Trout: Canelo Showed A Lot, But Draw With Golovkin 'Ridiculous'

This is humorous from Trout. G should be happy with the draw, he's right about that, but he's obviously still bitter about losing to Canelo. I mean on the one hand he's saying "Canelo did show that he’s got a hell of a chin and he’s got a hell of a punch and he’s got a nice set of balls".

He's trying to say Canelo did damn good but "not good enough". It's a catch 22. It's like he wants to give Canelo some credit, but doesn't think he deserves the scores that he's been getting.

It's a trend we've seen, that many fighters and media alike are just unwilling to give Canelo his due credit when it comes to the scorecards in his biggest fights. There's always some kind of phony outrage every time Canelo does well vs a top fighter. It's pure and simple denial of how good Canelo actually is and denial of how his performances are being scored.

He brings up tthe Mayweather fight, "they tried to rob Floyd Mayweather"?? Who's "they"? One judge CJ Ross who didn't even have Canelo winning lmao?? One judge isn't "they" Trout come on. The bias against Canelo here is just comical at this point. At some point you need to be more accepting of reality, instead of feeding into this phony outrage every time Canelo does well in a fight, there's got to be some conspiracy, it can't just be that Canelo fought a great fight!!

 

Ok, Oscar.

 

Trouts basically saying, you have to knock Canelo out to win on some judges cards, I agree. Majority thought if it went to the cards and Canelo was competitive he would get the win even if it was split decisiion. He's being honest, that's how it is. GGG is lucky he got a draw in some ways even though he obviously won !

 

Lets be honest, in a fight with neutral officials Golovkin wins 10/10 times.

Canelo fan boys dont want Canelo to fight Golovkin with neutral officials, because they know the only way for Canelo to beat Golovkin is through robbery, thanks to corrupt judges. In other words they want Golovkin to get robbed so he can finally lose, they dont want a fair fight. That in itself is telling. Luckily the history books will see it justly.

 

This may be the most delusional comment I've read lol. I mean wow, as a Canelo fan I'm frankly insulted by you're characterization of his fans lol. "The only way for Canelo to beat Golovkin is through robbery"? ? Really? So there's no possible way Canelo can win a decision legit?

This is literally what you believe isn't it, you're that in the tank for Triple G aren't you? Canelo fans "want" G to get "robbed". So Canelo's own fans don't want Canelo getting adulation for beating G fair and square?

Take a deep breath and really think about what you're saying here. Obviously Canelo's fans would want him to be credited with winning a fair fight, without any controversey. The reality is that it's you that is unaccepting of the draw just like you would be unaccepting of a Canelo win if he won.

Your definition of a neutral official is simply a judge that scores the fight for Golovkin lol ! !

 

Its sad that what u say is true in todays boxing. Its no worse than the mafia back in the day lol

 

I think you're confusing "getting the benefit of doubt" with "landing the better punches". I think you have to look at Canelo and appreciate how skilled he is to win over judges. He fights with such a natural confidence that he doesn't press the action like a volume puncher. He "takes his time", he conserves his energy, he fights in a way that causes fans to interpert it as favoritism. But in reality he's landing the better punches, and some judges appreciate that, while others don't.

Look, I personally thought G won more than 2 rounds OK. I thought it was something like 7-5, 8-4 Canelo. Really to better answer that question I need to go through rounds 5,6,7 and 8 and really decide who won those rounds. I personally had Canelo winning the first 4, G winning 5 and 6. And we talked about round 9 which was a hard round to score, but the 9th I think Canelo may have done enough. I mean lets put it this way, look at Round 9 and ask yourself who landed the better more effective punches. G landed more, but is scoring that round to Canelo that unreasonable? If you prefer a guy who throws less punches, but makes those punches count, you could end up with Canelo winning fairly wide. But I try to be as unbiased as possible. I recognized that like in the 5th, that Canelo did well in the first 2 minutes, but I recognized that G landed a big punch with Canelo on the ropes, and I gave that round to G. (Byrd didn't) Like I see both sides of the argument. I don't think it's unreasonable to give the 5th to Canelo. But I gave it to G for that big punch on the ropes and some work he did down the stretch.

I don't think he deserved a draw because I thought May won more rounds convincingly. I didn't agree with CJ Ross's card but there were some close rounds. I thought early on, it was very close. But I thought in the middle rounds Floyd started to take over. Canelo came back in the 10th, Floyd had a big 11th, Canelo may have won the 12th. So I ended up with something like Floyd by a round or 2. It's a stretch having that 114-114, but I also don't think it was a domination either as many believe. I thought Floyd won a 7-5, 8-4 type of a fight vs Canelo. It's hard to find enough rounds that Canelo clearly won vs Floyd. But there were a lot of rounds where you could give to Canelo if you were really trying to find rounds to give to Canelo. The rounds I gave to Canelo were 2,3,4,10, and possibly 12. The rest I thought Floyd won pretty clearly though the 5th was also fairly close.

I thought Canelo won a close competitive fight.

I thougth Canelo beat Cotto clearly, outboxed him round after round and won it fairly wide. It was competitive but Cotto just didn't win many rounds.

He's favored by the judges because he's performing at a very high level : landing the better punches, he's impressing the judges with his skill, ability to slip punches, etc.

 

He didn't "obviously win". It was a very very difficult fight to score. Both men did well, it's not the kind of a fight where you can sit back and act like one guy "obviously won". If it was so obvious that G won, then why was it a draw? (Why did all 3 judges have it either for Canelo or "extremely close") That doesn't suggest that G was the obvious winner. Why does everyone want to see a rematch? If it was such an obvious win for G, then there would be no demand for a rematch! What you're saying just doesn't add up.

 

All credibility LOST.

 

Trout said the same thing as I did : Trout : "Golovkin should be happy he got the draw."

 

A neutral judge scores the fight for the right fighter.

 

If it was so hard to score then why does the majority of the boxing community - over 80% - agree that Golovkin won? It was a hard, good fight, yes. But it was fairly clear who the winner was. Golovkin.

Oscar's "special" judges protecting his investment, that's how. Everybody said that if it went to the cards it would be controversial, and, wow, were we all right. Easiest seeing of the future I ever did. Atlas lost his **** because of exactly this.

It was an excellent fight that Canelo lost. I'd watch v 2.0.

 

The majority of the boxing community has it a very close fight. You're just throwing that 80% number out there, which is basically like a hundred something people in the media or boxers themselves who were asked. That's a tiny percentage of the actual "boxing community". Even the number of people on this message baord are a tiny percentage of total number of boxing fans worldwide, who haven't been asked. Just because the 100 or so media members and fighters polled favored G doesn’t indicate that’s G obviously won. Most of those 80% had the fight either a draw or 7-5 for G. Only a small percentage of people asked had G winning it by more than a single swing round.

The vast majority of the 100 some odd people in the media or fighters had it either a draw or a 7-5 G win. That’s pretty much as close as possible. Some had it 8-4 for G, others had it 7-5 Canelo and a few like Malignaggi had it 9-3 for G, but that’s the minority.

It’s also understandable that the vast majority favored the come forward fighter who threw (and appeared to land) more punches.

Well first of all, I would be the first to expect any close decision to be “controversial” as well in a fight this heated. Your crystal ball was no clearer than mine in that respect. I knew, as well as you knew, that if it was remotely close, whatever the decision was would be seen be controversial. Of course I expected the G fans to scream robbery because I thought Canelo would probably win. Turns out I was right, even though it was a draw, you have G fans screaming robbery.

First of all, Atlas is a terrible example because he had the fight 118-110 for Golovkin!! I mean, he has lost all credibility with that score, which is the exact same score as Byrd which he was criticizing her for because the fight wasn’t that one-sided. That’s just a terrible example to use Atlas, with him embarrassingly having that score. I don’t even think you really believe it was that wide (10-2) in favor of G.

And what’s this about Oscar’s “special” judges?? I just don’t see how it’s reasonable to make the case that Oscar handpicked these judges or had them in his backpocket like you are suggesting. I know you want to believe this for some reason, but it just comes off as pure paranoia and like a conspiracy theory. Do you ever think that maybe judges who give rounds to Canelo aren’t part of some vast conspiracy and just see him landing the better punches? Is that at all a possibility to you lol?

Then why does G have a dent on his record? I can say Canelo won, and I want to see v 2.0 and you can say G won and you want to see v 2.0, but at the end of the day, the fight was a draw, as much as we both thought our favorite fighter won, that's the reality of it. And FYI Canelo had more total points than G 345-339!