Is Andre Ward ATG?

[aboutfkntime]

just out of curiosity.....

you guys who think that Ward is not an ATG.....

..... do any of you think that Golovkin IS an ATG?

* CRICKETS *

[aboutfkntime]

right, so..... it is settled then..... Ward is just a first-ballot-HOF'er ?

albeit, a damn good one..... who, because of style..... would likely give any fighter in history 168/175 a boatload of trouble

is that right..... ?

just out of curiosity.....

you guys who think that Ward is not an ATG..... do any of you think that Golovkin IS an ATG?

[D4thincarnation]

he achieved a lot for a modern day fighter who didn't have the longest career.

Retiring undefeated is the cherry on top

No, his best clear win was Carl Froch.

Many had him losing the first fight with Kovalev, and the second fight ended with a low blow controversy.

These things don't make you a ATG.

He is a hall of famer, but not an ATG.

He could have been many big fight for him, but preferred to take retirements rather than take the big fights.

He also never traveled.

[aboutfkntime]

I don't like GGG I just think this isn't the first time Canelo has had BS scoring on his side and at this point it's not even remotely surprising to see his pathetic fanboys defend it. You're the biggest idiot on this platform. Also as I said to you multiple times now, those criteria you bring up are helpful but not the deciding factors in scoring a round of boxing. It's the punches that land cleanest and most often that counts, how could you even bother framing it another way? I know how this works. You're dense.

I am not the muppet who needs to remove 3/4 of the OFFICIAL scoring criteria to get a favorable outcome for his girlfriend, Mr Boxer

[BoloShot]

just " wow " kid.....

so, you overlooked all of the information below..... and completely ignored the judges scorecard that YOU say is proof Golovkin won.....

only to insist that casual-fanboy rubbish that you completely made up..... is more information that the official scoring criteria


"Judging a pro boxing match can be more subjective. The judges may count punches, but they also take into consideration aggression, control of the ring, control of the tempo of the fight and damage inflicted. For example, if the red boxer lands a dozen decent jabs in a round, but his opponent, the blue boxer, nails him with two hard hooks late in the round that leave the red boxer dazed and staggered, the judges could very well award the round to the blue boxer. In fact, in such a case, different judges may score the round differently."








Golovkin LOST you ***wit

1) no titles
2) no chance of breaking Hopkins record
3) no signature win on his resume'
4) no 365m deal with DAZN
5) no pride
6) egg on his face
7) lumps on his face
8) the shlttiest casual fanbase in all of boxing

I don't like GGG I just think this isn't the first time Canelo has had BS scoring on his side and at this point it's not even remotely surprising to see his pathetic fanboys defend it. You're the biggest idiot on this platform. Also as I said to you multiple times now, those criteria you bring up are helpful but not the deciding factors in scoring a round of boxing. It's the punches that land cleanest and most often that counts, how could you even bother framing it another way? I know how this works. You're dense.

[aboutfkntime]

just what we needed, another snotty-nosed casual-fan idiot..... rewriting the rules of boxing to suit his latest hypejob LMAO

[aboutfkntime]

I've seen the debates over those scoring criteria too I wasn't absent when that happened. You resoundingly lost those. You were one of the tiny group of people who used that bull**** scoring method to try and justify Canelo's bull**** wins.

just " wow " kid.....

so, you overlooked all of the information below..... and completely ignored the judges scorecard that YOU say is proof Golovkin won.....

only to insist that casual-fanboy rubbish that you completely made up..... is more information that the official scoring criteria


"Judging a pro boxing match can be more subjective. The judges may count punches, but they also take into consideration aggression, control of the ring, control of the tempo of the fight and damage inflicted. For example, if the red boxer lands a dozen decent jabs in a round, but his opponent, the blue boxer, nails him with two hard hooks late in the round that leave the red boxer dazed and staggered, the judges could very well award the round to the blue boxer. In fact, in such a case, different judges may score the round differently."








Golovkin LOST you ***wit

1) no titles
2) no chance of breaking Hopkins record
3) no signature win on his resume'
4) no 365m deal with DAZN
5) no pride
6) egg on his face
7) lumps on his face
8) the shlttiest casual fanbase in all of boxing

[aboutfkntime]

I've seen the debates over those scoring criteria too I wasn't absent when that happened. You resoundingly lost those. You were one of the tiny group of people who used that bull**** scoring method to try and justify Canelo's bull**** wins.

save it clown

you are not the first fkn idiot to log on here, and make up silly rubbish to defend your hero

you do not score " points " for defence, you dumb kid..... do you really think the judges are sitting there counting on their fingers

what a fkn idiot

they award the round to whoever they think won, based on the criteria that is sitting right in front of you

FACT: this is the OFFICIAL scoring criteria.....

* effective aggression
* clean hard punching
* defence
* ring generalship

and you saw that conversation huh.....? the conversation that you insist I "lost"..... really?

how did you do that, genius?

Steve Weisfeld says.....







and you are full-of-shlt..... you have never boxed a day in your life..... you REEK of dopey casual-fan..... just like the others

[BoloShot]

you are the dopey kid who just attempted to re-write the rules of boxing to suit his pacifist girlfriend

BoloShot, attempting to remove effective aggression, defence, and ring generalship..... as official scoring criteria..... LMAO





me, correcting his casual-fan foolishness.....

I've seen the debates over those scoring criteria too I wasn't absent when that happened. You resoundingly lost those. You were one of the tiny group of people who used that bull**** scoring method to try and justify Canelo's bull**** wins.

[BoloShot]

W

you are the dopey kid who just attempted to re-write the rules of boxing to suit his pacifist girlfriend

BoloShot, attempting to remove effective aggression, defence, and ring generalship..... as official scoring criteria..... LMAO



me, correcting his casual-fan foolishness.....

No, you don't officially score defence, ring generalship and effective aggression. Those help you avoid being hit and hitting your opponent but that's the crucial factor in this sport. You mustn't realise how you're perceived by pretty much everyone here.