Kovalev v Ward Discussion thread

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

The way you are talking you'd swear it was a Mike McCallum masterclass....

Go watch again. I did not say no work took place, but to describe it like you have is way off the mark. Most of the inside action was them wrestling. Even the dopey SS commentators used such a word several times.

SK would not allow Ward to work. He was pushing and tangling. Exactly as I thought he would.

Anyway, maybe others could say what they saw? I have watched the fight twice, and I know clean and effective and clear body work when I see it. I also know weak and sporadic body work when I see it, and I also know wrestling and tangling when I see it. Ward's work was a mix of the weak and sporadic-wrestling/tangling!

I saw plenty of body shots going in and I felt they had kovalev pretty discouraged by the end.

As for his ring generalship I thought he was pretty predictable by the end, following ward around but not cutting off the ring...

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

As for his ring generalship I thought he was pretty predictable by the end, following ward around but not cutting off the ring...

But why is he getting dissed for this, and Ward, who was the one moving away not getting criticised? It's not like Ward was moving away and countering SK with any semblance of consistency. This is the wider issue, these defensive fighters who aren't engaging all that much getting credit for it, or not getting called out on it. And the one trying to engage being criticised....It's baffling.

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

I saw plenty of body shots going in and I felt they had kovalev pretty discouraged by the end.
.

Going in? In where? There was nothing of substance at all that one could applaud as being really consistent and effective. It just wasn't there.

Anyway, two viewings and both for me showed SK the winner. Very difficult for me to argue that for Ward.

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

But why is he getting dissed for this, and Ward, who was the one moving away not getting criticised? It's not like Ward was moving away and countering SK with any semblance of consistency. This is the wider issue, these defensive fighters who aren't engaging all that much getting credit for it, or not getting called out on it. And the one trying to engage being criticised....It's baffling.

Well earlier in the fight I felt kovalev was coming forward aggressively and effectively, by the end he wasn't, and they were fighting ward's fight.

Again, myself and others saw a lot of good body work from Ward, fair enough if you didn't but I felt it was the thing that turned the fight in wards favour.

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Again, myself and others saw a lot of good body work from Ward, fair enough if you didn't but I felt it was the thing that turned the fight in wards favour.

I just did not see anything that stood out as good/consistent. Like I said, snippets here and there, and that was both men. Ward did target the body more, as expected.

I just wished that Ward had stood his ground more and put on more offence. He fought like a man that was worried. SK fought like a man not worried. That's the vibe I got. I suppose after the knockdown he felt apprehensive, and chose to fight a more cunning and spoiling type offensive fight, even though that still didn't win it IMO.

Anyway, home soil, home referee and three home judges. Holy god. What a farce of a set up.

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

I just did not see anything that stood out as good/consistent. Like I said, snippets here and there, and that was both men. Ward did target the body more, as expected.

I just wished that Ward had stood his ground more and put on more offence. He fought like a man that was worried. SK fought like a man not worried. That's the vibe I got. I suppose after the knockdown he felt apprehensive, and chose to fight a more cunning and spoiling type offensive fight, even though that still didn't win it IMO.

Anyway, home soil, home referee and three home judges. Holy god. What a farce of a set up.

One thing you've always kind of got at, which I think is fairly valid, is the reluctance of the current crop of great American fighters to engage in sustained offence, I totally see the point, but hard to blame them when it proves so effective

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

One thing you've always kind of got at, which I think is fairly valid, is the reluctance of the current crop of great American fighters to engage in sustained offence, I totally see the point, but hard to blame them when it proves so effective

When what proves so effective? Not engaging?

I have 0 issue with defence. It's a beautiful thing in boxing. My gripe is it being over praised instead of being looked at objectively. In other words, praise it, but when all that the fighter is doing is avoiding-defending, you need to address the lack of offence behind it. This is what happens too much.

Take Paulie. He went on about SK not landing consistently, and his offense-aggression needing to be effective, but never once praised him for trying to fight. He also didn't call Ward when there were times where he too was not landing or countering. Pure biased BS. If that were me I might say something like "SKs offence is not all that effective, but you know, Ward is doing nothing here but defending."

Then you had Macklin wetting his pants from the odd Ward jab here and there.

Far too many moments in the fight where Ward was not countering or attacking, but moving back and defending, yet it was SK who was getting criticised. That's bull.

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

When what proves so effective? Not engaging?

I have 0 issue with defence. It's a beautiful thing in boxing. My gripe is it being over praised instead of being looked at objectively. In other words, praise it, but when all that the fighter is doing is avoiding-defending, you need to address the lack of offence behind it. This is what happens too much.

Take Paulie. He went on about SK not landing consistently, and his offense-aggression needing to be effective, but never once praised him for trying to fight. He also didn't call Ward when there were times where he too was not landing or countering. Pure biased BS. If that were me I might say something like "SKs offence is not all that effective, but you know, Ward is doing nothing here but defending."

Then you had Macklin wetting his pants from the odd Ward jab here and there.

Far too many moments in the fight where Ward was not countering or attacking, but moving back and defending, yet it was SK who was getting criticised. That's bull.

Effective as in winning **** loads of fights...

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Effective as in winning **** loads of fights...

But that isn't always the case. I am more speaking about the action of it all and how it is viewed by us boxing fans.

Plenty of "negative" defensive fighters lose decisions, and I'd say a big factor is their negativity and over reliance on defending.

Dick phelan

There should be a rule that for title fights the judges or ref cannot be from the same country as one of the fighters, How on earth for such a big fight you can have 3 US judges and a US ref with a former US olympic gold medalist as one of the fighters is baffling, How Kovalev and his team agreed to that is beyond me.

SHOVELLER

Well that was certainly an interesting thought provoking night! Again and again I cannot see Ward as winner. The crowd was in shock as was Ward when the UD was announced. I never had Kovalev in trouble. Even coming out he was smiling, at ease and throughout was the aggressor. I had him winning the opening rounds and indeed Ward was lucky to get out of the second round.

I dont think it was a robbery or any conspiracy but it is understandable there are questions about the three American judges. Giving Kovalev one round between them in the second half of the fight is insulting. Kovalev's jab was hurting Ward early on and after 6 rounds I had it 5-1. Being generous maybe 4-2 as Ward was feeling those punches and was slower.

Thought Kovalev backed off a wee bit coming down the straight but that was because he thought he had it as he was the instigator. Yes Ward was working the body but there was a fair amount of tangling/wrestling with Kovalev doing the usual wrapping up the head. Ward did some running too and it was fairly obvious he needed a KO coming into the last rounds. Felt Ward won the 9th but as he was chasing he had to increase the pace. Still felt Kovalev was not in danger.

Being at the fight meant I didnt have to listen to commentary. From what I read SS were slanted as usual so its understandable some will follow their lead. But a UD?? Absolutely not. Dont think its a surprise that Paulie was biased.

Impressed with Kovalev after. He was gracious but made his point well and was basically laughing at the result.

The venue is phenomenal and I think a step up from the Barclays. Loads of room and even smoking terraces! Difference in seating is that you enter from the back and it is steeper too. But what was also disappointing was the amount of empty seats. I think the capacity is 18,000 and the attendance was 13,000. That is shocking for a fight like this. In fact one whole section upstairs was shut down. Again I didnt go near my seat and just went down as far as I could get. Sold my spare outside for $50.










And we're off:





Very telling at end of 12th:





Decision time. When the words unanimous decision were heard there was no surprised but the puzzlement when New was said:








Got down to the front after and Kovalev was waving to the crowd as he knew he was the victor:




Hung around ringside after and saw the HBO team and the SS team. Wanted to ask Macklin what he thought but just as they finished up the security ushered everyone out. Walked by Marshawn Lynch too. What a beast!

Afterwards all the talk was the decision. Naturally Ward's fans were delighted but there was more to it than that. Been reading that all the ex pros gave it to Ward and most fans and journalists gave it to Kovalev. While an ex pros words will carry more weight I know what I saw live and it was the wrong decision.

Henno30

walshb wrote: »

BTW, from what I recall it took Paulie till rd 11 to mention Ward's body work, and that was only because he saw Ward land a body shot. He then made out that Ward was working the body well throughout. That is not at all true. There was body work (if you could call it that) on both sides, but neither man landed well-clear to the body as they were too busy tangled up.

Henno30

I have to laugh at the argument being pushed by some people that Ward had Kovalev 'figured out' in the second half of the fight. It truly is a modern phenomenon that a fighter can be described as having 'figured out' the opponent while landing almost no clean shots.

Surely figuring out the opponent in boxing would involve being able to hit him? It was a close fight, and I don't really have a problem with the decision. But when Kovalev slipped almost all of Ward's counters, made him fall short with power shots, forced him to tie up when they got to mid-range, was that not Kovalev having Ward figured out? If not, why not? If it's true for Ward, why isn't it true for him?

Kristopherus

Watched the replay of the fight yesterday. For me, the result was as blatant a hometown decision as you could wish for. No way did Kovalev lose that fight

walshb

Henno30 wrote: »

I have to laugh at the argument being pushed by some people that Ward had Kovalev 'figured out' in the second half of the fight. It truly is a modern phenomenon that a fighter can be described as having 'figured out' the opponent while landing almost no clean shots.

Spot on. Almost every rd was the same. And for me Kovalev was deserving the majority of them There was no figuring out. This idea that Ward sussed him, adjusted and won the second half is ridiculous. Also, some suggesting SK faded. He did not. For me he won the last rd due to him wanting it more as well as winning it with boxing. The championship rds did not show me a faded SK. And it did not show me a stronger finishing Ward.

BTW, an example of a fighter figuring out another and turning things around was Floyd vs. Judah! Ward wasn't close to this.

walshb

Kristopherus wrote: »

Watched the replay of the fight yesterday. For me, the result was as blatant a hometown decision as you could wish for. No way did Kovalev lose that fight

Not at all surprising when there was a complete bias in place as regards the officiating....

Morrison J

Ward 100% found a feel for the range from about round 4 onwards. He was definitely at least a half step further away from Kovalev in his general stance after the first few rounds. Allowed him to read Kovalev's jab better and make him miss. The double left jab Kovalev was landing at will early was completely eradicated. Kovalev was nullified for the majority of the 2nd half of the fight really. Finding a lot of thin air.

Ward also started concentrating more on attacking the body of Kovalev. First two rounds Kovalev is jabbing often and effectively. Then abandoned it to a point. The fight completely flipped on its head. I think the combination of the body punches and all the clinching tired Kovalev down. Thought he was visibly slower in the latter rounds personally.

Wouldn't agree with the idea that it was the same fight from the start to finish at all myself.

SHOVELLER

pac_man wrote: »

@SHOVELLER: Was the crowd pro Ward? It came across as that on the tele at the time.

Crowd was pretty muted to be honest. Cant put a finger on the overall experience as this was a huge fight yet there just wasnt that buzz around it.

Generally you could say it was more Ward but only once did the chant SOG go up. Good amount of Russians there as well as Raiders fans.

Delighted to be there but the amount of empty seats and the decision leaves me scratching my head!

selectamatic

Id be thinking the p1ss poor undercard impacted heavily on ticket sales and indeed the atmosphere on the night.

Morrison J

I thought the promotion of the fight overall was atrocious to be fair. Not surprised in a way that it didn't sell. Such little buzz generated about such a big fight. Majority of sports fans that'd watch the odd fight I talked to in work on Monday morning weren't even aware the fight took place. I don't think the two fighters involved helped the matter. Zero personality between the two of them.

walshb

Morrison J wrote: »

Ward 100% found a feel for the range from about round 4 onwards. He was definitely at least a half step further away from Kovalev in his general stance after the first few rounds. Allowed him to read Kovalev's jab better and make him miss. The double left jab Kovalev was landing at will early was completely eradicated. Kovalev was nullified for the majority of the 2nd half of the fight really. Finding a lot of thin air.

That's fine if you saw that. But some are suggesting he sussed him out in a sense that he was beating him. Figuring out how not to get hit as frequently as you were getting hit is technically sussing it out, but what are you doing in return is the real question? Like I said, it was not like Ward was sussing him out and countering him/landing shots in return with any level of consistency. That would be sussing out and figuring out to me. You still have to land and actually win the fight.

Regarding the fading of SK. Yes, maybe he wasn't as fresh in the late rds, but I never label this fading. This is pro boxing of 12 rds, where it is not at all unusual to slow down towards the end. Again, the key is is comparing him to Ward. Instead of "dissing" him for fading, compare him to Ward. Was Ward somehow so energetic and exploiting the faded SK? No, he was not. SK was still every bit the winner in the late rds as Ward was.

It seems to me that both men are not being looked at-judged-compared equally here.

Senor Frog

It seems to be case of the emperors new clothes with Ward . He stopped getting beaten to the punch as badly in the second half of the fight but I cant see how he won that fight , he never landed any real telling shots. The american commentary were trying to talk ward up , but even they never went as far as saying he won the fight prior to the result being announced .

Burial.

What telling punches did Kovalev land in comparison? Besides the KD which was more of a flash knockdown rather than a devastating hurting punch I can't recall him landing many if any clean punches on Ward. Ward's left hook was very accurate once he got into his rhythm. The HBO team were largely pro Kovalev. Lampley and Lederman typically disgracefully biased to the puncher over the boxer. I guess on the other side Max is a big fan of Ward, but I felt he called the fight pretty well.

normanoffside

I looked at the last 4 rounds again and feel SK won at least 2 of them. Ward was visibly more confident, cocky and outwardly aggressive but didn't actually land much. A case in point was a bolo punch which ward lined up in the 10th only to be met with a stiff jab to the face.

To me it looks like the judges scored these rounds to ward based on swagger rather than substance. It's annoying to me personally in that I had €20 on Kovalev by points at 6/1 so it has lost me €140.

Burial.

Completely ridiculous to suggest judges score a round based on "swagger" of all things. That's something Scott Gilfoid from Boxingnews24 would say.

selectamatic

Burial. wrote: »

biased to the puncher over the boxer.

Ya see this is the issue I have with the perception of how modern elite boxing is viewed in America. Be ultra defensive/negative and throw a pretty poor amount of punches but have a high accuracy percentage and your suddenly a "boxer", a "maestro" etc.

Juxtapose this with a front foot largely positive fighter who wants to actively engage and throw away comments such as "puncher" "brawler" etc. are bandied about like there's no tomorrow.

To try to imply the only meaningful shot kovalev landed was his knockdown punch is laughable. Ward was eating solid snappy jabs for 4 solid rounds at the start. He improved admirably in the 2nd half of the fight but not to the extent that some feel. Talk of outstanding body work and landing counter punches at will is hyperbole imo.

SHOVELLER

selectamatic wrote: »

Id be thinking the p1ss poor undercard impacted heavily on ticket sales and indeed the atmosphere on the night.

I dont know about that cos to be honest it's the main event that counts. But come to think of it at the weigh in there were two heavyweights brought out. At first I thought it was a fan taking the piss cos this first chap looked he just left the nearby Johnny Rockets! It was embarrassing.

Morrison J wrote: »

I thought the promotion of the fight overall was atrocious to be fair. Not surprised in a way that it didn't sell. Such little buzz generated about such a big fight. Majority of sports fans that'd watch the odd fight I talked to in work on Monday morning weren't even aware the fight took place. I don't think the two fighters involved helped the matter. Zero personality between the two of them.

Fair comment. Talking to the locals and even they didnt realise the fight was on or the magnitude of the fight. Compare that with the Pacquiao fight I was at in April and its night and day.

Not too sure on the personality issue. Is GGG more loquacious than Kovalev? Might have more to do with the weight class. Light heavy is not exactly easy to sell as compared to the middleweights and heavyweights of the world.

I got to the arena while the last undercard was going on and there was only about 30 people outside! Normally outside the Garden or Barclays there is a crowd and the buzz is exciting. Cathy Duva has said the rematch could take place in either of those venues. I certainly hope so.

BTW Lomachenko's comments on the rematch are very apt. I'm very interested in the crowd for his fight saturday in the Cosmopolitan.

Burial.

selectamatic wrote: »

Ya see this is the issue I have with the perception of how modern elite boxing is viewed in America. Be ultra defensive/negative and throw a pretty poor amount of punches but have a high accuracy percentage and your suddenly a "boxer", a "maestro" etc.

Juxtapose this with a front foot largely positive fighter who wants to actively engage and throw away comments such as "puncher" "brawler" etc. are bandied about like there's no tomorrow.

To try to imply the only meaningful shot kovalev landed was his knockdown punch is laughable. Ward was eating solid snappy jabs for 4 solid rounds at the start. He improved admirably in the 2nd half of the fight but not to the extent that some feel. Talk of outstanding body work and landing counter punches at will is hyperbole imo.

You make a fair point but sadly for your argument that works both ways. I have an issue with how technical, defensive fighting if often viewed as boring and negative. Andre Ward is a boxing genius, a true genius. Rigondeaux the same. Yet he is labelled boring, negative and a disgrace to Boxing. I briefly pop into Boxing forums and the majority of posts concerning Ward, Rigondeaux and the likes are negative whilst I have seen countless people say Golovkin is one of the greatest boxers of all time. Now I don't care how much you hate Ward, or love Golovkin, but in a legacy point of view Golovkin isn't fit to lace Ward's shoe laces.

On the other hand anyone with a powerful punch is lauded even though they might be a pure hit and hope kind of guy. Guys like Golovkin, Kovalev and Joshua are lauded for their KO power and very little else by the majority. It's especially harsh on Kovalev and Golovkin who're tremendously gifted boxers from a technical POV. But take away their power and they'll probably be viewed boring too. Again obviously actual Boxing fans can see the true ability. I see guys starting to get on Crawford's back recently too saying he's boring.

I said landed a few meaningful shots, but honestly nothing more than Ward. Ward's jab was in control for a lot longer than Kovalev's was and he certainly snapped Kovalev's head back a few times too if you're concerned about that sort of thing. Again as I have said before it blows my mind people cannot see Ward's body work... If I had the time I'd actually go through the fight and snip out all his body work but I am confident someone like Lee Wylie is doing that right now.

normanoffside

Burial. wrote: »

Completely ridiculous to suggest judges score a round based on "swagger" of all things. That's something Scott Gilfoid from Boxingnews24 would say.

How else can you explain all 3 judges giving Ward the 10th?

Burial.

normanoffside wrote: »

How else can you explain all 3 judges giving Ward the 10th?

Eh what? Round 10 was a super even round and overall a terrific round to watch. Both landing some very good shots. Not a certain round for any fighter that's for sure. And certainly swagger doesn't have any merit anywhere in a Boxing round, let alone a super close championship round or a really close fight.