I'm calling it, you will NOT see Canelo in the ring with a live body..

*****s on the ultra defensive, hilarious...hard punches are meaningless in boxing apparently :rofl

Just pathetic stuff from a deluded hateful group of fans

 

I consider Cotto much more formidable at 147 than 154. Beyond measure, really. I also consider Cotto to have been in significant decline for a while, the last of his true glory days being the Pacquiao fight in my opinion. However, I also posit that a win over a shop-worn, out-of-his-weight Cotto is still one of the best possible wins at 154 over the last few years.

When both of the "best" at 154 prior Trout's bout with Cotto were the, by many observers' evaluations, relatively diminutive Welterweights, Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Miguel Cotto, you must incorporate that into the judging criteria as well in how good a win is. Beyond that effect, Cotto was still a skilled veteran with a lot of experience under his belt despite the aforementioned setbacks.

Regarding Cotto having then come off a loss, I frankly ask you, so what? He did not change my opinion of his condition leading up to his loss to Mayweather. I saw no noticeable flaw or addition to make me feel Cotto deteriorated from before the match, or even throughout his entire tenure at the time, up to the match and in following thereafter. Granted, that may have changed by present day.

Last, but not least, many opined Trout would not just beat Canelo, but do so in an unequivocal thrashing. Trout was estimated to do so for good reason; whether he performed accordingly or underperformed is as much to do with what Canelo did as what Trout did. Nonetheless, he is a southpaw with a decent arsenal and who was, if my memory serves in how much weight ESB General loves to give certain fighters, undefeated.

 

Effectiveness is measured by how your shots hit the other man. That is directly related to how hard they land.

Shaver is the harder puncher, but if that power didn't translate into fully following through onto Ali's face, then they don't count for their full potential. And they didn't.

How hard a punch is being perceived is exactly how you measure effectiveness. When a fighter buckles or get their head snapped back or are physically moved by a punch, that's effectiveness.

If you land a couple of visibly hard and effective punches a round, and your opponent doesn't, you've won the round. Clearly you're in the minority here when it comes to scoring criteria so just stop with the trollish BS.

 

Listen, Trout is an okay fighter, he's not absolute trash however he is slightly above average to me maybe a B type fighter, I'm not trying to diminish him at all, I'm neither a Trout or Canelo fan, I stayed neutral during the fight...

Trout has never impressed me, even the Cotto fight didn't convince me that he was someone to look out for in the future, other than his jab he really doesn't have anything significant in his arsenal, after he beat Cotto people were saying he'd beat Floyd and would beat Canelo, I never saw that potential personally, I call it like I see it...

Canelo was the only sharp boxer that night and that's when he decided to throw, I think his lack of stamina and his inability to effectively take Trouts jab away was why he didn't look dominant, he look great in spurts but those spurts came far and in between...

Canelo did show good defense but like I said Mostly saw a fighter in Trout who couldn't land clean power punches on a man who was fatigued and fighting with his hands at his waist, it was a close fight due to Trouts activity and Canelo's harder cleaner punches...

I guess I was disappointed after all the **** Trout talked and then to see him not give the type of performance that show he wanted to be unified champion...

By the way most of Trout power shots either missed, hit gloves or just simply grazed Canelo, he landed a small handful of clean power shots...that had no effect on Canelo and that's why he lost...he didn't have the power to make a difference and that will be his undoing in any big fight he has if he ever gets another...

 

Well now the way you're explaining your views is more tempered and reasonable and I see your points and pretty much agree. I think Trout has decent timing but Canelo's is superior, as he proved.

What the **** is effective supposed to mean if not damaging?

Make a poll and see whether the vast majority of posters agree with your absurd position that the hardness of the punches landed are irrelevant.

 

So Trout's a bum is he?

 

I didn't keep a card for that. But I can tell you right now, unless he landed the more effective punches, effective enough to out-do Ali's activity and effective punches, then it's irrelevant.

Being the harder puncher doesn't automatically mean landing the more effective punches. But in his case, Trout's punches weren't numerous enough or clean enough to outweigh the clean hard shots Canelo was landing.

Again, since you struggle with the concept, make a poll.

 

Huh? You just called him the man?

 

Well... now he does. GGG is one of the fighters that bother the **** out of him now.