The dust has settled and as is customary these days in boxing, fans and pundits alike resort to deeming decisions they don't like as robberies and proof of the dying sport that is boxing. Personally I have mixed feelings on the subject but will state that no matter who won the fight many fans should acknowledge that this fight was an excellent match up which lived up to the hype and anticipation. To tarnish this competitive fight, which resulted in a one point difference on the score cards, with claims of pay offs and miscarriage of judging borderlines on childish.
With that being said I was conflicted with the end result; I have often felt that in order for a challenger to take the belt from the champ, that fighter must definitively beat the champion, be it by KO (ideally), or some serious work that clearly leaves the champ looking under prepared and undeserving. However this isn't the case in boxing these days and as an example you just have to look at some of the close losses of champions like Wladamir Klitscho to Tyson Fury Malignaggi to Broner and various others.
Fortunately or unfortunately the concept that the champion enters the ring with any bias in their favor has vanished in the bygone era of 15 round fights and camera men panning to the ring girls in between rounds. Seriously, can't we just mic up the corners and bypass the image of a q-tip up a guy's nose for the beautiful professionals who work hard to inform us of what round is coming up? But I digress; the issue is that a close fight with a knockdown should almost definitely go to the person scoring the knockdown. In this case the judges apparently saw something many of us missed that made Andre Ward appear to be winning the fight more handily than anticipated. I can't entirely dismiss this as just judging bias though because there were some real and less reasonable factors that may have played into the sway in opinion.
First the Subtleties
One of the biggest things I noticed in the fight was the body language of both fighters. As the fight moved past the early rounds, much of Kovalev's movements and even facial expressions appeared to be stilted and unsure of his standing in the fight. In his corner he looked more concerned than focused, which is uncharacteristic from the the fights I have seen him in. Ward continued to come out more invigorated and methodical with every round. At some points, Ward even began showboating which can sometimes give the illusion that things are going better for Ward than they really are. On occasion judges score blood, and while Ward was much more scrapped up, Kovalev's bloody nose streamed more profusely into the latter stages of the fight which was the same point that we saw Ward begin to truly pour it on.
The fact that Kovalev dropped Ward, who has never
been knocked down as a professional, is what fuels the debate more than
anything. At the same time, it is possible that the judges may have felt
Sergey Kovalev's inability to seal the deal was enough to award Ward
with the victory. But these human errors and biases are not solely
exclusive to those who agree that Ward should have won, which will be
addressed later. All or none of these things could have swayed the judges into favoring Ward and deeming him the winner.
The More Overt
One of the biggest factors that hurt Kovalev's decision chances was also his greatest asset in the fight: POWER. Jim Lampley and Harold Lederman lauded Sergey Kovalev for every punch he landed and even some he didn't. It is understandable to do so when each connecting punch looks like a missile and the fighter throwing them is known as the Krusher. But at the end of the day every one of those punches still only count as a punch, not a knock down, not extra point or anything else that can alter the scorecard unless they result in something more. Scoring isn't solely based on any one facet but a combination of ring generalship effective aggressiveness and in some cases who lands the cleaner and more frequent punches. One of the most frequent justifications of someone being the more aggressive fighter is if that fighter backs the opponent up. This certainly is a hallmark of aggression, but how effective is this backing up if the Kovalev pushes forward to initiate a headlock or clinch?
In addition to this there is the concept of ring generalship. This is not the same as pushing a fighter back, it's about how you use the ring to achieve outcomes that are beneficial to your game plan. In this case, I can see how Ward was seen favorably by the judges. Although back pedaling is not appealing to spectators, if it results in your opponent missing and being unable to cut off the ring, it exposes said opponent's lack of ring generalship. On various occasions Ward did not run but took a defensive stance and only backed up and to the side by a few steps and Kovalev simply followed; he didn't cut off the ring or throw punches but doubled down on following Ward around.
The end result will most likely be a rematch and we as fans should be thankful in that aspect. For far too long top level fighters have circled around one another for months to years only to drive up PPV sales and leave us with a one sided or boring match. Andre Ward and Sergey Kovalev are not those men: they came to fight and I personally believe them when they say they want a rematch. This fight deserves a second and third watch, and should be talked about like all the good fights of the past such as Pacquioa Marquez I, Frazier Ali I, and Lennard Hagler to name only a few. But to consider it a robbery or a fix seems lazy and biased. Anytime the power puncher doesn't destroy the opposition there are cries of dirty play when in reality truly great fighters can often times weather the storm of a power puncher to make it a tough night. And for the argument of knockdowns determining a fight, keep in mind that this isn't the first time a fighter goes down only to eek out a close decision. I'd be curious to know how many insist the knockdown of Ward merits a loss but defend Wladamir Klitschko's first win over Sam Peter after being dropped three times. Close fights excite and and close decisions only validate that the two men in the ring deserved to be there and should fight again. If there is any reason to be upset and call the fight a sham, don't let it be because the fight wasn't good. Let it be because boxing has used the same formula to gauge its loyal fans out of another $54.99 to see two fighters that you already pay an extra $15 a month to see on premium cable. But that is for another rant!
No comments:
Post a Comment