OMG, a compubox warrior. I don't need punchstats or compubox to tell me who landed the cleaner, crisper, more solid punches more consistently. Golovkin was very ineffective in landing clean power punches, he was reduced to trying to land the weakest punch in boxing, and the safest punch to throw. This isn't the amaterus where you score each punch that lands. You score the effectiveness of your fight, and I saw GGG go from a Monster KO Artist to a fighter mostly throwing jabs from a safe distance. I also saw Canelo fight his usual fight when facing pressure fighters. Takes steps back, waits to counter, lures opponent to ropes in hopes to counter, used movement to avoid punches and counter back.. You guys called it running LOL. Y
If anything a wide card in a competitive fight proves the contrary to what you're saying. Dishonesty and corruption is always masked at the level we're talking about here. If Adalaide Byrd was truly on the take, biased, or what have you, she would have masked her scorecard to come up with a closer result than to just give all the rounds outright to make obvious her dishonesty. I had it 8-4 Canelo and even the rounds I gave to Golovkin were close enough to make me pause and think about who to give it to. A couple of the rounds I gave to Canelo were the same way where I would say to myself, "damn that was close" Canelo was simply landing the cleaner harder shots which imo is why Byrd went on ahead and just banked rounds for Canelo. The one thing I dislike about boxing commissions is that they don't let their judges speak to the media about their scoring. The fighters and referees can get interviewed, but official judges are off limits to do interviews. Why not let a judge who's being scrutinized defend him or herself??? I'll tell you why. In most cases its the commissions who have the most to hide and its they who would be afraid of that coming to light and magnified if scoring judges were allowed to speak publicly about how they came about with their score.
You must not know that anything other than a jab is considered a powerpunch on that punchstat chart. In other words if a fighter just reached out with his non-jab hand and just barely touched the other fighters forehead in a punch without question considered by the masses as "ineffective" that punch my friend on a punchstat sheet is logged in as a "power punch." In other words, in this Canelo-Golovkin fight, there were to many punches logged in as power punches for Golovkin that really were not "power punches." Point blank my friend. Its really why you shouldn't look at a punchstat sheet to decide the winner of a round. For those of you who understand how to score a round, you have eyes, use them. For those that don't understand the nuances of scoring a boxing match. Sit, watch, and learn. I would advise those who don't know how to score to grab pen and paper anyways and score the fight live as its being fought. Score it without using punchstat to help you decide the winner of a round. Don't wait for Jim Lampley to bring out their corrupted punchstat numbers after every round so you can make up your mind as to who deserved the round. The second the round it over, jot your score for that round, and don't sit around waiting for the punchstat numbers to show up on the screen so you can decide who'd round it is. Punchstats are of zero value to me in scoring a round. View the round knowing what to look for, and score immediately after the round is over without the aid of punchstats.
[QUOTE="divac, post: 18840385, member: 296" Punchstats are of zero value to me in scoring a round. [/QUOTE] If thats the case why are they used in the judging...whether its of value to you neither here nor there , you might be amazed to know.
I had it wide for Mayweather, probably 9-3 if I remember correctly. A complete contrast to the Canelo-Golovkin fight. Mayweather-Pacquiao was a fight where very little clean connects from either fighter took place. Mayweather imo did just enough as far as clean and partial connects to win most of the rounds where as Pacquiao was reluctant to let his hands go and was being controlled by Mayweather's reach with the jab. As well it looked like Pacquiao was leary of just the threat of Mayweather to unleach his right hand. Height, reach, and Mayweather's overall dirty tactics just stalled Pacquiao's offensive arsenal.
I disagree. I think the 10-2 card confirms the Canelo bias in his big fights. Do you think 11-1 is at all reasonable in the Cotto fight? There are just too many examples before the GGG fight of Canelo having at least 1 very wide scorecard in fights that most people view as close, competitive fights. Happens once or twice, ok that can be reasoned away. When it happens in every fight, it becomes a pattern and suspect.
Sure--and i get that. But you are missing the bigger point I am making. There seems to be a pattern in all of his recent big fights that the general consensus is that they were close fights. But we have a pattern of at least one very wide score card.
If thats the case why are they used in the judging...whether its of value to you neither here nor there , you might be amazed to know.[/QUOTE] Who told you punchstats are used in judging. Punchstats are used my Jim Lampley and HBO. Official ring judges don't have access to punchstat, nor do they want to have access to them as that's not the proper way to score a fight. In professional boxing its all about effectiveness. In amateur boxing though its simply about connects. The effectiveness of the connect there doesn't matter. I'll have you know that for years Olympic amateur boxing used punchstats to determine the winner of fights. Punchstats there have since been rid of in that it was determined by all involved, even the viewers at home who would watch a punch land clearly and not counted on the punchstat counter. As well watch a punch miss, and be counted as a connect. So there you go, scoring strictly by punchstat was implemented in the amateurs but then taken away years later due to the inconsistency of the punchstaticians being able to count the connects correctly. View the round, decide who's racking points based on the scoring criteria, that's the best and only way to score a fight.
Most judgers prefer clean effective connects, unless they're biasing their scoring for the media darling, in which case all bets are off.
Where is the pattern when the one wide card is just that one? As for Adalaide Byrd, if you strictly scored on just clean effective connects then a case can be made for Byrd's 10-2 card as I doubt there where more than two rounds where Golovkins landed cleaner and harder blows. Canelo was making Golovkin miss with a lot of punches and then a chunk more were being rendered ineffective with Canelo picking some off and moving his head and riding with them. Golovkin did so much less play defensively that Byrd apparently payed a lot of focus on that. 10-2 is a little off, but I don't think it was over the top off considering most of the rounds you could give Golovkin were close that you could side to Canelo if you focused more on quality than quantity.
Was this video made by a Golovkin fan? Just wondering because it's completely one sided in favor of Golovkin winning. Not that I'm surprised to see the strong majority having GGG winning the fight clearly but I'm curious to see if there's a Nelo fan video of the aftermath that can somehow attempt to balance things out? This was a 30 min video of mostly fans saying Golovkin won....it would be interesting if a 5 minute video could be edited together that were all fans who had Canelo winning?
