Wards Legacy!

First topic message reminder :

http://www.boxingnews24.com/2016/11/andre-ward-can-surpass-mayweathers-pacquiaos-legacy/#more-221864

I normally go on boxing 24 for a laugh and thought no way can he surpass these guys. But the further I read into the article, the more I started to agree.

Light Heavyweight is becoming a very tough division. If Ward can somehow beat them all and cap it off with a win against GGG, he would be HUGE!

Now I am not saying Ward can do this. Perhaps Kovalev will knock his block off next. Who knows?

But if he finished his career in that style, he would be something else.

Ward is not a great puncher, so I can't imagine many ducking him. Lets just hope if his star grows, he doesn't do the high risk low reward road like Floyd and Manny. That is always a danger.

On the flipside, read the article and imagine Kovalev wins the rematch and takes out all comers. He won't have dominated 2 divisions, but he would be one of the most dominating light heavies ever. At least in the last 20-30 years.

There is no malice in this thread and I'm happy to discuss it with anyone. though a bit of banter is more than welcome. I won't wind anyone up.

BoxingFan88 wrote:

AdamT wrote:It doesn't matter. I won't be blasting GGG from now on. If people think he is the Sh1t, happy days.

Not many people do, because they have eyes, when they try and explain why GGG isn't good they literally make up nonsense that makes no sense and cannot be proven with any real facts

You blast GGG, but everyone is ducking him, I still don't get it

You can criticise his resume, but you can't criticise him for his resume

Ward has just challenged the number 1 at a higher weight after beating top fighters at 168 and he gets no respect from you..

GGG has fought only decent opposition at 160 for 6 years....Feasted on a 147 pounder last time and only wants a retired Ward sloppy second if he moves up....and can do no wrong with you.

It's amusing..

Can I criticize him for not moving up?

He's happy beating second tier fighters. Lomachenko has done far more in a few fights, than GGG has done his whole career.

That post was for boxingfan88. The rest of you chill. Not trying to stir!

A tad off topic slightly but hey, if I see a camel, I call it a camel.

Something I just realised yesterday - Why Kessler retired.

“Ward just doesn’t want to fight. Sometimes you should make rules against clinching. When I fought him in 2009 he clinched me 88 times. When we watched it on tape we actually counted. I tried to push him away but he’s clever at what he does. He’s a world champion of that. But I think he’s actually scared. He throws fast punches, light punches, and then holds you. It’s so boring. That’s why he has no fans. He’s not a big name and he likes to stay at home.

“Showtime had to do everything to help him because there were no other Americans who could win the Super Six [the super-middleweight series which Ward won after defeating Froch in the final in December 2011]. The ref was not on my side. When I got the cut they took me to the doc and he said: ‘We’re going to stop the fight.’ The cut was clear of my eyes but they still stopped it. I had just started to attack him and I got him in the corner but they got scared and called in the doctor.”

I counted 8 headbutts by Ward v Kessler. The ref only called 5 and called em 'accidental'....all accidental!! GTFOH!!!

Ward ruined his eye with those butts to such an extent, his vision was impaired.

This will affect his quality of life forever, not just boxing life but forever, and Ward is responsible for this.

But oh yeah, Ward is a true P4P, he always wins because he's smart!! ( What a load of crap )

The definition of 'smart' is not to keep fouling the other guy at every opportunity.

And let's not even get into scoring criteria! can anybody on here, if you think you know the correct answer, tell me how an official boxing match should be scored? There is a standard template in place which all judges are supposed to follow. Scoring is not subjective, so stop believing the crap you hear from Kellerman other members of the compromised media.

Criteria 1 - Clean & Effective Punching

Criteria 2 - Ring Aggression

There are more but my point is -

Scoring boxing is not rocket science. Its who punches the other guy more times and with more force.

If No 1 is equal or close, then and only then do you go to criteria 2, ring aggression.

Did Ward win criteria 1? Hell no

So criteria 2 does not come into play. Even if it did, criteria 2 is clearly Kov. Did you see Kov run at all during the fight? Ward on the other hand...

Scoring criteria is not something that you can just modify as you go along.

how come you missed off the defensive part in scoring criteria? if it was just as simple as who hit harder then you wouldn't have the likes of Paulie as ex fighters and anyone who didn't have a power punch wouldn't bother with the sport.

You're false definition of scoring might become true if you repeat it enough, there are four equal criteria; Effective aggression, clean punching, ring generalship and defence.

Two of those criteria are completely subjective and not at all easy to rate, the other two are often mistaken to be purely numerical when they are not.

Clean punching- even
Effective aggression- Kovalev
Defence- Ward
Ring generalship- even

You seem to rate them on the fight overall rather than individual rounds, overall because of rounds 1 and 2 Kovalev was more effective but thereafter it was even stevens.

Personally Adam I want him to move up so he has a challenge

But he is trying to collect the belts we want a number one guy In each division

I give ward respect for fighting kovalev not for the way he went about it which was some of the worst fouling I have seen in a ring obviously you turned a complete blind eye to that though

The difference between ward and ggg is ward had to move up because he couldn't make weight

Ggg doesn't have that problem

How can I respect someone who doesn't play within the rules I keep hearing about all these great boxing skills but they are yet to appear

To be honest I don't even care about the scorecards anymore the cheating that went on in that ring was absolutely disgusting

I studied ward and he throws more slaps than punches forearms elbows and headbutts

Have the time he can't even turn over a punch he has horrible technique he is very fast and athletic but as far as boxing fundamentals he is severely lacking

If the kovalev fight was a street fight then fine but it's not its a boxing match

He's done ok for someone that can't box.

Hit and not get hit or hurt and don't get hurt?

I maybe wrong but has Ward ever fought outside of the United States?

He has as an amateur

Not as a pro

Regardless were you like his style or not.

He won olympic gold and has been unbeaten since he was 12. How many can claim that?

Derbymanc wrote:how come you missed off the defensive part in scoring criteria? if it was just as simple as who hit harder then you wouldn't have the likes of Paulie as ex fighters and anyone who didn't have a power punch wouldn't bother with the sport.

Not missed it off mate. I'll repeat....

You only go to Criteria 2, 3, 4 if the previous one is equal / too close to call.

I'll explain,

You only go to C2 if C1 is even

You only go to C3 if C2 is even and so on

Defense is in the second half of the criteria.

Don't just take my word for it, these things are well documented ( Queensbury Rules )

It is what it is.

Paulie would still have career as a boxer because he can box, unlike Ward!!

Wards game plan - Initiate clinch, elbow x2, headbutt, low blow.....then finally break.

Yes I know others have done dirty things in the ring, Hopkins, Duran etc, but they didn't base their ENTIRE
game plan on dirty tactics.

Everything else is a consequence of clean and effective punching

Dylans post is spot on too many people put too much credit on ring genralship and defence unless you capitalise on it it rarely means anything

When you make your opponent miss you make him pay look at marquez as a counter puncher if you miss you will be getting a 5 punch volley back square in the face

I've spoken to Harold lederman on the subject and that's what he told me

A former professional judge

Even though paulie can't punch because his hands are brittle he still messed up senchenkos face

Punching correctly does damage

Never fought outside the States as a Pro...hmm, I wonder why.

Most protected fighter around that's why!!

Any neutral ref would have disqualified him against Kessler, Kov and who knows how many other fighters. American ref, judges, venue....everything is always stacked in his favour.

Would not be surprised one bit if he wants the rematch in Oakland.

Paulie also had Cotto doing the famous Amir Khan dance when they fought. Paulie has some power.

He has power his hands don't hold up

Its the same with Floyd he can hit a lot harder than he does but his hands can't take it

Same story with Calzaghe

Ring generalship means just as much as clean punching, I'm surprised you two aren't judges based on your superiority at it.

Ward has fought outside the US twice not that it really matters or makes any real difference, just a stick to beat people with needlessly.

It's odd how Ward has gone so far in boxing without any actual ability but then again there isn't a YouTube video of him shifting is there, the true sign of technical ability.

How Is Ward protected? Ward Is protected and GGG is avoided? You boys are bonkers.

Dylan1979 wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:how come you missed off the defensive part in scoring criteria? if it was just as simple as who hit harder then you wouldn't have the likes of Paulie as ex fighters and anyone who didn't have a power punch wouldn't bother with the sport.

Not missed it off mate. I'll repeat....

You only go to Criteria 2, 3, 4 if the previous one is equal / too close to call.

I'll explain,

You only go to C2 if C1 is even

You only go to C3 if C2 is even and so on

Defense is in the second half of the criteria.

Don't just take my word for it, these things are well documented ( Queensbury Rules )

It is what it is.

Paulie would still have career as a boxer because he can box, unlike Ward!!

Wards game plan - Initiate clinch, elbow x2, headbutt, low blow.....then finally break.

Yes I know others have done dirty things in the ring, Hopkins, Duran etc, but they didn't base their ENTIRE
game plan on dirty tactics.

That's completely wrong but as I said previously carry on passing off nonsense as fact.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ring generalship means just as much as clean punching, I'm surprised you two aren't judges based on your superiority at it.

Ward has fought outside the US twice not that it really matters or makes any real difference, just a stick to beat people with needlessly.

It's odd how Ward has gone so far in boxing without any actual ability but then again there isn't a YouTube video of him shifting is there, the true sign of technical ability.

Okay then Harrier. Back up your statement with a credible source.

I can back up what I've said via The Official Marquess of Queensbury Rules Code. It's all there in black & white.

Ring generalship means just as much as clean punching

According to Hammersmith Harrier.

I thought this was a boxing forum.

I can never understand somebody who wants to disregard a statement as rubbish without backing up their own point with factual evidence / proof.

Let me guess, Sky Sports / Ringside said ring generalship means just as much as clean punching.

Now I get it.

Sky Sports - the true oracle on all things boxing.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're false definition of scoring might become true if you repeat it enough, there are four equal criteria; Effective aggression, clean punching, ring generalship and defence.

Two of those criteria are completely subjective and not at all easy to rate, the other two are often mistaken to be purely numerical when they are not.

Clean punching- even
Effective aggression- Kovalev
Defence- Ward
Ring generalship- even

You seem to rate them on the fight overall rather than individual rounds, overall because of rounds 1 and 2 Kovalev was more effective but thereafter it was even stevens.

The only thing Kov had to defend against was fouling! Ironically you give defence to Ward.
Clean punching - even?? WTF. Did you see Wards face post fight? He wore the sunglasses for a reason.
I must have missed something. When was Kov ever hurt against Ward? When did he run?

AdamT wrote:How Is Ward protected? Ward Is protected and GGG is avoided? You boys are bonkers.

Never fought outside US as a pro
Always home judge & ref

He is an American Olympian so to be expected I guess.

Triple G - Why wont Canelo fight him?

Canelo beats Cotto - "Yeah I'm tough, I'm mexican, I'm the Champ", then vacates!!

Can you post a link then to where it shows your correct that you only judge on other credentials if the others haven't been met, cause unfortunately it's crap.

You judge a fight round by round based on numerous instances happening during that 1 round. You can be as aggressive as you want but if the other guys making you miss then you might as well not have bothered. A scoring punch isn't given on how hard you hit either, it's the technique you do it with (ie knuckles upward) and so on and so forth.

Amateur rules - http://www.abae.co.uk/aba/index.cfm/news/aiba-rules-the-scoring-system/

Pro rules - http://boxing.isport.com/boxing-guides/how-the-pro-boxing-scoring-system-works
(also note judges are supposed to assign their scores with each of the above factors equally in mind) So no you don't judge it on one instance etc. nice try though.

Wow multiple comments of nothing, Queensbury Rules are the basis of the unified rules but are no longer current or relevant themselves.

The state of his face means nothing, Taylor was clearly beating Chavez easily but was a complete mess or does that mean he was losing?

None of your criteria is relevant, you're clinging to an outdated ideal, judges cannot rule on fouls that is down to the referee.

Hi Harold thanks for doing this
Boxing seems to be a very subjective sport, we know that fights should be scored using the 4 criteria Clean Punching, Effective Aggression, Ring Generalship and Defence.
However I would think that the primary would be Clean Punching and the other 3 would be used if it wasn't easy to decide purely based on that
Is there any criteria which you tend to favour over the others?
Also boxing seems to be about opinions at the moment when scoring closely contested fights, do you think there is anything that can be done to improve the ambiguity in the scoring, because it seems to be guidelines rather than rules? Always depending on what type of style or fight a judge may prefer
Thanks!

Harold Lederman
Well, you know, you go by the 4 criteria. Clean punching, effective aggression, ring generalship, and defense. Now, the textbook answer is you score 25% each, but that's not the truth. The truth is clean punching is 99%, and the other three are if you can't make up your mind. At the end of the round, you say which guy hurt the other guy more than him and basically that's it. It's that simple, you try to determine who did more damage.
It's that simple really, they just complicate it with terms like effective aggression.

You've actually just backed up what I said well done, judges ARE meant to use the four criteria but have their own interpretations, no doubt you falsely think otherwise.

Fouling within limits is a skill itself. It's a fight, these things happen.

If you couldn't grab on and frustrate, or slow an opponent down then Tyson might have went unbeaten.

Ali is the greatest, but he did his share of fouling.

Mayweather uses the elbows to push someone off, then follows with a hook.

Speaking of Elbows, Tyson?

Dirty sh1t happens. It isn't just Andre. The referee is the one in control, it's his job to stop him.

Ward is another successful American black athlete that's hated. I hope it isn't racism. I'll give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but I don't get the blind hatred.

Was it because GGG ducked him, yet called out a retired Froch?

the textbook answer is you score 25% each, but that's not the truth. The truth is clean punching is 99%, and the other three are if you can't make up your mind. At the end of the round, you say which guy hurt the other guy more than him and basically that's it. It's that simple, you try to determine who did more damage.

You put 2 and 2 together and got 12 there

AdamT wrote:Fouling within limits is a skill itself. It's a fight, these things happen.

If you couldn't grab on and frustrate, or slow an opponent down then Tyson might have went unbeaten.

Ali is the greatest, but he did his share of fouling.

Mayweather uses the elbows to push someone off, then follows with a hook.

Speaking of Elbows, Tyson?

Dirty sh1t happens. It isn't just Andre. The referee is the one in control, it's his job to stop him.

Ward is another successful American black athlete that's hated. I hope it isn't racism. I'll give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but I don't get the blind hatred.

Was it because GGG ducked him, yet called out a retired Froch?

That's rubbish and you know it

Find me a Mike Tyson fight where he throws 30 headbutts and multiple elbows, I had respect for Ward until I realised how damn dirty he is and its not just one instance, it happens in nearly every fight

Alan Green, Kessler, Bika, Kovalev, Rodriguez

And they all say the same thing

Celebrate that if that's what you think boxing is, if it was I would say he was great too, but its not

Stop playing the race card, its absolutely pathetic

you are right its the referee's job and he didn't do it

He is great whether you like his style or not. Multiple time champion of the World and the man at 2 weights. Top 2 p4p, I think he should be ahead of Gonzalez.

AdamT wrote:He is great whether you like his style or not. Multiple time champion of the World and the man at 2 weights. Top 2 p4p, I think he should be ahead of Gonzalez.

Isn't p4p about skill

If its about WINS, sure

If its who is the best boxer, then not a chance

The textbook answer is you take all into account and whoevers done the better should get the round. Of course clean punches counts more, but that comes in with the aggression part otherwise you could just be a slugger and throw 300 a round, miss them all but win it because 'he was more aggressive'

Best boxer wins fights. By your reckoning Jack Johnson was useless. Ali in the 70's too.

Obviously both Klits as well.

Fouling and spoiling is not boxing. Certainly not masterful boxing. That needs to be accepted. Its not difficult to figure out why boxers who engage in this kind of stuff excessively are not well liked. Its boring for starters. Secondly its cynical. Like most cynical stuff in sports, its not penalised adequately either. Part of the sport yes, unfortunately. But not worth defending or dressing up as wonderful boxing ability.

catchweight wrote:Fouling and spoiling is not boxing. Certainly not masterful boxing. That needs to be accepted. Its not difficult to figure out why boxers who engage in this kind of stuff excessively are not well liked. Its boring for starters. Secondly its cynical. Like most cynical stuff in sports, its not penalised adequately either. Part of the sport yes, unfortunately. But not worth defending or dressing up as wonderful boxing ability.

Exactly this

I don't defend Wlad's bs either

That Povetkin fight was a disgrace to boxing

Gotta love the race card.

Stephen A Smith get's called a c**n in the States for saying that Kov clearly beat Ward.

Great world we live in.

BoxingFan88 wrote:Hi Harold thanks for doing this
Boxing seems to be a very subjective sport, we know that fights should be scored using the 4 criteria Clean Punching, Effective Aggression, Ring Generalship and Defence.
However I would think that the primary would be Clean Punching and the other 3 would be used if it wasn't easy to decide purely based on that
Is there any criteria which you tend to favour over the others?
Also boxing seems to be about opinions at the moment when scoring closely contested fights, do you think there is anything that can be done to improve the ambiguity in the scoring, because it seems to be guidelines rather than rules? Always depending on what type of style or fight a judge may prefer
Thanks!

Harold Lederman
Well, you know, you go by the 4 criteria. Clean punching, effective aggression, ring generalship, and defense. Now, the textbook answer is you score 25% each, but that's not the truth. The truth is clean punching is 99%, and the other three are if you can't make up your mind. At the end of the round, you say which guy hurt the other guy more than him and basically that's it. It's that simple, you try to determine who did more damage.
It's that simple really, they just complicate it with terms like effective aggression.

Ahh...some boxing sense.

I guess some will try and say Lederman is biased or even racist because he had Kov winning.
The whole black & white thing that people try and promote makes me sick.
Doesn't matter if a guy is pink, green, black, white, yellow, whatever...
You cannot rob the real winner just because it fits in with the agenda, whether that be political or whatever..

Anybody saying Ward won, either don't know s**t about boxing, or simply doesn't care about boxing.

Roger Mayweather, is that you??

That quote doesn't back up what you were saying at all Dylan, it does the complete opposite.

it's a close fight, whoever you've got it fair play, there was ONE point in it, you'd think Kov had knocked him down every round the way some of you lot go on (oh and as Truss will tell you, i'm not Wards biggest fan either).

Black and white is what the rules say Dyl which is ALL of the attributes are supposed to be taken into account, not one more than the other

You're right Derby.

I have no problem anyone liking Kov in the fight, but it isn't a robbery.

Effective aggression and defence are yin and yang, if one guys defence was good in a round the other guys aggression can't have been effective. Ring generalship is a catchall phrase, the net effect of all three is 'who seemed in control of the round'.

It's a bit subjective, as, if guy A looks a bit flustered and is on the back foot... and guy B seems to be in control, but guy A actually lands the cleaner shots, then the 'generalship of guy B wasn't that great, his aggression wasn't effective and his defence wasn't good enough.

So for me, clean punches landed, with a (subjective) weighting given to power/effect of those shots is really what matters. Because if you have landed the better shots then you have demonstated ring generalship etc etc. If it's hard to seperate  them on that then 'who looked on top/in control.', if you can't separate them still, then which of them is trying to make the fight. If you still can't decide then it's a drawn round.

To me punches landed is a fact (albeit one you can't always accurately measure), the effect of them is a judgement, the rest is almost a subconscious assessment.

I doubt the above reflects what's supposed to happen, but it's my personal interpretation. As per the fight thread, in reality it appears I actually score by Compubox! Funnily enough, I think in this kind of fight where most of the shots landed were jabs and punches landed full stop we're at a premium... Compubox is a reasonable assessment of the fight. But then I would think that!

Pretty good assessment that Milky, looking back again there's a possibility that the 2nd round knockdown hurt Kov's chances more as the longer the fight when on and Ward was hardly stumbled might have looked like he was missing more than he was.

I would actually like to see the judges explain there decisions, especially in razor thin fights like that. You might still not agree with them but at least you could understand them better. (well some of them)

I think they should mic them up and record it Derby... they can give a summary of what they saw in that round and why the scored it how they did, after each round. It would probably be, 12x 'i liked his work better' but it would make them attempt to justify their scores.

Alternatively they could give commentary during the whole fight of the action as they see it.

That'd work as well or at least have bullet points/comments to put at the end of each round to signify why you thought a or b was better or even why you had it a draw.

As we can see due to the numerous comments by us all, it can be entirely subjective but it would help curb any favouritism (so to speak) and also might help the public understand the judging a bit more

Maybe the judges spent the entire twelve rounds on Whatsapp

Such a troll!

probably trying to get hold of Dylan cause he's already shown he really really knows the rules