SkySports panel debate Ward-Kovalev

[Chrismart]

Although Nelson is often 'out-there' with his predictions, Smith is harder to read IMO. If a fighter has beaten him or one of his brothers, then he will likely back/push for that fighter from then on.

Bellew also for me. He only recently started to give props to Kovalev. Not so long ago he called him nothing special. And stuff like picking Hopkins to school him, then afterwards saying 'it is what it is, Hopkins is old.' With it really all due to the fact that he hated Cleverly and wanted to ridicule his loss to Kovalev.

I'm slightly going off tangent there anyway. Point being, for me at least, Sky is often hard to read.
I agree with their opinion of it being a close fight, and not a 'robbery' however which way you lean.
I can't really judge sky as a unbiased 'go-to' source though.
They mostly favour the Brit and American guys, hence them often being criticized on here in the past for doing so.

[IronDanHamza]

No the whole thing is conjecture.

Also I believe it was actually something closer to 70%, 73% I think was the number. 27% of ringside media thinking Ward won or drew is actually quite significant, and only 6 out of 60 thought the fight was wider than 115-112 either way, 1 for Ward and 5 for Kovlev. So that means 54 out of the 60 with media credentials ringside had the fight between 115-112 Kovalev to 115-112 Ward (39-15 respectively)...again pointing to a close decision. The punch stats - which I don't really hold that much weight to, BUT again if you look overall lands and lands by round, they point to a close fight.

If you include fighter opinions - I actually think it would swing the percentages more in Ward's favour.

People like you, who think your opinion is final or "Kovalev won, end of" to me are the just whiny little ******* to be honest. The fact that you exaggerated the statistics in your own argument to suit your opinion, also undermines your whole argument.

For me - the fight is 114-113 either way - I have actually scored it for both on different viewings. That is MY opinion, and it isn't any less valuable than yours, it also doesn't hold any more significance. But to say there is no wide variety of opinion, or no debate is ignorant - and the evidence suggests otherwise.

Perfectly put.

[Eff Pandas]

There's such a wide variety of opinion on this one. The ONLY people who are wrong are those who think their perspective is the only acceptable one.

Idk about all this. I believe its a fair opinion to say you think Kovalev won. F#ck I think Kovalev won, but I believe the margin of error on this fight leaves it possible to have Ward winning thus there isn't much discussion to be had as towards a Kovalev robbery. 90%+ of the scorecards I've seen on this fight have it decided by 2 points or less. Thats a close fight that either guy could have walked away with.

[soul_survivor]

No the whole thing is conjecture.

Also I believe it was actually something closer to 70%, 73% I think was the number. 27% of ringside media thinking Ward won or drew is actually quite significant, and only 6 out of 60 thought the fight was wider than 115-112 either way, 1 for Ward and 5 for Kovlev. So that means 54 out of the 60 with media credentials ringside had the fight between 115-112 Kovalev to 115-112 Ward (39-15 respectively)...again pointing to a close decision. The punch stats - which I don't really hold that much weight to, BUT again if you look overall lands and lands by round, they point to a close fight.

If you include fighter opinions - I actually think it would swing the percentages more in Ward's favour.

People like you, who think your opinion is final or "Kovalev won, end of" to me are the just whiny little ******* to be honest. The fact that you exaggerated the statistics in your own argument to suit your opinion, also undermines your whole argument.

For me - the fight is 114-113 either way - I have actually scored it for both on different viewings. That is MY opinion, and it isn't any less valuable than yours, it also doesn't hold any more significance. But to say there is no wide variety of opinion, or no debate is ignorant - and the evidence suggests otherwise.

No, read what I typed. I said genuine boxing publications. I'm not including rubbish like bad left hook and boxing asylum.

Oh and 27% is not a significant number when the other side of the argument is 73%