Why does Andre Ward have lower number of wins by knockouts stoppages compared to GGG?

[Mr Objecitivity]

Ward wasn't even a full year pro when he fought Boone in 2005. Why you cherry picking?


Lemieux fought Rios in 2016.
Jacobs got dropped by Mora in 2015.
Both men are in their primes. That's the difference.

Jack is a SMW/LHW. They hit significantly harder than MW's. Having a 70% KO ratio at 160 does not mean you hit as hard as a guy that has a 70% KO ratio 1 division higher.

Canelo has a 65% KO ratio and couldn't stop Zombie Chavez at 164 but you know who could? Fonfara with his 49% KO ratio at 171.

Middleweights almost never carry their power, they lose all their physical advantages when they move up. Abraham didn't carry his power, Miranda didn't, Green didn't, etc.

Miranda is on par with Jacobs, he would never get KO'd by Alcine or Rubio. Same with Rodriguez and Brand, all on par with Daniel Jacobs.

'Cherry picking' is what you're doing. Any time you go by a rare, single event is considered 'cherry picking'. It doesn't matter whether it was 2016, 2015, 2000. The fact of the matter is, Daniel Jacobs and David Lemieux don't suffer from those things on a consistent basis. You will have to be extremely 'cherry picking' to assume that those (EXTREMELY RARE VERSIONS) of both are going to be present if they fight Andre Ward, rather than the more consistent versions of both at times when they didn't get stunned. I prefer looking at the COMMON feats of boxers to infer something, rather than rare, one time or two time feats.

I didn't claim that boxers from heavier divisions don't punch harder than lighter boxers. That is common sense! However, a power puncher at 160 pounds isn't guaranteed to be a lighter puncher than a featherfist at 168 / 175 pounds like an Andre Ward or a Badou Jack. Sure, if you compare a power puncher at 160 pounds (David Lemieux or Daniel Jacobs) to a power puncher at 175 pounds (Artur Beterbiev or Sergey Kovalev), then it's a different thing where the 175 pound boxers should be assumed to be more powerful punches. That isn't the case with Andre Ward or Badou Jack, since neither are 'power puncher's in their division like Kovalev or Beterbiev whilst Lemieux and Jacobs are in their own weight division.

Also, you still haven't answered my questions about how the likes of Daniel Brand are any better than the likes of Martin Murray. Gennady Golovkin stopped Martin Murray when he was previously Un-KO'ed whilst being outweighed. On the other hand, Andre Ward failed to stop Alexander Brand whilst he outweighed Alexander Brand and Alexander Brand was also Un-KO'ed. The 'better quality of opposition' excuse doesn't apply when Ward himself failed to KO many opponents that Golovkin has been knocking out consistently. At least Golovkin knocks out nearly every opponent at the caliber of Alexander Brand (like Martin Murray). On the other hand, Andre Ward goes 12 rounds more frequently against those similar level of opposition which GGG rarely does. In other words, Golovkin knocks out nearly every one of his inferior level of opposition. Andre Ward doesn't!

[Mr Objecitivity]

You really can't see the problem with your logic here?

Here lets use sets and elements to illustrate;

KO related to offensive skill as
KO skills are a member of this set {offensive skills} so we may have a set of Offensive skills {KO, outpointing an opponent, dominating an opponent with combos, etc}

the converse the opposite is not a set: {KOing an opponent} which might consist of {technical KO, KO, Stoppage, etc} Offensive skills is not an element of this set. That is simply illogical it is like the following converse:


black birds with one wing are part of the set of black birds...
birds with one wing are not part of the set of Black Birds by nature of having one wing. Because its logical to say all black birds, including one winged ones can be a black birds but there is nothing about "Blackness" that makes one winged birds automatically part of the set.

So to make KOing an opponent part of a set of Offensive skills you then proceed to logically hypophocate a negative: "well a fighter should KO an opponent to show offensive skill". You see how what you are doing is fundamentally illogical? My last attempt here lol. Again I can say Catfish Hunter was a great pitcher and so was Nolan Ryan... I can even say one guy was better than the other but I cannot say that because Ryan has more strikeouts he is a better pitcher than Hunter!

I don't understand most of what you wrote. Mainly because, I'm not familiar with some of the analogies you used. I don't watch baseball so I haven't got a clue what that baseball analogy was supposed to imply.

Anyway, to me it is pretty simple:

Objective of offense in boxing is to land the most effective punches (punches that KO / stop the opponent or inflict most amount of damage upon the opponent).

The boxer who has the highest number of knockouts / stoppages or who inflicts more damage on his opponents more frequently compared to anybody else = the best offensive boxer.

It really is as simple as that!

[Mr Objecitivity]

Calm down dude, no one is commanding you. Are you sure you're up for this debate? Anyway, the Kovalev fight was just one example. You can pick any of his fights and see how good his offense skills is. Lemieux is a very basic fighter. He throws everything at a 100%. His defense is horrendous and his offense is very predictable. That's why Golovkin had no issues avoiding his punches. And yes Golovkin's defense is not good. It's not David Lemieux bad but it's a liability. Keep living in Golovkin's fantasy unstoppable monster world if you don't believe me. Ward knows how to vary his attack so it's harder to time him. He takes a little off his punches to conserve energy and also mix up his attacks. Those are offensive skills. Again, if you're so infatuated with KOs, there are plenty in the MMA. You obviously having a hard time distinguishing between boxing skills and shiny, flashy KOs.

Golovkin's defense is bad compared to whom? You're gonna have to be a little more specific than just "Golovkin's defense is bad doe" because even Floyd Mayweather Jr's defense is bad when compared to specifically a few rare boxers.

All of those other things you've mentioned are subjective and either irrelevant or marginally relevant. Things like 'punches like a caveman' aren't as important as the actual statistical record. Record = fact. Fact = David Lemieux has knocked out more opponents in total than Ward. Fact = Lemieux has a higher knockout percentage than Ward. Fact = offensive skills = ability to land the most effective punches (punches that knock opponents out or inflict the most damage upon them). Ergo, statistically, factually and according to actual records (things that ultimately matter the most), David Lemieux has better offense than Andre Ward.

If Lemieux "punches like a caveman" but still knocks out more opponents, then he is still the better offensive boxer with better offensive skills. What matters most are the results. Provided the results are achieved legally, how it's done is totally irrelevant.

[Mr Objecitivity]

hahaha

no

but Miranda Kessler Bika Abraham Froch Dawson Barrera Kovalev..... are way better than Nunez Fuchigami Ishida Adama Monroe Wade..... right?

don't compare resume's, seriously

also, Ward only has 1 *, which he avenged..... GGG has 2

Perhaps actually read my original post properly so that you can quit attacking strawman's? You don't look like you even understand the comparison that is being made in this thread.

[Mr Objecitivity]

but Dawson, Kovalev(2), Froch, Abraham, and Kessler are. Miranda was a DANGEROUS puncher. Abraham beat Murray and Miranda only had 1 loss when he fought Ward. Now Miranda wasn't some world class fighter, but neither are any of the guys you named either. Froch, kessler, and Kovalev beats the holy hell out of anyone GGG has fought.

Again, I'm having to repeat myself. Reread the original post. I clearly stated the following:

against similar level of opposition.

Ergo, Dawson and the likes don't count, since they don't fall under the category of my above statement.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Or just maybe he has faced better opposition than ggg...

Yes, if we compare the best opposition of both. However, that wasn't what this thread was about. Read the original post (OP), which clearly states the following:

against similar level of opposition.

Do you actually understand what that statement means? The comparison is only to do with similar level of opposition of both. Those better opposition aren't part of the comparison.

[HarvardBlue]

Golovkin's defense is bad compared to whom? You're gonna have to be a little more specific than just "Golovkin's defense is bad doe" because even Floyd Mayweather Jr's defense is bad when compared to specifically a few rare boxers.

All of those other things you've mentioned are subjective and either irrelevant or marginally relevant. Things like 'punches like a caveman' aren't as important as the actual statistical record. Record = fact. Fact = David Lemieux has knocked out more opponents in total than Ward. Fact = Lemieux has a higher knockout percentage than Ward. Fact = offensive skills = ability to land the most effective punches (punches that knock opponents out or inflict the most damage upon them). Ergo, statistically, factually and according to actual records (things that ultimately matter the most), David Lemieux has better offense than Andre Ward.

If Lemieux "punches like a caveman" but still knocks out more opponents, then he is still the better offensive boxer with better offensive skills. What matters most are the results. Provided the results are achieved legally, how it's done is totally irrelevant.

I don't have to compare him to anyone, his defense is not that good. He doesn't move his head. He doesn't anticipate counters when he is engaged in his own offense. He literally stops and resets when he gets hit. His transition between offense and defense is basic. I can go on and on.

I think you're convoluting KOs with offense. I'll give you an example. Chocolatito is a better offensive fighter than Rungvisai. However, Rungvisai hit's a lot harder, is more durable, and can stay in the pocket and trade punches. Rungvisai was able to do a lot of damage in two fights (including a stoppage) against a fighter that was a better overall fighter than he was. Incidentally Rungvisai is a much better offensive fighter than Lemieux and hits just as hard or harder for his weight class. Lemieux does basically the same offensive move over and over. He's "heavy" handed and throws hard shots every single time. For his size, that's a recipe for a good KO fighter. If you have decent skills, it's easy to negate his offense because it's so basic. Like I said, Golovkin was able to avoid most of his hard shots because he was so predictable. Two fights later, he's getting hit by a lot of shots from Jacobs and Canelo, not to mention walking into heavy shots from a career WW.

Lemieux has a high KO percentage for the reasons I gave above but that doesn't make him a good offensive fighter. I can understand why you would defend Golovkin even though I disagree but now you're going out on limb defending Lemieux.

[Mr Objecitivity]

I don't have to compare him to anyone, his defense is not that good. He doesn't move his head. He doesn't anticipate counters when he is engaged in his own offense. He literally stops and resets when he gets hit. His transition between offense and defense is basic. I can go on and on.

I think you're convoluting KOs with offense. I'll give you an example. Chocolatito is a better offensive fighter than Rungvisai. However, Rungvisai hit's a lot harder, is more durable, and can stay in the pocket and trade punches. Rungvisai was able to do a lot of damage in two fights (including a stoppage) against a fighter that was a better overall fighter than he was. Incidentally Rungvisai is a much better offensive fighter than Lemieux and hits just as hard or harder for his weight class. Lemieux does basically the same offensive move over and over. He's "heavy" handed and throws hard shots every single time. For his size, that's a recipe for a good KO fighter. If you have decent skills, it's easy to negate his offense because it's so basic. Like I said, Golovkin was able to avoid most of his hard shots because he was so predictable. Two fights later, he's getting hit by a lot of shots from Jacobs and Canelo, not to mention walking into heavy shots from a career WW.

Lemieux has a high KO percentage for the reasons I gave above but that doesn't make him a good offensive fighter. I can understand why you would defend Golovkin even though I disagree but now you're going out on limb defending Lemieux.

Actually, yes, you do have to compare him to someone because terms like 'bad defense' don't mean anything on their own. They're simply relative terms.

All of those things you mentioned, are flat out false about what makes his defense bad. He was countering Canelo's counter punches and neutralized Canelo's counter punching tactics. He does move his head and he does have good transition between offense and defense (it has to be, since he is a pressure fighter). On the front foot as pressure fighters / knockout artists, very few boxers have a better defense today than Golovkin.

Actually yes, if the records suggest that Rungvisai has better 'offensive skills' than David Lemieux and Roman Gonzalez, then he does. Simple as that! Records are facts! All of those other points you've mentioned are eithe claims that are subjective, irrelevant, unsubstantiated or combination of those things.

The best offensive feat is knocking an opponent out. Ergo, the boxer with the highest knockout quantity / percentage in their own weight division against similar level of opposition has to be deemed the better offensive boxer than anybody else with a lower knockout quantity / percentage from the same weight division or other weight divisions.

[HarvardBlue]

Actually, yes, you do have to compare him to someone because terms like 'bad defense' don't mean anything on their own. They're simply relative terms.

All of those things you mentioned, are flat out false about what makes his defense bad. He was countering Canelo's counter punches and neutralized Canelo's counter punching tactics. He does move his head and he does have good transition between offense and defense (it has to be, since he is a pressure fighter). On the front foot as pressure fighters / knockout artists, very few boxers have a better defense today than Golovkin.

Actually yes, if the records suggest that Rungvisai has better 'offensive skills' than David Lemieux and Roman Gonzalez, then he does. Simple as that! Records are facts! All of those other points you've mentioned are eithe claims that are subjective, irrelevant, unsubstantiated or combination of those things.

The best offensive feat is knocking an opponent out. Ergo, the boxer with the highest knockout quantity / percentage in their own weight division against similar level of opposition has to be deemed the better offensive boxer than anybody else with a lower knockout quantity / percentage from the same weight division or other weight divisions.

If the only factual statement you can make to support your argument is a KO record then why are we even having this discussion. All you had to say was "higher KO quantity/percentage". By your analogy, Rigondeaux "offensively" should beat the snot out of Lomachenko because he has more KO's than Lomachenko has fights. Oh let me guess Lomachenko has more "quittage" in the division.

By your analogy, David Lemieux with his 33 KOs in 38 fight is a much superior offensive fighter than Mayweather with 27 KOs in 50 fights.

Every time I try to give you a little credit for this being a worthy debate you go and say something dumb.

Ergo, you're wasting my time again.

[Metho_4u]

What a stupid ****ing thread....smh