Oscar: I want to make Canelo vs GGG rematch, but Lemieux is another option.

There would be zero interest if GGG somehow lost to Charlo, none !

 

Obviously, Canelo is a superb fighter, of course he wouldn't be a huge underdog against anyone. The press? Lol, how are they more qualified to judge a fight than anyone else? And the fans LOL.. Yeah fans are the best judges as proven time again.

Lets be real for a minute..

Put the feelings aside and let go of the storyline for a second.

If you score clean effective power punches over jabs then you probably favored Canelo.

If you favor the busy pressure fighter then you probably favored Golovkin.

You cant deny Canelo landed the clean effective power punches more consistently, just like you cant deny Golovkin outworked Canelo with the jab for a large part of the fight.

Canelo imo boxed great and showcased himself in the first three rounds. Canelo also closed very strong in the last three rounds, hammering Golovkin with some nice combos and again landing the cleaner more effective punches.

Golovkin proved he has an iron chin, and is strong willed. He resembles Margarito in how they can take huge punches and keep coming forward and still be throwing punches. Golovkin has a more text book technique than Margarito though. Ggg throws shorter punches, and uses his jab more effecfively.

Canelo is the natural counter puncher it seemed that the aggressor (GGG) was pushing the fight, however when you compare how each fighter fought, GGG was the one fighting out of character. GGG is supposed to be a KO artist who knows how to cut of the ring.

If you look at their faces after the fight GGG was clearly more marked, and NATURALLY so as he was eating the cleaner power punches.

The fight was close, and it can be judged multiple ways depending on what you like. SO again, if you like the busier aggressive come forward style you will favor GGG who kept busy out landing Canelo with the jab, BUT if you favor clean effective power punching then Canelo is your man.

As I said, this fight was close, and it could be scored different ways depending on what you're looking for. Personally I rate power punchers higher than jabs because it's a lot more difficult and much riskier to throw and land power punches than throwing jabs.

Not sure what you're talking about here. I would assume it makes them even in terms of their fight.

He beat him faster by 1 rd being the bigger natural stronger power puncher, but in the process he ate a lot more clean punches than Cotto did.

The way Cotto beat Geale was a thing of beauty. Almost flawless. Golovkin had his brain banged around. As a boxing fan you should know punches take their toll, whether in the short term or the long term.

What are you sorry about, and what's your point exactly? Have you always agreed with every P4P list? Are P4P lists not the most subjective rankings in boxing? And would it not be better for Canelo's legacy to come in as an underdog and ranked lower to beat the #1 P4P fighter?

I find it a bit suspect that they have GGG as #1 P4P to be quite honest, especially when there are more deserving fighters imo. But hey, you can buy into the storyline all you want and ignore reality. Fighters like Lomachenko, Rigondeaux, Crawford, or Spence have a better argument being ranked higher than GGG. If Canelo beats the #1 P4P fighter in the rematch it will elevate him to astronomical levels. GBP and Ring played it well.

GGG has ALWAYS had opportunities. He had ward at 168, he had Canelo way back at 155, he even had Lara and Trout at 160.

While other fighters like Mikey, Canelo, Ward, and countless more are LOOKING for opportnuties in more than one division, GGG has stay put it what was a very weak MW division complaining he had no opportunities.

@PH|LLA

 

Oscar is putting the rematch off as long as possible! Oscar won't allow Golovkin to fight Saunders, he want's Golovkin to be inactive, want's him to get old. Golovkin had better fight El Pollo at MSG, NY, not in Vegas and esp. not in Texas where Lawrence Cole rules the ref's, his father rules the boxing commission, the judges are for Alvarez, etc.

 

If Lemiuex wins vs Saunders I prefer to see Canelo vs Lemieux

If Saunders wins I prefere to see Golovkin vs Saunders

 

Some say Lara and Trout were robbed against Canelo. But those were close fights where it was a spilt amongst boxing fans as to who won. It was also split as to who won the fight between Jacobs and GGG. The overwhelming consensus in the Alvarez vs GGG fight was Golovkin won in clear fashion.

 

Only in your bubble does the consensus have it as a "clear" Golovkin win. The overwhelming consensus saw it within a single swing round of a draw. Most people had Canelo winning rounds 1-3 & 10-12, and most people had Gennady winning rounds 4-9.

Comparing Canelo Lara to Canelo G is interesting, because Lara was much more slippery than Triple G, and Canelo wasn't able to land the kind of bombs on Lara that he landed on Gennady. Lara's elusiveness made his fight with Canelo close. Many thought he outboxed Canelo in most of the rounds which is arguable due to his backwards and lateral movement. What makes Canelo G different than his fight with Lara is the fact that Canelo landed big, hard head snapping punches on Gennady Golovkin.

The common theme here is that in every one of Canelo's big fights (Trout, Mayweather, Lara, Triple G, even Khan) a lot of people complain about the judging and try to argue that Canelo didn't really win as many rounds as the judges thought he did. As you know, none of the 3 judges who scored Canelo Triple G had it a clear "wide" win for Gennady, so you appear to be seeing something that none of the 3 judges saw. You're taking a obviously close fight and are arguing that it wasn't close at all, which is ridiculous and why it's so difficult for you to make the argument that it wasn't close. If anybody won clearly, it was Canelo because he landed the better, harder, more effective punches. Canelo landed several big uppercuts and he landed more body shots than Triple G.

What we learned is that Gennady Golovkin just isn't on Canelo's level. Triple G fans predicted that Canelo would get knocked out, and Canelo was never hurt or in any trouble over the 12 rounds. It's simply incomprehensible for any reasonable boxing fan to argue that Gennady won the bout clearly. Round after round, Canelo landed the better harder punches and that's what wins fights.

 

I honestly think you are reaching in your defense over the fans reaction between Alvarez and GGG. The disparity of the response was evident as to who they felt won the fight as it is in every fight with a controversial decision.

We always hear boo's and cheers from the fans attending live during post fight interviews which gives a clear indication as to what they thought about the decision and/or the fighters. The only caveat to fans and their reactions to controversial decisions is if someone is hated or there's an overwhelming support system for one fighter over the other. In those situations the reactions can be biased.

Like Floyd being boo'd in his post fight interview with DLH. The fans were mostly DLH fans and they cheered Oscar and wanted him to win even though he lost in a competitive fight. But in this case with GGG vs Alvarez it was a heavily pro Canelo crowd and pretty much in his back yard yet he was boo'd and Golovkin was cheered. It's clear the pro Alvarez crowd were unhappy with the decision and felt their guy did not deserve to win or escape with a draw that night.

Had this fight taken place in Russia and the majority of the fans were Golovkin fans then your argument would be plausible as to why the fans reacted favorably to GGG and disapproving to Alvarez.

SAUL “CANELO” ALVAREZ is estimated to have had as many as 18,000 Mexican fans in the 20,000-seater T-Mobile Arena for Canelo vs GGG, but he did not receive a warm reception after he received a draw with Gennady Golovkin.

https://syndication.bleacherreport....canelo-ggg-fight-announced-as-a-draw.amp.html

 

Trout won the VACANT title against Rigoberto Alvarez....defended it against David Lopez, Frank Loporto, Rodriguez and Cotto....

Thats:
Alvarez 27-2
Lopez 40-10
Loporto 15-4-2
Rodriguez 26-5-3

Cotto is tge only name fighter he's beaten, the rest are journeymen at best and you have the audacity to claim Golovkin has fought nobody and Lemieux come to that.

So 4 wins over journeymen, a top win over Cotto, then losing everytime you step up from then on in makes Trout "elite"?......LMFAO.

 

When it's all said & done, imo I think the whole Canelo/GGG rematch largely hinges on what happens in the Lemieux/Saunders fight. that fight will be watched very closely by Golden Boy.

 

I watched that twitter video of the crowd reaction to the scorecards from inside the arena inside this link and this is a very useful video to gauge the crowd reaction. I hadn't seen this reaction to the scores from from inside the arena before so thanks for sharing, and lets talk about this video.

As you can hear, there is a lot of cheers at the announcement of the 118-110 card. Some boos, but mostly cheers. Upon the reading of 115-113 Triple G, there's some cheers and some boos as well. At the reading of the 114-114, there's mostly boos as can be expected for it being a draw. This reaction is what we should be paying attention to, not the boos in the post fight interview, which was more localized.

This is the best indicator over what the crowd thought of the decision. If the crowd didn't think Canelo won, then you wouldn't have heard all those cheers at the reading of the 118-110 card now would you? There were of course boos at that score, presumably from Triple G's fans, which is completely understandable. But the vast majority of the crowd was cheering the scorecard that had Canelo winning 10 rounds to 2, so this really destroys any argument that you are making that the "entire arena" was booing Canelo or thought he didn't win.

The irony of the statement about Floyd DLH is that most people thought Floyd won the fight rather convincingly, so the fact that he was booed doesn't indicate that he lost which is what you have suggested with regard to the boos in the the post fight interview. The reason they were booing in DLH Floyd I think had more to do with Floyd's antics in the pre-fight, and wearing Mexican attire at the fight. Floyd's antics rubbed a lot of Mexican fans the wrong way and surely contributed to why they were booing Floyd there.

Again, you have no way of knowing exactly who or what part of the crowd was booing when Max was asking Canelo questions in the post-fight. There were also boos when G first started being interviewed by Max which you seem to be conveniently ignoring.

I'm guessing that there was probably a sizable section of Gennady Golovkin fans that were making a lot of noise. Their boos were drowned out by the Canelo cheers when the 118-110 was announced, but in the post-fight interview when Max was asking the questions you could hear them clearly because at that moment the whole arena wasn't cheering since they were listening to the interview.

What you are doing here is that you're making all kinds of assumptions as to who was booing, how many people were booing, and specifically what they were booing during the postfight interviews, which you would have no way of knowing. But that twitter video of the scorecards being announced inside the arenas speaks volumes over how many people were cheering Canelo winning and booing the draw as is to be expected.

My guess is that it was mostly the G fans that were booing when Canelo was being interviewed. And regardless, in no way does crowd noise prove that Triple G won the fight clearly lol. The crowd was obviously upset with the draw, Canelo fans thinking Canelo won with G fans thinking G won. The G fans were apparently more vocal in their displeasure. I don't know how accurate the estimate of 18,000 Mexican fans inside the arena is. But even if there were only 2,000 Gennady Golovkin fans, surely if you had 18,000 listening to the interview, and you have 2,000 Golovkin fans abruptly booing loudly, surely that would still be plenty loud if those 2,000 are booing at the top of their lungs. When the boos were heard in the post fight interview, both Max and Canelo looked up at a particular area in the crowd which is obviously where the boos were coming from which suggests that "the entire arena" wasn't booing as you've suggested, but rather a specific section of the arena, presumably the small but vocal Triple G section.

 

I wouldn't be concerned about "my bubble" if I were you. It's your bubble that's the anomaly. There's very few who saw things play out the way your eyes saw that fight and an overwhelming number of people who have weighed in saying GGG won clearly.

Digging deeper into the depth and breadth of who those people are provides validity to what the consensus shows. The inordinate majority of pro boxers, writers, analysts and columnists that gave their thoughts said GGG clearly won that fight. If all the feedback that favored GGG winning came from guys like you or me...YouTube posters or average weekend boxing fans it wouldn't mean much, but that's not the case...it's pretty much everyone from all walks of life, backgrounds and experience in boxing that felt Golovkin won and Alvarez got a gift.

I brought up the Alvarez vs Lara fight to inject a foundation to my point. Lara was much more elusive than GGG but GGG was much more offensive. Different styles contribute to the differentiation in how they approached their fights with Alvarez. What's more interesting is how Alvarez approached each of those fights. Canelo actually landed at a higher connect percentage against Lara than he did against GGG. A lot of people felt Lara won due to the closeness of the fight itself. Not because Lara was backing up. Canelo simply had more difficulty in that fight than any of his previous fights so that made people believe he could have lost.

The fight was competitive between GGG and Alvarez. Not close. Lara vs Alvarez was close...so was Alvarez vs Trout. Alvarez vs Mayweather was competitive so was GGG vs Jacobs....not close.

Alvarez landed more body shots against GGG, that's true....but Overall he didn't land much at all compared to the landed punches Golovkin landed on him.

If you claim GGG isn't on Alvarez's "level" then it's because Golovkin is operating on a higher level based on what took place inside the ring when they fought. I wouldn't go that far to say that because Alvarez did show he could compete and make it competitive against the Middleweight champion, but it wasn't the dominating performance we are use to seeing from Canelo. That has more to do with the level of opposition Golovkin was than having anything to do with Alvarez's level.

There were a lot of GGG fans who predicted a KO but there were a lot of Alvarez fans who predicted an easy UD. We have to take those predictions with a grain of salt. There's obviously a lot of bias and over the top views coming from the most ardent fans and their predictions reflect that. Most thought it would be a toss up as to who would win. And going in, it was a very even split amongst fans who thought GGG would win vs Those who thought Alvarez would win. Most boxers thought Alvarez would win but after the fight those same boxers said GGG won.

Canelo did well....but only in spots to make the fight competitive. His punches may have seemed harder but ultimately were not effective enough to earn him a win or a justification for a draw. He received a draw, but so did Evander in his first fight with Lewis.

 

I think you're getting confused by 2 different things. I agree that more people asked had G winning. I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing is what you are saying, that the people that had G winning had him winning "clearly" or stating that it was "not close".

It is you that is the one stating that it wasn't close. The vast majority of those that had G winning had it either 7-5 or 8-4. That is generally known as a "close fight". A not close fight would be 10-2, 11-1, 12-0, or maybe even 9-3. Only a handful of people had G winning wider than 7-5 or 8-4. So that indicates that only a handful people had it "not close", making what you're saying about it the fight being "not close" the anomaly.

I have the fight somewhere in the vicinity of 8-4 or 7-5 for Canelo, but unlike you, I admit the fight was close. That's the difference. So while my having Canelo winning may be in the minority, I'm in the majority of people who thought the fight was close, unlike you.

So understand that the overwhelming number of people who have weighed in are not saying GGG won clearly. That's what you and you alone are saying.

Most people I've heard who said G won admitted it was close and praised Canelo's performance. I know you're getting stuck on the competitive vs close debate, but lets be real. Whether or not a fight is deemed competitive or close is largely subjective. But it's inaccurate to say that the overwhelming number of people who had G winning didn't think it was close. If you look at the list of scores, most of them were 7-5 or 8-4, which is one or two swing rounds away form a draw.

To really gauge just how a close a fight is with those score, you really need to examine the swing rounds and and decide how close those rounds were. On your scorecard, you said you had Canelo winning Rounds 1,3,10&12. I very accurately pointed out that you were two rounds away from a draw on your card, and that rounds 2 and 11 were rounds that the vast majority and all 3 judges gave to Canelo. So just by looking rounds 2 and 11, these are rounds that were very clearly debatable and "close" (if not clear Canelo rounds), so it makes no sense for you to argue the fight "wasn't close" when in fact Rounds 2 and 11 were the rounds that gave Gennady the win on your scorecard, which were rounds that the vast majority and all 3 judges had in favor of Canelo. By all accounts, at the very least those rounds were clearly "close" so if you agree that Rounds 2 and 11 were close, then surely the fight would be close as well since those two rounds decided who won the fight.

 

No worries. Happy to share. In a crowd of 20000 fans, 18000 were Canelo supporters....give or take a thousand. Their reaction shouldn't be looked at through an electron microscope to analyze why or what they reacted to. It's really not that complicated. We can use historical events in post fight interviews to validate the reactions.

Regarding the "cheers" you believe were heard from the 118-110 for Alvarez...that wasn't cheering. That reaction was shock. Cheering is what was heard in the post fight interviews when Golovkin got on the mic. Even if you want to believe they were cheering, all you have to do is look at the number of articles that specifically point out Alvarez was boo'd after the fight to get a better understanding of what took place inside the arena. The articles are from people who attended the fight so their perception has a lot more merit than yours or mine.

Floyd absolutely won the fight against DLH clearly. But the crowd thought it was a lot closer than it was simply because they loved Oscar and it was a pro DLH crowd. What's even more interesting is the fact that there was more of a split amongst fans as to who won that fight than the lopsided split who felt GGG beat Alvarez. Both were competitive fights and there was a majority who had the right winner, but there were far more who felt Oscar beat Floyd than those who felt Alvarez beat Golovkin.

Based on roughly 18,000 out of 20,000 fans being Pro Canelo....it's beyond safe to say the reaction we heard from the audience were Canelo fans. Boos.....cheers, shock....18k easily eclipses anything 2k could muster up in terms of decibels production by either side.

I'm not making assumptions at all. That's what you are doing. You're over analyzing something that's not at all worth the energy. You hear boos from a pro Alvarez audience and you assume they are booing the question from Kellerman. You assume 18,000 pro Canelo fans vs 2,000 Golovkin fans somehow over power the overwhelming majority in a enclosed venue? You assume that you heard "cheers" when it was clearly a stunned and shocked reaction from the audience after the 118-110 score card was read. To me....it's more of a rationalization than an assumption because you feel the need to defend. Which is fine, but I just want to provide some insights to give you somethings to consider since a lot of your rationale makes little sense.

 

No confusion... this is based on feedback from fans, stating GGG won the fight and corresponding score cards. Some people thought DLH had a close fight with Floyd....I didn't view it that way. I saw it as competitive. Just like how I saw the GGG vs Alvarez fight as being competitive. Most don't see a 8-4 card as "close", most feel that's a clear win...some might see a 7-5 card as close, but with the caveat of the action that transpired in the ring and what the general public being divided as to who won.

I'm really not alone is saying GGG clearly won. There's a thread dedicated to this on here that provides detail around the overwhelming consensus saying or providing score cards validating GGG winning in clear fashion. I know you want to believe otherwise but that's just wishful thinking on your part.

I'm not at all trying to discredit Alvarez. I'm just offering an unbiased and real depiction of what transpired. He fought a good fight but not enough to win which is reinforced by the overwhelming number of people who have weighed in on this fight

 

Floyd DLH is really no comparison to Canelo G. I agree that Floyd outpointed and outboxed DLH pretty clearly. DLH had no head movement, DLH had some mild success but didn't land any major earth shattering punches.

Canelo G on the other hand was much closer than Floyd DLH in the sense that it was harder to score than Floyd DLH. Canelo landed bombs on G, Canelo landed hard head crunching uppercuts, Canelo landed body shots, Canelo used upper body movement and made G miss. G was able to apply more effective pressure on Canelo than DLH was able to apply to Floyd. DLH admitted himself that he didn't stick to using the jab as much as he should have. G used the jab pretty consistantly and appeared to land the jab on Canelo more than DLH landed the jab on Floyd. (though it's been a long time since I've watched DLH Floyd so that's a little bit of a blur, but it would be interesting to compare the two fights more)

But yeah, you appearing to act like Floyd beat DLH as convincingly as G supposedly beat Canelo is quite a stretch lol. Canelo landed more hard impactful punches on G, which was more hard punches than Floyd landed on DLH or that DLH landed on Floyd. There aren't really that many similarities between these two fights in all reality.

In that thread of the media scorecards, out of all those media members, nowhere there is it tallied as to who stated whether it was close or not. For about half of the people asked who they thought won, there was no score listed. (so of about half of those people we have no idea whether they thought it was close or not) Of those that listed a score, the overwhemlingly majority had it either 8-4 G, 7-5 G or a draw. Only a handful had it 9-3 G like a Paulie Malignaggi or a few others. So when the vast majority have it 8-4 G, 7-5 G or a draw, that suggests that most had it "close". If the vast majority had it 10-2 G, or 9-3 G, then maybe you'd have an argument that the vast majority didn't think it was close.

While I think we can both agree that a score of 7-5 "is as close as it gets", whether or not 8-4 is considered close, it's hard to say I guess that score is right on the border of what could be considered "close". I don't think you can say with any certainty that the overwhelming majority "didn't think it was close". It's more of an unknown since only a number of those listed were interviewed and really talked about the fight, and as far as I could see, the people that interviewed didn't come across as though they thought the fight was easy to score or something. I think it's wishful thining on your hand to say that the overwhelming majority had it "not close". You're the one making that claim, not me, so I'm not the one defending that claim, you are. If you are going to make that claim, then you need to do a better job of proving it, which you can't. What's interesting is in your response you avoided addressing your scorecard that you shared and the fact that All 3 Judges gave Round 2 and Round 11 to Canelo. Those are the only two rounds seperating your scorecard from a draw, so I don't know how you can argue it wasn't close when the rounds that gave G the win on your card were Canelo rounds on all 3 judges scorecards.

I should also point out that All 3 Judges Had the Fight Close. (or Canelo wide) None of the Judges agree with your assessment that it wasn't close, none of them had it to G wider than 7-5, you are beyond the extremes of All 3 judges with your "wide, clear" G win. Can you please address your scorecard and the fact that you had G winning Rounds 2 and 11. Surely you'd admit that rounds 2 and 11 were at least "close rounds" rounds that if you gave to Canelo you'd have a draw. Given that reality, how is that not a close fight? It's not like you're scorecard is 8-4 with no other rounds arguable for Canelo or something. It's 8-4 with 2 rounds you gave to G that all 3 judges had for Canelo.

I don't think you're trying to discredit Alvarez, but you're certainly biased when it comes to how close you thought the fight was. You disagree sharply with All 3 Judges plus a good amount of fans who agree that Canelo won Rounds 2 and 11. Even BCS8, a fellow die hard G fan, had Canelo winning round 2 and he said Round 11 was a "toss up". So you're even disagreeing with some of your fellow G fans who had G winning the fight but admit that Rounds 2 and 11 either were Canelo or "toss up" rounds. I don't know why you can't just admit that the fight was close, and that there were a number of swing rounds that depending on what you are looking for in these swing rounds determines the result of the bout.