What good is being the aggressor if your not really landing the punches???

Vs not throwing punches like canelo it wins you the round
after kovalev and now this the usa is a corrupt laughing stock don't be surprised when big stars don't want to fight there, cant see AJ fighting in vegas after this they already got wilder cards filled in for win or draw if aj dominates.

 

Lampley and Ledderman should become motivational speakers because they have the power to persuade people into believing anything. Even things they obviously aren't seeing. I think this is the last fight I'm gonna watch with their commentary. Dcades of this bullshiz is enough. The sad thing is, people can't separate what they're seeing from what they're being told. Another fight like this is Quartey vs De la Hoya. we saw De la hoya get jabbed to death 7 of the first 8 rounds doing nothing and Ledderman giving him rounds while Lampley exploding as he gets beat on for 2 minutes and 50 seconds of a round but throws a flashy 8 punch combination to Quartey's arms for the last 10 seconds to do what they called "steal a round".

 

Which means it's one of his troll accounts he set up way back knowing he'd be banned.

 

So you either don't count Jabs, closed your eyes and winced every time GGG threw a shot, or have a really bad case of Blepharospasm. Commentators don't throw punches, and the bias of the night was clearly in favor of Canelo if anything.

 

Not that I completely disagree with the idea of commentator bias, but in this case how do you explain the majority of ringside observers who are not privy to the commentators broadcast in agreement or close agreement with Letterman's score? Many of whom predicted a Canelo win prior to the fight.

 

According to the British commentator who noticed all the GGG missing it's all about the general impression you make on the juges. Funny how commentators feign ignorance of how fights are supposed to be judged when told to. Stranger still how they expect the audience not to notice the farce. Seems to indicate that they have a very low opinion of boxing fan IQ. Maybe they imagine we suffer from congenitally-induced water on the brain? Yikes!

 

crowd noise, and not wanting to go back on their prediction of a GGG slaughter. There are people that still say De la Hoya beat whitaker when he barely landed anything and compubox had him landing over a hundred power punches somehow hahah. Round 8 was a good round. Go back and watch that round WITHOUT commentary and iell me if you saw GGG beating the hell out of Canelo as Lampley wanted us to believe. I'm not trying to go hard on you, but watch it without crowd noise and commentary. People don't believe they are persuaded by these things but they are. You have a guy like Kassim Ouma who was one of the most busiest fighters in the history of the sport. He threw a lot(always more than his opponents), but didn't always land a lot. Do you believe Ouma was ever robbed in a decision he lost?

 

punches to the body are scoring blows too. Something GGG refused to throw and Canelo threw a lot of

 

Unless you wanted to watch two men stand in opposite corners of the ring for 12 rounds, you should be praising Golovkin for making this fight entertaining.

 

Those flashy shots did more visible damage.

 

This content is protected

 

The word aggression in the phrase ''effective aggression'' is overused and not necessary. The rd goes to the guy who lands the most of the effective punches regardless of how aggressive he has been. If you cannot separate them on effective punches landed the 1st thing to look at is power. If the power is equal then aggression is the next criteria. The guy who is pressing the action and trying to make the fight.

 

Exactly. Glancing jabs were what g mostly landed on Canelo.

 

Look at how Golovkin was holding his arm across his body. A lot of those "body shots" were picked off on the arm.

 

Pretty sure GGG outlanded Canelo. For how good Canelo's defense is he wasn't able to take away the jab of a "basic" fighter.