Ward vs Kovalev - Who've you got?

First topic message reminder :

I can’t let a fight as big as this weekend pass without a thread asking for folks thoughts. For me this is one of those odd fights that I am looking forward to enormously but suspect might well fail to ignite. I suspect intriguing rather than exciting may accurately describe it. Got to say since this has been announced I have been picking Ward. I rate both of them highly but just think Ward is a special talent, a lot more rounded and like Mayweather one with an exceptional ability to shut opponents down and neutralise them.
 
That being said Kovalev is no underdog or no hoper, this is a genuinely close fight, and one in which you can make an argument either way. Whilst people rightly wax lyrical about Kovalev’s power his boxing ability should not be underplayed, few since Jones have solved the numerous riddles Hopkins poses so effectively. Also he is a natural big hitting light heavy, something Ward has never faced, whilst his defence has always looked solid at super middle he is not completely unhittable. Froch had his moments where he was able to land, so one would assume Sergey will be able to do likewise. How Ward stands up to that is one of the big questions in this one.
 
Also whilst Ward is hardly an old man his career post Super six has had more stops and starts than me attempting to run a marathon. Being in the ring with Kovalev would not be a place I would want to be blowing off a dose of ring rust. Despite that, I still think Ward will be victorious, he is smart at tying up/holding on the inside and fast enough that he will score with plenty when the fight is at range. If the ref is pretty easy going when it comes to his holding inside, and thus far he has tended to get away with it, I think he will secure the win on points.
 
All of this almost certainly guarantees you can put your house on Kovalev, but irrespective of the outcome I cannot wait for this fight. A genuine talent moving up to take on the best the division above him has to offer, this is the sort of fight the sport needs more of.

milkyboy wrote:My card having now watched the 6th and 7th.

10-9
10-8
9-10
10-9
9-10
10-9
9-10
9-10
10-9
9-10
10-10

115-114 kovalev

A lot of close rounds, you're going to get a wide discrepancy of cards, without the scorer necessarily being incompetent.

I gave Kovalev 9th and 12th

But yeah, its damn close

I still think what Ward was doing has to be border line illegal

Fighting on the inside is one thing, holding your opponents arm and hitting him is another

Must add though that had the score been say 117-111 Kovalev I would have seen the case for it, but I think 114-113 Ward was literally the best result I could happily accept for Ward. Suppose just a long winded way of agreeing with what has been said, Kovalevs rounds were clear Wards were VERY close.

milkyboy wrote:Nice of you to drop by and tell everyone how to score a fight.

Sorry, i'd just read a lot of tripe and got a little carried away. The point remains though, I can't fathom how people scored it for Ward and Kovalev was against it from the start given his nationality and the nationality of the judges.

After seeing your card, it makes sense if people scored for Ward (albeit controversial), but I kept away from 10 - 10 rounds as I find it hard to score both fighters a 10.

As said before, all the boxers gave the fight to Ward. I thought Kovalev, but common sense tells me to take on board the opinions of professionals.

Imagine if Ward had wobbled Sergy with a jab then dropped him clean and Sergy getting the nod without coming back to hurt Ward...

Be hell to pay..

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Ok, just stop. I get that some people want to defend their predictions and that some people are completely and utterly blinded by patriotism but lets look at this rationally. Most of you didn't watch this live. If you did, you'd have commented more here. You didn't - meaning you probably found out the result and then watched the fight with that in your mind.

Ward lost 1 - 4. He got knocked down too. Meaning that the scorecard at that point was 40 - 35. I gave 4 to Ward personally, because I felt like he showed true grit and heart to fight back, but realistically the round should have gone to Kovalev if you're unbiased and go by activity. The proper fightback started in the 5th, and you can give that to Ward. Then 6, 7 and 8 because he was just spoiling and landing the better shots. So that makes the scorecard 76 - 75 to Kovalev. You can toss a coin over 9, so at that point you can have it evens or you can have it for Kovalev. I had it 86 - 84. Still Ward behind. Then 10, if you've scored that for Ward then you need to reassess your hobby, because you don't know what you're seeing. 11 and 12 should have gone to kovalev for actually wanting to fight too, the last round was clearly his. Meaning the final scorecard was (for me) 116 - 111. If you go by me giving Ward the 4th generously and the flip a coin 9th, you've got 114 - 113 to Kovalev. Thats generous to Ward.

To have it any other way is ridiculous. lets face it though. World championships on the line, Russia vs America.

Where's it held?

America.

What nationality are the judges?

American.

Poor Kovalev didn't have a hope in hell.

I think that's a good point ref: scoring live. If you go in thinking one man will do poorly, you'll probably (maybe subconsciously) start overestimating the good stuff they do.

I also had Ward five points down after five - to a murderous puncher who'd already floored him. From Ward to win from there would have been one of the greatest comebacks in boxing history. Did it feel like that? Did you feel like you'd witnessed a miraculous comeback on the final bell?

I don't think so.

I may have had it wider than most but I scored as I saw it and even when Ward got himself into rounds, you'd have to give him the benefit of the doubt to score his way as he made it so difficult for you to do so. I score - mainly - on who's controlling the action. Usually that's the more positive fighter (when neither are doing much of note). Kovalev always seemed in control - aside from a few of the middle rounds when Ward messed his timing up. But Kovalev fought like the champion in the final quarter (and I gave him all three rounds).

aja424 wrote:As said before, all the boxers gave the fight to Ward. I thought Kovalev, but common sense tells me to take on board the opinions of professionals.

Very rarely do ex-fighters show good insight (which is unusual considering they were once in there).

Good to see you back, Jabby. We need to get some of the old AWOL posters back as this place has been a bit dead for the last year or so.

Let me clarify my 'straw man argument' comment from yesterday concerning the judges. Perhaps not the best choice of words there by me!

I certainly think that the nationality of judges and the venue in which they're judging a fight CAN, at times, be a legitimate reason to question a verdict which seems totally at odds with what most people saw. Take a look at the Gorres-Darchinyan fight a few years back as a prime example (in my eyes, anyway) of that.

However, in this specific case, I don't think that kind of cynicism should be the go-to stance, just as I didn't agree it should have been for Dirrell-Froch, another close one which has often been given an undeserved narrative of Froch getting a dodgy decision in his favour purely because he was fighting in Nottingham, when the reality is that it was just a super-close fight where two of the judges just happened to go with Carl.

In my opinion, Ward edging the fight by a 114-113 margin was not an unreasonable score. I'm not an American being influenced by nationality or the crowd (by the way, while I didn't watch it live, I managed to avoid the result until about mid-day on Sunday when I got round to watching it, so did so without knowing the result, and with the sound off during rounds which I tend to do for a few reasons). I felt Ward won the fight very, very narrowly by virtue of the vagaries of the ten-point-must system as much as anything else, as I said yesterday. Going by the comments on this thread, plenty of other observers felt the same way, even if they're in a slight minority.

So you don't have to be an American being influenced by the crowd, or sensitive to who's getting paid more, to score it narrowly for Ward - that's my point. I'm of the opinion that had the judges been a Brazilian, a Chinese man and a Mexican, all three of them scoring it 114-113 to Ward wouldn't be unthinkable. If all three judges had given it to Ward by four, five, six rounds or whatever, I'd understand. But the basic premise of Ward nicking it isn't some obscure minority view judging from the reaction I've seen so far, so I don't see how the judges scores can automatically be discarded.

Yes, I disagree with all three of them giving the tenth to Ward, just as I disagree with a few of the posters on here who did likewise. Had they scored that round to Kovalev, it's him running out with the narrow UD. But that's the thing - I would have been fine with that, even if it did disagree a little with my card. It was just a super-close fight, for me.

Calling it a robbery, as someone else has pointed out earlier in this thread, does a disservice to fights which actually were highway jobs and the unlucky fighters who were on the wrong end of them.

If former fighters like Paulie are anything to go by, you should totally disregard anything they say

Paulie had a shocker behind the mic, he has actually made Sky even worse

aja424 wrote:As said before, all the boxers  gave the fight to Ward. I thought Kovalev, but common sense tells me to take on board the opinions of professionals.

I don't mind Johnny Nelson as a pundit but he predicted a Ward  ko when that was the consensus least likely outcome (sorry to use Johnny as an example when there are so many other countless examples of boxers getting it wrong) so to say all the boxers gave it to Ward is just a sound bite and suits your argument no offence

BoxingFan88 wrote:If former fighters like Paulie are anything to go by, you should totally disregard anything they say

Paulie had a shocker behind the mic, he has actually made Sky even worse

He would have been doing well to outdo Kellermen - Jesus wept he was deplorable (Lampley did well to try and keep him in line).

Ex-fighters don't show good insight? Is that because they don't agree with people who watch boxing on tv?

aja424 wrote:Ex-fighters don't show good insight? Is that because they don't agree with people who watch boxing on tv?

In my experience, ex-fighters can't pick a fight, call a fight (very well) or analyse a fight that well after the event. Unless you have any alternative examples (Malignaggi is usually good these days, as is Barry Jones but for every one of those there are 10 who talk nonsense)?

Look at HBO/Showtime over the years: Leonard, Foreman, Lewis etc. were consistently poor. Larry Merchant could sum a fight up in a single sentence with clarity and genuine insight (as he did Saturday by the way, despite his ailing health).

The problem with Malignaggi is: he's a huge Ward fan (as is Kellerman). It's very difficult when someone like that leads the commentary, as they tend to spin the narrative.

Look at Paul Smith covering Matchroom/Gallagher cards - that's an obvious conflict of interest (but he'll never pick against Crolla).

aja424 wrote:Ex-fighters don't show good insight? Is that because they don't agree with people who watch boxing on tv?

They do, but then some of them have a horrible bias, Paulie for example was particularly awful

For example I really like listening to Barry Jones, in my opinion he is miles better than any of them

I find Paulie excellent usually but he was very much flying the flag for the non-puncher in this fight surprise surprise.

114-113 for Ward for me was borderline acceptable. Close fight, certainly no robbery but I did have to for Kovalev

That's where the problem is, boxers often have affiliations with one of the fighters whom they are judging, be it they share the same trainer, promoter or have built a friendship with via sparring etc.

88Chris05 wrote:Good to see you back, Jabby. We need to get some of the old AWOL posters back as this place has been a bit dead for the last year or so.

Let me clarify my 'straw man argument' comment from yesterday concerning the judges. Perhaps not the best choice of words there by me!

I certainly think that the nationality of judges and the venue in which they're judging a fight CAN, at times, be a legitimate reason to question a verdict which seems totally at odds with what most people saw. Take a look at the Gorres-Darchinyan fight a few years back as a prime example (in my eyes, anyway) of that.

However, in this specific case, I don't think that kind of cynicism should be the go-to stance, just as I didn't agree it should have been for Dirrell-Froch, another close one which has often been given an undeserved narrative of Froch getting a dodgy decision in his favour purely because he was fighting in Nottingham, when the reality is that it was just a super-close fight where two of the judges just happened to go with Carl.

In my opinion, Ward edging the fight by a 114-113 margin was not an unreasonable score. I'm not an American being influenced by nationality or the crowd (by the way, while I didn't watch it live, I managed to avoid the result until about mid-day on Sunday when I got round to watching it, so did so without knowing the result, and with the sound off during rounds which I tend to do for a few reasons). I felt Ward won the fight very, very narrowly by virtue of the vagaries of the ten-point-must system as much as anything else, as I said yesterday. Going by the comments on this thread, plenty of other observers felt the same way, even if they're in a slight minority.

So you don't have to be an American being influenced by the crowd, or sensitive to who's getting paid more, to score it narrowly for Ward - that's my point. I'm of the opinion that had the judges been a Brazilian, a Chinese man and a Mexican, all three of them scoring it 114-113 to Ward wouldn't be unthinkable. If all three judges had given it to Ward by four, five, six rounds or whatever, I'd understand. But the basic premise of Ward nicking it isn't some obscure minority view judging from the reaction I've seen so far, so I don't see how the judges scores can automatically be discarded.

Yes, I disagree with all three of them giving the tenth to Ward, just as I disagree with a few of the posters on here who did likewise. Had they scored that round to Kovalev, it's him running out with the narrow UD. But that's the thing - I would have been fine with that, even if it did disagree a little with my card. It was just a super-close fight, for me.

Calling it a robbery, as someone else has pointed out earlier in this thread, does a disservice to fights which actually were highway jobs and the unlucky fighters who were on the wrong end of them.

You felt 114-113 for Ward wasn't unreasonable, however, you managed to give him every single close round. As I've repeated: the first half of the fight wasn't close at all. Kovalev was at least 5-1 up after six (with a knockdown). The second half of the fight was largely tit for tat and so then to give everything to Ward is poor scoring in my book.

It is odd how all three judges turned in the same score - one that generally goes against the grain (only 25% of media scored for Ward and yet three judges all went for him by the same score?). If you look at the route they took to get there (all scoring the tenth for him - which is ridiculous) then you'd have to suggest it was something of a miracle.

The reason people are so aggrieved is that, regardless of how close you scored the margin - there was only one winner here. Kovalev deserved it. That's why they folk feel Kovalev was robbed. It wasn't 12 rounds of chess (like Calzaghe vs Hopkins), it wasn't 12 rounds that could be interpreted differently. The last six rounds may have been (though, I find it impossible not to score the 10th for Ward) but the rest wasn't.

Rematch definitely got to be held on neutral ground..

How about London, England?

I'll say it again, Haz: I didn't give Ward every close round.

Kovalev definitely got the better of the first half of the fight, as you said. I doubt that anyone who watched it had him anything other than leading after six, having won his rounds more clearly, to boot.

Problem is, there was a second half of the fight where Kovalev was nowhere near as impressive or effective. As I've already said, a round a guy clearly won and a round a guy just about did enough in still only result in the same 10-9 score generally. I'll accept that Ward was not generally speaking as impressive as Kovalev was in winning his rounds, but you don't necessarily have to be to get a result under the current scoring system.

So yes, Kovalev looked overall the better fighter on the night. You say 'there was only one winner', but clearly the evidence suggests otherwise. A notable minority have scored it for Ward while even those who had it for Sergey have noted quite a lot that it was super-close. You're talking as if this was Whitaker-Ramirez I where for all intents and purposes one hundred percent of the boxing stratosphere outside of the judges had it to Pernell, and always by at least four rounds at that. That's a fight where you could say there was only one winner, where the judges clearly were in on a fix and where there's no room for argument.

I just don't think that applies here. I had Ward edging it by a narrow margin, but rather than arguing that he definitely won it, I'm more simply arguing that a case can be made for him winning it, which is the more important point, I feel. I don't object to the idea that Sergey won it, either - just to the idea that he won it big.

Kovalev wasn't as impressive second half as you say but wasn't he protecting a lead?

And did Ward for all his defensive skill really score enough to get the win?

88Chris05 wrote:I'll say it again, Haz: I didn't give Ward every close round.

Kovalev definitely got the better of the first half of the fight, as you said. I doubt that anyone who watched it had him anything other than leading after six, having won his rounds more clearly, to boot.

Problem is, there was a second half of the fight where Kovalev was nowhere near as impressive or effective. As I've already said, a round a guy clearly won and a round a guy just about did enough in still only result in the same 10-9 score generally. I'll accept that Ward was not generally speaking as impressive as Kovalev was in winning his rounds, but you don't necessarily have to be to get a result under the current scoring system.

So yes, Kovalev looked overall the better fighter on the night. You say 'there was only one winner', but clearly the evidence suggests otherwise. A notable minority have scored it for Ward while even those who had it for Sergey have noted quite a lot that it was super-close. You're talking as if this was Whitaker-Ramirez I where for all intents and purposes one hundred percent of the boxing stratosphere outside of the judges had it to Pernell, and always by at least four rounds at that. That's a fight where you could say there was only one winner, where the judges clearly were in on a fix and where there's no room for argument.

I just don't think that applies here. I had Ward edging it by a narrow margin, but rather than arguing that he definitely won it, I'm more simply arguing that a case can be made for him winning it, which is the more important point, I feel. I don't object to the idea that Sergey won it, either - just to the idea that he won it big.

I think this is fair, I can see how people have Ward winning 114-113, however I just don't think he did

You are right, its no robbery like Pacquiao vs Bradley was, but based on my scoring criteria I have Kovalev winning

Boxing needs a more clear cut scoring criteria, because a lot of the time you can make a case for either guy winning a close fight and then the inevitable argument ensues

Personally I feel the guy actually trying to have a fight should get more credit

Herman Jaeger wrote:Kovalev wasn't as impressive second half as you say but wasn't he protecting a lead?

And did Ward for all his defensive skill really score enough to get the win?

Well, having a lead accumulated early on doesn't entitle you to any extra leeway in later rounds, Herman. You're right, Ward didn't cleanly hit the target as much as he'd have liked; I think both guys have more to show in a potential rematch than they did on Saturday night. But was Kovalev connecting much in the second half of the fight? Aside from the tenth, I don't really recall him doing so. I'm loathe to read too much in to CompuBox numbers, but while they do show a small edge to Kovalev, I'd wager that a good two thirds of his registered jabs, power punches etc. came within the first six rounds.

Ward might not have been connecting with great frequency in the last six rounds, but I'd imagine he was still connecting a little more than Kovalev was at that stage. Of course, the punches that Ward did land didn't have the same hurtful effect as the ones Kovalev was landing in rounds one and two, but that doesn't preclude Ward from still winning the round if you feel he got the better of it in terms of clean punching, defence, effective aggression and ring generalship.

88Chris05 wrote:Good to see you back, Jabby. We need to get some of the old AWOL posters back as this place has been a bit dead for the last year or so.

Let me clarify my 'straw man argument' comment from yesterday concerning the judges. Perhaps not the best choice of words there by me!

I certainly think that the nationality of judges and the venue in which they're judging a fight CAN, at times, be a legitimate reason to question a verdict which seems totally at odds with what most people saw. Take a look at the Gorres-Darchinyan fight a few years back as a prime example (in my eyes, anyway) of that.

However, in this specific case, I don't think that kind of cynicism should be the go-to stance, just as I didn't agree it should have been for Dirrell-Froch, another close one which has often been given an undeserved narrative of Froch getting a dodgy decision in his favour purely because he was fighting in Nottingham, when the reality is that it was just a super-close fight where two of the judges just happened to go with Carl.

In my opinion, Ward edging the fight by a 114-113 margin was not an unreasonable score. I'm not an American being influenced by nationality or the crowd (by the way, while I didn't watch it live, I managed to avoid the result until about mid-day on Sunday when I got round to watching it, so did so without knowing the result, and with the sound off during rounds which I tend to do for a few reasons). I felt Ward won the fight very, very narrowly by virtue of the vagaries of the ten-point-must system as much as anything else, as I said yesterday. Going by the comments on this thread, plenty of other observers felt the same way, even if they're in a slight minority.

So you don't have to be an American being influenced by the crowd, or sensitive to who's getting paid more, to score it narrowly for Ward - that's my point. I'm of the opinion that had the judges been a Brazilian, a Chinese man and a Mexican, all three of them scoring it 114-113 to Ward wouldn't be unthinkable. If all three judges had given it to Ward by four, five, six rounds or whatever, I'd understand. But the basic premise of Ward nicking it isn't some obscure minority view judging from the reaction I've seen so far, so I don't see how the judges scores can automatically be discarded.

Yes, I disagree with all three of them giving the tenth to Ward, just as I disagree with a few of the posters on here who did likewise. Had they scored that round to Kovalev, it's him running out with the narrow UD. But that's the thing - I would have been fine with that, even if it did disagree a little with my card. It was just a super-close fight, for me.

Calling it a robbery, as someone else has pointed out earlier in this thread, does a disservice to fights which actually were highway jobs and the unlucky fighters who were on the wrong end of them.

I take it on board, I can see how some would have scored the rounds Ward did win (5 - 9) but outside of that I personally didn't see enough from Ward to recover both a point he lost for being knocked down and the final 3 rounds. I just can't see where Ward was more effective. I've since looked at punch stats and although they rarely tell a story - in this case they may, in retrospect. At the time though, the judges are supposed to judge as they see it, without punch stats and unless the TV camera was a particularly bad angle if we saw the same fight, we saw Kovalev backing Ward up - pushing him backward and trying to fight where Ward was being somewhat elusive, spoiling and I'm guessing scoring big with his jabs to the body. In Wards favour, I do remember wanting him to win as it's better for boxing, I can't make the case though. Perhaps its emotion setting in that I wanted him to fight and he didn't. But I still don't see how Ward did the better work to nick the last few rounds.

I'll rewatch tonight with your comments in mind - I'll watch again not wanting Ward to win and I'll look specifically for the work where he was given credit in rounds perhaps I didn't see. Nice reference with Gorres - Darchinyan but I think that was somewhat wider for Darchinyan than this was for Ward. Bit different there.

How come it's been dead around here? I still see some familiar faces, ONETRUSS, Milky, Haz, Coxy etc. guessing they've just started posting less regularly?

10 pt must haz. You can't just say, 1 guy deserved it. It doesn't need to be a great comeback... just one that wins enough rounds.

You think kov was at least 5-1 in rounds up after 6. I thought the 5th was a clear Ward round and he landed the better shots in the 3rd. I also thought the 11th was as at least as clear a Ward round as 10 was for kovalev.

I still had it tight for kovalev, and i'd say if you take all the close rounds and split them he probably wins a bit wider than my card. But a card for Ward in a fight of this nature doesn't automatically make the author bent or incompetent.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Nice of you to drop by and tell everyone how to score a fight.

Sorry, i'd just read a lot of tripe and got a little carried away. The point remains though, I can't fathom how people scored it for Ward and Kovalev was against it from the start given his nationality and the nationality of the judges.

After seeing your card, it makes sense if people scored for Ward (albeit controversial), but I kept away from 10 - 10 rounds as I find it hard to score both fighters a 10.

No probs fella. This place does it to all of us at some point.

On an unrelated note, 325 replies and counting. That sellout Rowley has become such a populist!

milkyboy wrote:10 pt must haz. You can't just say, 1 guy deserved it. It doesn't need to be a great comeback... just one that wins enough rounds.

You think kov was at least 5-1 in rounds up after 6. I thought the 5th was a clear Ward round and he landed the better shots in the 3rd. I also thought the 11th was as at least as clear a Ward round as 10 was for kovalev.  

I still had it tight for kovalev, and i'd say if you take all the close rounds and split them he probably wins a bit wider than my card. But a card for Ward in a fight of this nature doesn't automatically make the author bent or incompetent.

I had it 5-0-1 for Kovalev after six but could see someone giving Ward a round if they didn't like splitting them. The third was tight but Kovalev forced the action and looked in control - can't see how you'd give that the other way (especially not watching live).

If you look at how the officials arrived at the same score, it's suspect. One had Ward up 105-103 after 11 and so gave Kovalev the 12th. The others had it level and so gave the last round to Ward. Very odd.

88Chris05 wrote:On an unrelated note, 325 replies and counting. That sellout Rowley has become such a populist!

Shouldn't do that Chris, whenever someone highlights a thread is doing well it invariably dies

Away from the scoring, I was really impressed how Kovalev outboxed Ward for long spells. His jab was fantastic (incidentally, the best jab at 175 since Bob Foster?).

hazharrison wrote:Away from the scoring, I was really impressed how Kovalev outboxed Ward for long spells. His jab was fantastic (incidentally, the best jab at 175 since Bob Foster?).

Was watching a video on Youtube and apparently one of the dudes in his corner was an absolute expert on Jabs

Saying that Wards jab was really nice at times as well

Concur on the jabs, Wards work to the body was good, although Kovalev's to the face was better. I mean there was a point where Kovalev ramrodded a jab into Wards face and it was almost like a cross!

Kovalev's jab was very good, ward adapted well to it though and his own came into it later.

Incidentally, just seen the Compubox stats. It appears I subconsciously scored the fight by punches landed (well some guy with a button's interpretation of a punches landed) as they matched my card perfectly until the 12th, where kovalev outlanded ward 13-12 ( Ward had the edge in powerl shots so I'll claim it as an even round for the full set.)

And yes I know, Compubox is no way to judge a fight!

milkyboy wrote:Kovalev's jab was very good, ward adapted well to it though and his own came into it later.

Incidentally, just seen the Compubox stats. It appears I subconsciously scored the fight by punches landed (well some guy with a button's interpretation of a punches landed) as they matched my card perfectly until the 12th, where kovalev outlanded ward 13-12 ( Ward had the edge in powerl shots so I'll claim it as an even round for the full set.)

And yes I know, Compubox is no way to judge a fight!

I tend not to do that, although I can see why people would. Seems you've got a computer for a brain Milky, should take advantage of that!

I know might sound strange but why is there is there such a reluctance in boxing to score rounds 10-10? I don't just mean on the forum but in general. Does the fact that we try to force a conclusion from a round make scoring rounds even more difficult.

Taking the fight at the weekend, there were about 6 rounds where it was really difficult to score. Would it not make sense to score the rounds you simply cannot split as a draw?

Pedro147 wrote:I know might sound strange but why is there is there such a reluctance in boxing to score rounds 10-10? I don't just mean on the forum but in general. Does the fact that we try to force a conclusion from a round make scoring rounds even more difficult.

Taking the fight at the weekend, there were about 6 rounds where it was really difficult to score. Would it not make sense to score the rounds you simply cannot split as a draw?

You could, but the idea of a potential 120 - 120 title fight is a huge turn off. One or two rounds maybe, depends how the fight went. I think you could score round 4 in this fight as a 10 - 10 because it could have gone either way. Saw it as a Kovalev round myself, but I guess changing it to 10 - 10 isn't too far out. Thats how I see it anyway.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Kovalev's jab was very good, ward adapted well to it though and his own came into it later.

Incidentally, just seen the Compubox stats. It appears I subconsciously scored the fight by punches landed (well some guy with a button's interpretation of a punches landed) as they matched my card perfectly until the 12th, where kovalev outlanded ward 13-12 ( Ward had the edge in powerl shots so I'll claim it as an even round for the full set.)

And yes I know, Compubox is no way to judge a fight!

I tend not to do that, although I can see why people would. Seems you've got a computer for a brain Milky, should take advantage of that!

Yeh, would be nice if I could put it to better use!

I watched it after knowing the result and scorecards

I scored it as I watched it, and was deliberately generous to Ward on the close rounds.

Overall I had it exactly as the judges saw it but that was giving him the benefit in the close rounds.

If I was more subjective Kov would have got the nod.

Ward did the flashier work but that amount to some admittedly very fast and impressive jabs but overall it's clear Kov had the higher workrate, put him Ward on the canvas, generally nullified Ward on the inside (saw lots of comments on FB that Ward was destroying him on the inside), held the centre of the ring and was never hurt.

Can clearly see why most think Kov should have got the nod but home fighter benefits as usual.

In the rematch if he sticks to the same approach but cuts the ring off, he should get the job done inside the distance.

I watched it live and no doubt in my mind kovalev deserved it. To score to ward requires giving him the benefit of the doubt in most of the close rounds. To score to kovalev does not require such advantages. If you scored ward by one round, equally its possible to score kovalev by as many as three or four. My maths is rusty but something along the lines of the standard deviation of scoring would favour kovalev. Not what i would classify as a robbery, but the wrong man got the decision in my view.

A very mature way of making your point Catchy and Kovelv definitely dominated some rounds.

I thought Ward nicked the close rounds, but if Someone believes Kovalev deserves a few late rounds, fair enough.

Even though I had ward winning, I didn't see him dominate rounds, like Kov did earlier.

A rematch would be good and some foreign judges.

Fights like this remind why boxing is both 'the sweet science' and 'the manly art of self defence'. Judging fights is both art and science, and at this level a single fight is like the first act of a trilogy (fingers crossed!) or the first round of an experimentation; a momentous tale but an incomplete narrative, a valid result but an inconclusive finding. With these fine margins it is only with further meetings that we will be able to deduce the better man, happily it looks like we'll get a second at least.

sittingringside wrote:Fights like this remind why boxing is both 'the sweet science' and 'the manly art of self defence'. Judging fights is both art and science, and at this level a single fight is like the first act of a trilogy (fingers crossed!) or the first round of an experimentation; a momentous tale but an incomplete narrative, a valid result but an inconclusive finding. With these fine margins it is only with further meetings that we will be able to deduce the better man, happily it looks like we'll get a second at least.

Yeah man

And the fight itself was awesome

Its a good fight to rewatch

I'll probably watch it again at some point soon

If I can stick listening to Sky talking garbage again that is..

The wrong man got the decision

Maybe the wrong man got the decision, but many on here seem genuinely upset.

Do you hate Ward that much? Can't remember people doing the same when Marquez was robbed after Pac.

All the sad ones on here seem to be GGG fans.

Kovalev will get his chance of revenge. Don't worry!

Can't say I even dislike Ward let alone hate on him upset might be too strong an emotion as a boxing result is never going to impact on one's life but definitely a little peeved at this one it's going some imo to give that one to Ward

I've seen worse robberies. Bradley beating Pacquiao was one.

Also Marquez vs Pacquiao (first fight).

It is what it is. I understand kovalev is upset, but his aggression was not effective after the 4th round. If he had of dominated even one more round, then he would of definitely got the nod.

Ward might of got a lucky break (not in my eyes) but I think he will be better in the rematch.

I personally underestimated Kov. I didn't expect him to be as fast, especially early in the fight.

I like both these fighters. Stevenson is a joke and should be embarrassed.

There's no question Kovalev's attack was nullified second half not that surprising given Ward is one of the great defensive spoilers of the last thirty years up there with Hoppy

But I actually had a few of the last six rounds drawn I couldn't split them so if you ignore the very pro Ward commentary Kovy sweeping the first half I don't see how you can give Ward more than a draw at best with the kd and wobble first round separating them

You talk about the bodywork but ultimately Ward wasn't good enough to land any telling headshots and that's where most of the time most of the damage is done

That's the bottom line..

Kovalev won then. Doesn't matter to me.

I think 114-113 Ward is generous Adam I really do. Not ridiculous if you were impressed by Ward's spoiling but generous, generous to a fault he didn't land many power punches upstairs the entire thirty six minutes

Don't get me wrong I can see how those scoring it for Ward could come to that conclusion not me though I'd like to have seen Ward score more upstairs before I could award him the decision