Why do some boxers get praised for winning by decision whilst others get discredited?

[HarvardBlue]

My question is, irrespective of what a boxer's style is, why give one boxer credit for accomplishing a feat that has a specific level of difficulty (winning a bout by decision by winning every round), but not give another boxer the same credit after they accomplish this very same feat which is of the same level of difficulty?

Not being a knockout artist isn't a style. It's lack of a style. Lacking an ability to perform something isn't a style at all. Thus, Ward's inability to KO / stop opponents isn't a style but a lack of.

The same Ward fans who were criticizing Golovkin's performance against Kell Brook and Artur Beterbiev's performance against Enrico Koelling weren't applying the same criticism towards Andre Ward's performance against Alexander Brand. In what way did Andre Ward perform better against Alexander Brand than Artur Beterbiev's performance against Enrico Koelling? What rules indicate that Artur Beterbiev isn't allowed to win a boxing bout by shutout 12 rounds decision but Andre Ward is? Last time I checked, it was 'EQUAL RULES FOR EVERYBODY' or at least that's how it's supposed to be.

Who decides how a boxer should box anyway? Artur Beterbiev isn't obligated to fulfill any extra rules than Andre Ward is supposed to. They both should follow the same rules evenly. Artur Beterbiev never claimed he was a knockout artist and that he would KO every one of his opponents within 12 rounds or that he shouldn't be awarded a victory if a boxing bout that he is involved in lasts 12 rounds. So why should he be discredited for accomplishing the exact same feat as Andre Ward which Ward doesn't get discredited for?

Should we claim that Andre Ward was 'exposed' if he scores a rare knockout victory since apparently it isn't his 'style' to KO opponents, just like how it's not Beterbiev's 'style' to win by decision and just like how Beterviev would get criticized for being exposed if that were to happen?

This entire argument is a bit like two individuals performing the same exam / test where one individual expects to get 80% in their result and end up getting 80% whilst the other individual expects to get 100% but ends up getting 80% as well instead. In the end, both did equally well but the second participant gets criticized and discredited more, because their expectations were higher, despite their results being equally impressive as the other participant.

The main problem here is that boxers are being judged by expectation, rather than by their results / feats.

I get your argument but you're being completely biased. Ward gets criticized for being boring because he doesn't have a lot of KOs on his record. Mayweather gets criticized for being a runner. The arguments against Golovkin and Beterbiev are the complete opposite arguments for Ward and Mayweather. No one expected Brook to last more than a few rounds let alone him landing anything significant on Golovkin. Brook did land and people expressed their surprise. Golovkin looked vulnerable for the first time and it took a WW to do it. You don't think anyone was going to say anything about that. Beterbiev was supposed to demolish his last opponent. He didn't and on top of it the fight was incredible boring. Of course people were going to comment on it. Ward not having a high KO ratio got a pass for not knocking out an easy opponent in Brand. At the same time he was completely dominant so what would the crticism be?

I'm tired of people saying Ward fans, Golovkin fans, or Mayweather fans. You're either a boxing or you're not. I've been critical of Ward, Mayweather, and Golovkin. I'm a big fan of Lomachenko but I criticize him more than I praise him. The whole point of this site is to have discussions about boxing. It would be pretty boring if we all we did was agree on everything.

[Mr.Fantastic]

Because some have different skin color.

There I said it

Nailed it!!!

[Larry the boss]

Why does this double, triple or more of those standards exist among boxing fans? When one boxer wins a decision by shutout, winning every round in the process. They get criticized for being exposed or lacking this or that ability. Whilst when other boxers accomplish this exact same feat. They are credited and praised for displaying 'high level boxing skills'.

An example of this would be Artur Beterbiev taking 12 rounds to stop Enrico Koelling. Despite Beterbiev winning every round comfortably until the 12th where he eventually dropped and finished off Koelling. Some of the fans are discrediting Beterbiev for apparently being 'exposed' or 'not being good enough' or 'lacking x, y or z ability'. Another similar example is Alexander Povetkin beating Christian Hammer by shutout 12 rounds decision and ends up being discredited similarly to how Beterbiev was discredited by those fans after his win over Koelling.

Yet, when Andre Ward beats someone like Alexander Brand or Sullivan Barrera by decision. It somehow apparently shows Andre Ward is such a 'skilled boxer' with such 'high level boxing abilities', according to those same fans discrediting decision victories of Beterbiev and Povetkin. Even though Andre Ward pretty much accomplished the same feat as the other two boxers?

Why do these multiple standards exist for different boxers? Why can't every boxer be judged / evaluated by the same standard?

seems like you are making up an argument

[Larry the boss]

I think a better example would be Golovkin. You know that's what you were getting at, why not just say it? He was billed as an unstoppable monster with a near perfect KO ratio. Danny Jacobs was supposed to be chinny and was expected to get demolished in a few rounds. Golovkin's team and fans held him to a different standard. When it went 12 rounds not only did the critics say he was exposed but the excuse from his fans was that he was old. Everyone knows Ward or Mayweather are not KO artists. No one hold them to the same standards as fighters like Golovkin, Kovalev, or even Beterbiev. When Stevens went 12 rounds with Fonfara he was supposedly exposed. No one made any excuse that he was old.

spot on, they did it to themselves

[Floyd is TBE]

Yeah, no. A better question would be why is Loma getting so much credit for beating Rigo? If that had been a PBC or Mayweather Promotions fighter the Top Rank and HBO shills would be in full damage control mode doing whatever they could to downplay a win over a much smaller and older fighter. I'm not even try to hate, but if that was Tank in Loma's place all we would have heard about is how old Rigo is, how small he is, how mediocre his resume is. But Loma beats Rigo and fat Dan Rafael's is not only comparing him to the greatest fighters of all time, but saying Loma would beat them.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Let's look at it like this.

Fighter A goes years knocking out everyone in their path. All of a sudden and seemingly at random, they start going the distance against lesser fighters. They're going to be judged negatively, because they're not doing what they are expected to be doing.

Fighter B goes for years stopping everyone in their path. All of a sudden, we hear about specific physical injuries that affect their ability to stop or knock out fighters. They start going the distance against higher ranked opposition. They're going to be judged positively, because they adapted to the physical injuries.

Wilder to this day gets criticism from fans for going the distance against Stiverne despite having torn muscles and a broken hand - his power hand. But those who understand boxing give him the benefit of the doubt, and he crossed the T with the rematch he didn't want.

You take a guy like PEDvetkin brutally knocking out guys, all of a sudden going the distance against a guy who couldn't normally lace his jock and it's suspect - no reason given, no logic. He will be criticized.

Crawford. He's gone the distance in some fights, but recently he's been knocking out fighters. If he goes the distance against Jeff "The Hornet" Horn, he will be criticized.

Spence. He's knocked out his last 7 opponents, 5 of which had never been stopped. If he goes the distance in his next fight he will be criticized.

This is why I say that fighters shouldn't let the fans guide their career. They want to see consistency, and as you get older, that's harder and harder to keep up with.

[Madison Boxing]

Unfortunately that's how it is with power punchers. As soon as they don't blow.someone out early then they are 'exposed' and often there opponent deserves the decision as default. Jacobs golovki n is most notable example

[Curt Henning]

between pawysako, or whatever his name is, and mrs objectvitiy there is some real idiocy being displayed in this thread...like HOF levels

[just the facts]

Unfortunately that's how it is with power punchers. As soon as they don't blow.someone out early then they are 'exposed' and often there opponent deserves the decision as default. Jacobs golovki n is most notable example

Bu!!shyte, it's all about level of competition. Your hero (GGG) bowls over a **** ton of 2nd and 3rd rate fighters and fanboys like you start claiming him as an ATG and TBE. Don't deny, you did it over and over. When GGG finally stepped up to fight top completion (Jacobs, Canelo) he struggled. Yes, he won or at least should have, but he hardly looked like an ATG or as you used to post, "the greatest mw born from his mother".

In hindsight, it's easy to see why team GGG ducked Ward

[Mr Objecitivity]

I get your argument but you're being completely biased. Ward gets criticized for being boring because he doesn't have a lot of KOs on his record. Mayweather gets criticized for being a runner. The arguments against Golovkin and Beterbiev are the complete opposite arguments for Ward and Mayweather. No one expected Brook to last more than a few rounds let alone him landing anything significant on Golovkin. Brook did land and people expressed their surprise. Golovkin looked vulnerable for the first time and it took a WW to do it. You don't think anyone was going to say anything about that. Beterbiev was supposed to demolish his last opponent. He didn't and on top of it the fight was incredible boring. Of course people were going to comment on it. Ward not having a high KO ratio got a pass for not knocking out an easy opponent in Brand. At the same time he was completely dominant so what would the crticism be?

I'm tired of people saying Ward fans, Golovkin fans, or Mayweather fans. You're either a boxing or you're not. I've been critical of Ward, Mayweather, and Golovkin. I'm a big fan of Lomachenko but I criticize him more than I praise him. The whole point of this site is to have discussions about boxing. It would be pretty boring if we all we did was agree on everything.

You make a good point! I agree that the criticism about a boxer being 'boring' is just as inappropriate as having an uneven standard for one boxer over the other. If a boxer is boring but is boxing within the rules without fouling, then they have every right to box the way that is suitable for them, irrespective of whether specific individuals find them boring or not.

'Boredom' is a subjective opinion whilst winning bouts is an objective accomplishment of boxing. If one finds a boxer boring, the simple solution is to not watch that boxer's bouts instead of watching and then complaining that the said boxer is boring.

The only time a legitimate complaint can be made is when a boxer is legitimately fouling or breaking the rules whilst his opponent isn't able to retaliate to even the playing field. That has nothing to do with 'boredom' but everything to do with 'unfairness' to one boxer over the other.

However, this thread is not related to boxers being called 'boring' or 'runners'. This thread is specifically about double standards existing among boxing fans. I never made any mention specifically about Andre Ward fans, Golovkin fans, Mayweather fans and etc. This is the reality within the boxing community in general.

My point is, why should a boxer be evaluated by expectation rather than actual feat and accomplishment? Who cares what fanatics or fanboys claim about their expectation of what their favorite boxer is going to do? If a fanatic claims their favorite boxer is a monster and that boxer doesn't show any signs of being a monster but still wins his bout within the rules, why should that boxer be criticized for not being a monster, even though he won his bout fair and square? If anybody is to be criticized, then it's those fanatics / fanboys, not the boxers themselves.

You'd have a point if the boxers themselves state they are going to do this or that, setting a high expectation of themselves and then failing to match that expectation. Criticism is justified then. In the case of Artur Beterbiev, he never claimed he was a monster. Nor did he ever claim he was going to KO every opponent he would ever face. At least not to my knowledge. Hence, why should he be criticized for going 12 rounds against Enrico Koelling, but the same criticism isn't applied to Andre Ward BY THOSE SAME FANS when Ward went 12 rounds with an opponent who is of the same caliber in Alexander Brand? That's the definition of DOUBLE STANDARD and NON-OBJECTIVITY. Equal standards and rules should apply to everyone in order for credibility to be maintained.