Going by facial damage on GGG/Canelo.

Facial damage doesn't mean a lot, it's determined by genetics, skin colour, etc.

It didn't mean anything in Ward-Kovalev, Horn-Pac either.

 

It doesnt tell the whole story of who /how some one technically won a fight.
But it is a good barometer for cleaner harder punches that actually landed...especially if you have never really seen the undefeated champ touched up/marked up before.

 

Yeah Oscar took no chances and said that the judges also scored this category in Canelo favour as well when asked how much damage or marked up Canelo was after the fight.

 

If we went by facial damage with Horn-Pac it would be Pac WIDE UD... no doubt!

 

Add Gonzales/Cuadras to that list too (although many people felt cuadras won)

But yeah, it should determine completely who the winner is...

 

Bit unfair, canelo has thick Irish skin.

 

Theoretically 1 punch could cause more facial damage than 50, so it can be very misleading.

 

If you have a fight on the street, you'd normally say the guy with the mashed up face has lost the fight, and the guy without a mark on him is the winner.

But in boxing, all bets are off.

I saw one card, think it was the night BJS beat Eubank Jnr, every single guy with the mashed up face were awarded the win. And the commentators didn't even have anything to say about this.

And then people will come up with these convoluted reasons why the guy with the mashed up face beat the guy who didn't have a mark on him, they'll say things like "volume punches".... yeah, but none of his punches did anything!!!

It is crazy.

What they need to do is just have a face and body scan after the fight, whoever has the most swelling/bruising loses, simple as that, no arguments. People will say stuff like, "yeah, but he doesn't swell easily".... yeah, because he hasn't been hit!!

If you look at both their faces, GGG lost that fight, his face resembled a watermelon!

 

[url]https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/21616069_1516338078412123_6463206461275083281_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=1930c136523d2a8f55750f61f9b27779&oe=5A5C2F06[/url]

[url]https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/fr/cp0/e15/q65/21768675_229379627592916_9134948528616274193_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=2e8d5c695966b231efec4cd331f6eafa&oe=5A4EAD0F[/url]

 

Look at Rocky Marciano's face compared to Ezzard Charles. Who do you think got the better of that fight?

Facial damage doesn't mean much.

 

Both look like they were in a fight for sure, but GGG does look the worst for wear.

 

It's hilarious that a lot of people are saying it doesn't mean much but
I vividly recall some people (Golovkin fans) on here after the Golovkin/Jacobs fight
bringing up facial damage (Danny scuffed up and Golovkin looking untouched)

Very funny.

 

for crying out loud - Rosado marked up G far worse!

 

I think that one huge punch Canelo landed later in the fight probably contributed to the majority of the bruising on the left side of GGG's face. If one guy breaks another guy's nose with one punch and then proceeeds to lose every round, the guy with the broken nose will look worse for wear but still win the fight. Canelo clearly landed the hardest single shots in the fight. Those several punches likely did most of the damage, but that still doesn't mean he won the fight. You can't judge who won a boxing match purely based on facial damage.