"Fighter A ran all night!" - 1st off, he probably didn't; 2nd, even if he did, it doesn't mean B won

What can i say, I seen A lot of punches miss and A lot of jabs parried.. I can't score that when Canelo is clearly landing the better shots coupled in with superb defense. I do my best according to the 4 main parts of the scoring criteria.:

Effective Aggression – Being aggressive gives the impression of dominance, but unless the boxer is landing shots and not constantly getting countered, it’s not exactly “effective.” Judges look for effective aggression, where the aggressor consistently lands his punches and avoids those from his opponent.

• Ring Generalship – The fighter who controls the action and enforces his will and style.
• Defense – How well is a boxer slipping, parrying, and blocking punches? Good defense is important.
• Hard and Clean Punches – To the untrained eye, it can appear as if a boxer is landing a lot of shots, when, in fact, most are being blocked or aren’t landing flush. A judge needs to look for hard shots that land clean.

Now who was the fighter who closely followed the scoring criteria?

It was Canelo.

At the end of the day a draw was fair. Nobody took an L in a highly competitive fight, but Canelo will win the rematch.

 

But that's just the thing. GGG had 49 jabs that landed that WERE NOT matched by any sort of power punch at all.

But that's just the thing.

Golovkin landed 49 more punches than Canelo. Clearly either GGG's defence is better than Canelo's or his offence is better than Canelo's defence.

Canelo can slip and weave all he likes, but if Golovkin is still landing profusely despite all his slipping and weaving, Canelo is losing.

 

How bout all the 200+ punches GGG missed because of canelos superb defense? Fights are scored on a rbr basis, and at the end of the day Canelo looked like the winner after 12 rounds imo.

 

How many points do you get for slipping a punch?

 

All I see are a bunch of Canelo fanboys arguing that LARA actually beat the shorts off of Canelo

 

I think that's the main problem here. It was that horrendous scorecard. The fight itself was a great fight, and Canelo being on the brunt end of backlash after giving his all in the ring is absurd. Canelo deserves all the credit in the world for the fight he put up, that's all I gotta say. Well see who's the better man in the rematch, but now people will not underestimate Canelo like they did the first time around.

 

Defense is part of scoring criteria. Ineffective aggression or the "come foward" bonus is not.

 

In large part, yes. Also because we KNEW that Canelo was going to receive some sort of favour from the judges, and voila, he did.

I agree.

And actually I agree with this as well.

I doubted that Canelo could fight effectively at the full MW limit. I doubted that he could take GGG's punch and remain vertical. I didn't see how he could fight GGG with lead feet and not get flattened. I thought he would gas.

I was wrong about everything except for the gassing, and even there he caught his second wind and came back.

So yeah, full credit to Canelo for taking on the juggernaut of the division and making it competitive.

 

Listen Canelo was the General in the ring that night. He dictated where the fight was going to be fought whether on the backfoot, center if the ring or in the ropes. All GGG did was come foward, he couldn't really nullify what Canelo was doing in there by doing the things he was supposed to do like cutting the ring off, unless Canelo needed a break. And even so, Canelo was the one who took it there, but lets not act like Canelo wasn't playing defense along the ropes either. The " coming foward" bonus just doesn't make sense to me. Sorry.

 

I guess you've never chased a frightened chicken before That's what it looked like to me ...

Anyway, hopefully the controversy is settled in the rematch.

 

I never catch and cook my food! Lol

 

Usually, neither do I. Often small animals run across the road and if you pick em up just after they've been hit by a car, you're golden!