounds, because he took 20 to beat Kovalev across 2 fights?
It's nonsense.
How about me saying: How could Joe have beaten Andre, when he struggled with Reid, Hopkins and Bika?
It's obvious that a fight between them would have been extremely difficult for both fighters. But using the fact that Kovalev out boxed him at times as some sort of evidence that Joe would have won, is nonsense. Again, Joe was out boxed by much lesser fighters.
You are looking at 2 completely different fights.
Yes, Andre had a very close fight with Kovalev.
Yes, he fought 20 rounds against him. Which means what? That he couldn't have beaten Joe?
What sort of logic is that?
Andre couldn't have beaten Joe over 12 rounds, because he took 20 to beat Kovalev across 2 fights?
It's nonsense.
How about me saying: How could Joe have beaten Andre, when he struggled with Reid, Hopkins and Bika?
It's obvious that a fight between them would have been extremely difficult for both fighters. But using the fact that Kovalev out boxed him at times as some sort of evidence that Joe would have won, is nonsense. Again, Joe was out boxed by much lesser fighters.
Comment