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

[siablo14]

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.

well said.....

[Mr Objecitivity]

The English is his second language defense of Golovkin is getting old. He said what he said and meant it. I already said he didn't use the words "win 100%" with a KO. However, part of marketing strategy to sell him to the public was his KO ratio. When his last 2 fights didn't end in KOs, it derailed (for now) that marketing strategy. This will probably help people see him now as a boxer and take the pressure off him to KO everyone. Maybe this is good for him. No?

As far as Beterbiev, I'm a fan of his. I think he is the best at 175. His career path has been lacking because of the long lay offs. The fact of the matter is his last fight stunk. It didn't do his marketability any good. Comparing his win over Koelling to Ward's win over Brand makes no sense. The both dominated... Neither win was spectacular except that a lot of people booed Beterbiev. The reason was because the fight was boring. People expected more from him. People think all of Ward's fight is boring (I don't), so it didn't matter that it lasted 12 rounds. Boring or not. No need to analyze this any further.

Nope, it isn't getting old. English may not even be Golovkin's 2nd language. He speaks multiple other languages and only learnt English when he arrived at USA. Someone who can barely form a few grammatically correct sentences together can't be considered fluent in that language and therefore, accept their statements in that particular language to be 100% clear. If you find me any interviews where he said things in relation to this topic in his native language and what he said was accurately translated, then maybe I can accept his points as something that was clear and accurate.

Again, 'boredom' is totally irrelevant in this thread. It is totally subjective. If we both agree that Ward didn't perform any more 'impressively' or 'skillfully' against Ward than Beterbiev did against Koelling, then we are both in agreement and there's no dispute.

This thread is purely for those who take the position that Beterbiev's performance against Koelling requires discrediting whilst Ward's performance against Alexander Brand does not. I'm simply exposing double standards by some here. Perhaps you're not one of them so you are obviously discounted as a result.

[wlad1111]

I am fine with any fighter getting a decision. The only situation where I will criticize a fighter for getting a decision is when he could clearly do more but decided it would be easier to do just enough to get a decision. Assuming the fighter is not chinny and is not in any real risk of getting knocked out if he does more.

[HarvardBlue]

Nope, it isn't getting old. English may not even be Golovkin's 2nd language. He speaks multiple other languages and only learnt English when he arrived at USA. Someone who can barely form a few grammatically correct sentences together can't be considered fluent in that language and therefore, accept their statements in that particular language to be 100% clear. If you find me any interviews where he said things in relation to this topic in his native language and what he said was accurately translated, then maybe I can accept his points as something that was clear and accurate.

Again, 'boredom' is totally irrelevant in this thread. It is totally subjective. If we both agree that Ward didn't perform any more 'impressively' or 'skillfully' against Ward than Beterbiev did against Koelling, then we are both in agreement and there's no dispute.

This thread is purely for those who take the position that Beterbiev's performance against Koelling requires discrediting whilst Ward's performance against Alexander Brand does not. I'm simply exposing double standards by some here. Perhaps you're not one of them so you are obviously discounted as a result.

Actually, boredom IS relevant. No one is discrediting Beterbiev's performance. Is anyone actually saying he didn't win or he struggled?

Some people weren't impressed or was bored by the fight. I bet you some people weren't impressed or was bored by Ward's fight with Brand. You're taking exception because you're obviously a fan of Beterbiev.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Actually, boredom IS relevant. No one is discrediting Beterbiev's performance. Is anyone actually saying he didn't win or he struggled?

Some people weren't impressed or was bored by the fight. I bet you some people weren't impressed or was bored by Ward's fight with Brand. You're taking exception because you're obviously a fan of Beterbiev.

Actually, boredom IS relevant.

This thread is merely to assess the level / quality of a boxer's performance. If 'boredom' has no relevance to the quality of a boxer's performance, then it's irrelevant per the topic of this thread. So far, you haven't explained how 'boredom' has any relevance to the quality of performance. Ergo, it's irrelevant as of now.

No one is discrediting Beterbiev's performance. Is anyone actually saying he didn't win or he struggled?

Yes, here are some quotes related to Beterbiev's performances by those critiques:

this was the guy that fans on here said would give ward fits at the time? eastern european prospects/fighters always seem to be instantly overrated right from the gate. i mean every single time. don't even have to do too much for it ether.

i think even stevenson cleans his clock in 5 rounds.

beterbieve just made me looks stupid..
i thought the hype should have had a better showing..

nothing was dope about that..he got hit anytime the guy opend up as well...better keep him away from adonis and the other puncheers with longer reach and craft

That was one robotic performance by Beterbiev, Ward would had beat him easy

Among many other similar comments. Some of those criticism gives the impression that Beterbiev's performance is worse than Ward's performance against some similar level of opposition and that somehow proves Ward would beat Kovalev. When in actual fact, Ward didn't do anything better against Brand than Beterbiev did against Koelling. So how does that prove Ward beats Beterbiev or that somehow Beterbiev deserves extra criticism.

Some people weren't impressed or was bored by the fight. I bet you some people weren't impressed or was bored by Ward's fight with Brand.

'Boredom' is totally subjective. What one individual finds boring can be entertaining to another. This is an objective assessment of the performances of the boxers.

Perhaps the Beterbiev's bout against Koelling was 'boring' to some. However, is it Beterbiev's fault and does he deserve the blame when he was attacking (threw over a thousand punches) and trying to KO Koelling? That's my point!

[Mr Objecitivity]

I agree to a certain extent but it's important look at the context of those 12 rounds. Tbh, Pov, Bet and Ward all looked laboured and ultimately boring in those fights. They were difficult to watch against a level of opposition that should have been beaten inside 6.

An exciting ,entertaining 12 rounds would be GGG/Canelo or what BJS did to Lem.

BUT the people you are talking about only regard skill if it comes from people with the appropriate skin colour.

The last sentence of yours may be true. my point is that if one is being objective, then they can't claim Ward did any better against Alexander Brand than Povetkin did against Christian Hammer or Beterbiev did against Koelling. They can't claim: Beterbiev got exposed and Koelling DOE but then not also claim Ward also got exposed equally against Brand. Some were actually using Beterbiev's performance against Koelling as evidence that Ward would beat Beterbiev. Yet, they failed to also take into consideration Ward's performance against Brand to reassess the match up. In other words, they were ones sided in their criticism, analysis and evaluation.

Sometimes, some boxers can't be knocked out in a given expected period of time for various reasons. They may have good enough punch resistance to survive and / or be in survival mode to avoid get knocked out, rather than trying to win. These things have to be taken into consideration.

If a boxer actually tries to KO his opponent as Beterbiev and Povetkin tried to KO their opponents by throwing lots more punches and their opponents still don't get knocked out because they refuse to come out of their defensive posture and refuse to win, rather than looking to not get knocked out, then it's ridiculous to blame the offensive boxer for the bout being boring. Beterbiev threw around 1000 punches against Koelling. So how can Beterbiev be blamed for the bout being the way it was against Koelling?

It's one thing if a boxer doesn't even try to stop / KO his opponent, even though the opening is present. Then that boxer can be criticized. However, it's another thing if a boxer tries to KO / stop his opponent but fails because his opponent either has very good punch resistance or is ultra-defensive.

[HarvardBlue]

This thread is merely to assess the level / quality of a boxer's performance. If 'boredom' has no relevance to the quality of a boxer's performance, then it's irrelevant per the topic of this thread. So far, you haven't explained how 'boredom' has any relevance to the quality of performance. Ergo, it's irrelevant as of now.



Yes, here are some quotes related to Beterbiev's performances by those critiques:







Among many other similar comments. Some of those criticism gives the impression that Beterbiev's performance is worse than Ward's performance against some similar level of opposition and that somehow proves Ward would beat Kovalev. When in actual fact, Ward didn't do anything better against Brand than Beterbiev did against Koelling. So how does that prove Ward beats Beterbiev or that somehow Beterbiev deserves extra criticism.



'Boredom' is totally subjective. What one individual finds boring can be entertaining to another. This is an objective assessment of the performances of the boxers.

Perhaps the Beterbiev's bout against Koelling was 'boring' to some. However, is it Beterbiev's fault and does he deserve the blame when he was attacking (threw over a thousand punches) and trying to KO Koelling? That's my point!

All those crticisms are legit. It's also fair to say that his performance against Koelling didn't make him seem like a legit candidate to topple Ward because he is light years better Koelling.

If Beterbiev had scored a spectacular early KO he would've received all the credit. Why shouldn't he receive the blame if the performance was lacking. You're seriously blaming the other guy for Beterbiev's performance?

[HarvardBlue]

The last sentence of yours may be true. my point is that if one is being objective, then they can't claim Ward did any better against Alexander Brand than Povetkin did against Christian Hammer or Beterbiev did against Koelling. They can't claim: Beterbiev got exposed and Koelling DOE but then not also claim Ward also got exposed equally against Brand. Some were actually using Beterbiev's performance against Koelling as evidence that Ward would beat Beterbiev. Yet, they failed to also take into consideration Ward's performance against Brand to reassess the match up. In other words, they were ones sided in their criticism, analysis and evaluation.

Skin color has nothing to do with it. Andre Ward gets criticized more than Beterbiev, Kovalev, and Povetkin combined. There's a slew of boxing fans that attributes his entire success in boxing to illegal tactics.

Wards resume speaks volumes. If he had a bad night against Brand it was still a dominant performance. He's also had good wins against top level opponents. Beterbiev has not. If he's still fighting inferior opponents and look bad against one, it's a lot more damning than Ward having a bad night against an inferior fighter when he's beaten a lot better fighters than Brand and Koelling. Andre Ward retired undefeated. He just beat the top guy in his second weight class. Beterbiev is still fighting Koelling. Povetkin is a proven drug cheat. You're comparing apples and peanuts.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

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?

As with anything else, it's all in the eyes of the particular fan.

A Ward fan will be quicker to praise him and his style than a neutral fan or a Kovalev fan most likely.

Any fighter winning every round of a fight even against subpar opposition is impressive in and of itself certainly. These fans who bash them probably don't like them to begin with and made their minds up right off the bat. They also aren't going to change their minds no matter what. So does Beterbiev give a damn? No. Does Povetkin care? No. And every fighter worth his salt will have his fans but also his haters without question. No matter how good or likeable or talented or accomplished, every fighter who makes any noise has haters. It's a fact of the game and well, life in general.

So in closing, when someone bashes a fighter for winning every round of a fight, consider the source. That usually tells you everything you need to know.

[Mr Objecitivity]

All those crticisms are legit. It's also fair to say that his performance against Koelling didn't make him seem like a legit candidate to topple Ward because he is light years better Koelling.

If Beterbiev had scored a spectacular early KO he would've received all the credit. Why shouldn't he receive the blame if the performance was lacking. You're seriously blaming the other guy for Beterbiev's performance?

All those crticisms are legit.

Well then in this case, my criticism of Andre Ward's performance against Alexander Brand is equally legit and Ward deserves the exact same criticism for his performance against Alexander Brand as Beterbiev received for his performance against Koelling.

In fact, Ward probably deserves greater criticism because Ward failed to drop or stop Alexander Brand, despite winning every round and despite not getting hit much. On the other hand, Beterbiev likewise won every round and didn't get hit much, but at least managed to drop Koelling multiple times and managed to stop him, something Ward failed to do to Brand.

It's also fair to say that his performance against Koelling didn't make him seem like a legit candidate to topple Ward because he is light years better Koelling.

Likewise, Ward's performance against Brand didn't make him seem like a legit candidate to topple Beterbiev because he is light years better than Brand.

If Beterbiev had scored a spectacular early KO he would've received all the credit.

Likewise, if Andre Ward scored a spectacular early KO over Alexander Brand, he would've received all the credit.

Why shouldn't he receive the blame if the performance was lacking.

Fair enough. If Beterbiev should receive blame for his 'lacking' performance against Koelling, then Ward should receive greater criticism for his performance against Brand that was even more 'lacking'.

ou're seriously blaming the other guy for Beterbiev's performance?

I'm not blaming anybody. I'm questioning why someone (who is actually complaining that happens to not be me) should blame a bout to be boring on the offensive boxer who threw over 1000 punches throughout 12 rounds and not the ultra-defensive boxer who isn't even attempting to win, but only looking to survive.

One must ask the question: who is causing a boxing bout to be 'boring' if someone does find the bout to be 'boring'.

Skin color has nothing to do with it.

Maybe, maybe not.

Andre Ward gets criticized more than Beterbiev, Kovalev, and Povetkin combined.

This thread has nothing to do with who is criticized most between boxers. This thread is about why one boxer's performance be criticized more than another boxer's performance when both boxers perform equally well / bad as each other.

Also, Alexander Povetkin probably gets criticized just as much, if not more than Ward. Particulary by Americans. When the likes of Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield were blowing away the competition in the 80's and 90's, they were praised as ATG's. When Povetkin does the same to his opponents who aren't any worse than the competition in the 80's and 90's, most of those same Amero-fans aren't even going to consider rating Povetkin anywhere near as highly or equally.

The same with the Klitschko brothers. They have been the most dominant heavyweight champions in the history of boxing, compiling the best heavyweight records of all time. Yet, very few, if any of those same Amero - fans consider them anywhere near the top and would rather rank former cruiser weights like Muhammad Ali / Cassius Clay, Joe Frazier, Sonny Liston and the likes ahead of the Klitschko brothers. Those don't have anywhere near the record at actual heavyweight (when boxers weigh above 200 pounds) as good as the Klitschko brothers. In fact, none of the past heavyweights prior to Lennox Lewis do. Most of the so called 'heavyweights' prior to Mike Tyson were feasting on opponents who would be considered cruiser weights or light heavyweights today. Yet, they are somehow seen as greater than the Klitschko brothers.

The Klitschko brothers are 2 of the greatest ambassadors for the sport of boxing. They are the only 2 champions to possess PHD's. They remain professional and respectful, nearly all the time. They appear to be excellent role models for young kids all over the world.

Yet, all we hear is how they are boring. How they are robotic. How they are stiff. How they are mechanical. How they are lucky to be in a weak era (no proof provided for this in anyway). Never mind their actual results and record they have compiled. Which is the most relevant point anyway.

So please spare me your Andre Ward's victim position.

There's a slew of boxing fans that attributes his entire success in boxing to illegal tactics.

Likewise, there are slew of boxing fans who attribute Povetkin's entire success in boxing on drugs. Which is equal!

Wards resume speaks volumes.

His resume below 175 pounds is totally irrelevant. At 175 pounds, his only feat that might be considered better than Beterbiev's is beating Sergey Kovalev. Who Artur Beterbiev also beat in the amateurs two times whilst boxing within the rules, without needing to foul. You might claim: Kovalev improved since then. Well, so has Beterbiev. Apart from Ward's win over Kovalev, he was one win over Sullivan Barrera that clearly avoided Artur Beterbiev. Other than that, Ward doesn't have much accomplishments at 175 pounds that is better than Beterbiev's.

If he had a bad night against Brand it was still a dominant performance.

Likewise, if Beterbiev had a bad night against Koelling, it was also still a dominant performance.

Povetkin is a proven drug cheat.

Likewise, Andre Ward is a prove headbutting cheat, low blow cheat, holding and hitting cheat and etc.

Oh, but somehow cheating with those fouls is acceptable but being a drug cheat isn't? Right, so you pick and choose who you criticize as a 'cheat'?

You're comparing apples and peanuts.

Yup, you've exposed your fanboyism for Andre Ward and your lack of objectivity. Multiple double or more standards you've displayed.