Canelo: "I watched the fight back. I won by 2 rounds"

So you had Trout beating Canelo? You had him overcoming that knockdown on the cards? I'm not sure there were 8 or 9 rounds outside of that knockdown round that Trout clearly won. I know several of Canelo's detractors on here have admitted that Canelo did enough to beat Trout. It was close and I didn't like the open scoring, but Canelo seemed to do well enough to win.

Lara on the other hand was much more debatable in my estimation.

 

Trout did IMO edge Canelo, yes (not sure what shadow's talking about with needing 8 or 9 clear rounds outside the KD round. Mathematotally he just needed 7 clear rounds at minimum, which is what he got on my card)...but not even close to as clearly as Lara did.

 

You're right I just meant like it wasn't like Trout just went out and won 8 or 9 clear rounds or anything. You had several rounds that were close. I get it, most people who had it for Trout had it 7-5, a 1 pt win with the knockdown. I think it's arguable either way but certainly not a robbery.

The problem I have and why it's a hard fight to debate scoring on is with the open scoring. You knew after Round 8 that Canelo had a commanding lead and mathemetically he couldn't lose without getting knocked down. Based on how the fight was unfolding and the fighters strengths, you knew it was pretty much impossible for Trout to get a knockdown, so it wasn't in any way shocking. And before you start claiming a Canelo judging favoritism conspiracy, the knockdown had everything to do with the reality of Canelo having a commanding lead. Through 8 rounds, one judge had every round for Canelo, another judge had it 6 rounds to 2 Canelo, and a 3rd judge had it 4 rounds to 4 plus the knockdown. Even if Trout won the last 4 rounds, you knew that Canelo would have still won a split decision so there was no drama. And All 3 judges still had Canelo winning round 9 and 11.

So the knockdown + the open scoring clearly played a pivotal role in how that fight played out. Without the knockdown Trout may have still had a chance to win a split decision after the scores were announced at the end of the 8th. If I recall, Canelo won the first 2 rounds, and then Trout started coming on and getting more aggressive trying to get more work, which directly led to the knockdown in the 7th. In my view that knockdown was a very telling moment in the fight and was a good indicator that Trout couldn't land as much offense as he wanted to because he was worried about Canelo's power. It was like Canelo sensed that Trout was starting to land more offense in rounds 3-6 and that led to the knockdown.

 

El Pollo needs to get off the LSD!

 

No. I let actual events influence my opinion.

If I was as deluded as you I'd be arguing that Golovkin crushed Canelo and should have won 10-2 because I can argue ad infinitum that simply because it could be argued that Golovkin won that many rounds, that he should have been awarded that many rounds.

But obviously I'd have to be a fanatic to argue that, almost as bad as somebody who thinks Floyd/Canelo was real competitive and could have been a draw

1) Admitting that Canelo did better than I thought is the truth. It does, in fact, show that I am a credible poster.
2) I may have been wrong about Canelo getting an outright robbery (which it would have been if he'd been given the win) but nevertheless, he lost and was given a draw. We all predicted scoring BS before the fight based on canelo's previous gift scores and there WAS scoring BS in reality. That's not confirmation bias, that is a pattern. A pattern of corruption, most likely.

Beats me who was paid off and who was incompetent. I would guess Byrd's probably enjoying a sensual massage with coconut oil by Oscar in his fishnets as we speak, probably.

 

I'm really not deluded at all and I think you know I'm not, this is just your way of fighting back in some way. I can't get over the idea that Floyd Canelo being competitive is some sort of a crazy notion. And to be clear, I've never made the argument that it was a draw. I had it a narrow Floyd win, but there were rounds that I disagreed with the judges like round 4 in Canelo Floyd which I thought Canelo won that pretty clearly. If you give Floyd all the close rounds you could end up with a wide card, but that's not indicative of how competitive the fight was or how close the rounds were. Even Byrd's 10-2 card in Golovkin, I'm sure if you asked her she would admit that many of those rounds she gave to Canelo were razor close. Making a decision on who wins a round isn't always an easy thing. You could have a fight 10-2 that's pretty darn close but one guy is just edging it out over and over again.

1) I appreciate your honesty in admitting that Canelo did better than you thought. Surely there must be a correlation between Canelo doing better than you thought and the scoring.
2) You say Canelo lost and was given a draw and I say Golovkin lost and was given a draw. At the end of the day, we have a disagreement of perspectives. Now I'm willing to accept your viewpoint as something arguable albeit different than mine, however are you willing to accept my viewpoint as something arguable albeit different than yours? The only way for two sides of a disagreement to relate is to reach a compromise.

Lets just take round 7 for example, a round that I am perfectly OK with you scoring for Golovkin. I saw those clean jabs he landed BCS8, I have absolutely no problem with you giving that round to Golovkin. It was one of Golovkin's best rounds with how consistently he was landing jabs flush. But at the same time, putting the scorecards aside, can you admit Canelo still managed to get some pretty impressive work in, and when you thought Golovkin was starting to pull away, Canelo did well to get himself back into the round? Did you take a look at the beautiful counter left hook landed with 2:04 left? Surely even somebody like you can appreciate a punch like that. You're a boxing fan before you're a Golovkin fan right? Didn't you say you're even a Canelo fan or something? That was a picture perfect counter left hook and it was especially impressive if you look at it closely, it was like Canelo predicted Golovkin's ducking movement and Golovkin ducked right into the force of the left hook!

You have your score and I have mine, and Round 7 goes to the root of your criticism of the draw and Trella's score. This single round is the difference between what you want and what you think Golovkin deserved (a win) and the draw that you despise, right? Well look at that counter left hook. Look at the uppercut at the end of the round. Look at Abel Sanchez in the corner following the round saying Canelo won the "last part of the round". How can you take these data points and still be outraged by Trella giving that round to Canelo? I admit Golovkin landed more clean jabs that round, he outworked Canelo in spurts. I'm not asking you to give the 7th round to Canelo. I'm just asking you to admit that Canelo had some eye catching punches in that round to where it's not unreasonable for Trella to give that round to Canelo. I mean the reasons I scored that to Golovkin isn't even the reason you probably scored it to Golovkin. To me, it wasn't the number of punches that Golovkin landed that round that won him the round, as the number was close, but it was the quality of his landed jabs. I'm looking at this with a high level of detail, and I'm trying to explain my reasoning. For you to act like I'm just some fanboy giving Canelo rounds is absurd. I'm doing the complete opposite of that.

Like I just think it would be helpful for you to rate some of Canelo's work even in the rounds that you had him losing to show how unbiased you are. You look at that counter left hook and that late uppercut, those two punches appeared to be better than anything Golovkin landed. Is Trella giving that round to Canelo such a big mystery? I've pointed out the evidence of what he must have valued, which is crucial to the scoring you object to, but yet you seem to want to ignore this kind of stuff. Can you comment on that counter left hook in the 7th, supposedly Golovkin's most dominant round? I think this is an example of Canelo "doing better than you thought he would". I mean I doubt you've seen anybody land a punch like that on Golovkin. You don't really need that many punches like that to win a round when the jabs were relatively even in number like they were.

It beats you who was paid off and who was incompetent, yet you're sure that Canelo had judges (plural) in his pocket while only a single judge had Canelo winning? Is there any possibility in your mind that the judges just scored the bout how they saw it? Could it just be that Byrd has a stylistic preference for counter punchers as her judging history indicates?

 

When it's you against the world, most likely, the problem lies with you

Clearly your position is arguable since you've been arguing this since last year. The question is how reasonable is your argument? In my eyes, and the eyes of the majority of people, not very reasonable. What I'm prepared to admit is that we clearly have different scoring criteria and that we see things in a different way. That's why I'm not interested in doing a blow by blow with you since it's going to end up in a shitstorm.

For example: You feel that the better punches were landed by Canelo. I would say they were more eyecatching, yes, but not necessarily better, since they had no effect. I'd point to Canelo being unable to stand his ground for any length of time, against GGG as proof of this, and proof that Golovkin's punches were hurting Canelo.

You will no doubt argue that Canelo was boxing smart off the backfoot and setting traps for Golovkin. I'd say that then this strategy was failing because Golovkin repeatedly caught him on the ropes and outstruck him there. You will say that this was deliberate and that Canelo was showcasing his defence while looking for an opportunity to counter.

I will say that his defence was not nearly as good as you think since GGG landed a bunch more punches than he did. You will dispute the punchcount. Then we'll end up looking at a punch for punch where I will point out that a lot of Canelo's flashy punches were in fact caught on the gloves by GGG and blocked by his arm on the body .... and so on and so on.

It's obvious that you feel Canelo has an ideal boxing style - and to be fair, I've always said he's an excellent and pleasing fighter to watch - whereas I prefer the come-forward aggression of Golovkin. I prefer it mainly because it is more effective. I simply feel Canelo was not as effective against GGG as GGG was against him. Most people agree with me.

Let's not.

How is it that Canelo's judges ALWAYS prefer what he's doing, whether he's going forward or fighting going back? Could it be that getting several favourable scores time after time is suspicious? How many times does Alvarez have to get gift cards before people admit there's a problem?

 

Way to be so dramatic, it's me against the world is it, that sounds really important.

That's rich, you're eyes and the eyes of the majority of people are one in the same are they? So in your mind whatever you say, whatever you're opinion is, that's what the majority believes, since after all the majority supposedly had Golovkin winning. We've already been over the fact that many fans believe that this fight was clearly a close fight, to which you disagree pretty emphatically, which would go against the idea that you represent what the majority believes.

I'm not asking you to do a blow by blow or anything like that. I'm simply pointing out a specific punch like the counter left hook in the 7th and asking what you thought of that punch. You seem to shy away from discussing the fight or the rounds in any detail, which is a pretty tell tale sign that you're struggling to support your own assertions, anotherwords not being reasonable.

OK then it's on record that BCS8 does not want to discuss what happened round 7, supposedly Golovkin's most dominant round, the critical round that determined the difference in Golovkin winning or it being a draw, to which BCS8 continually harps on and on about but refuses to discuss in any detail. Got it.

Oh I don't know, could it be that Canelo is just that damn good? Could it be that everything in life isn't just some huge conspiracy? Could it be that some judges rate Canelo's work more or less than others? It's really not that hard to understand : there are rounds that Canelo is involved in vs Top Fighters that are open to interpretation. His in-ring work is such that it is hard for his opponents to win rounds clearly or emphatically against him, since he's so tough to hit clean, is such a skilled counter puncher, at the same time he often doesn't overwhelm you with punch volume. It simply put makes rounds hard to score and explains why judges often disagree when scoring his bouts vs top fighters. It's really nothing to get all bent out of shape over. We have a fighter that produces fascinating open-to-interpretation results. We are so lucky to have a fighter that generates such entertainment and interesting discussions, but not to you apparently.

 

When Canelo is the man pressing forward and being the aggressor the judges score him for that, when somebody is being the aggressor to him and he is backing up all fight they score him over the aggressor. I think weve all seen enough to know it is not strictly Kosher and anybody who dont see it yet are turning a blind eye to it cuz it is that obvious.

 

So in your mind a fighter can only win one way? If he wins a fight as the aggressor, he should automatically lose if he tries fighting off the backfoot?

What does the direction a fighter is moving have to do with the punches he lands? Styles make fights. When Canelo's been the aggressor it's generally because the opponent is backing away from him. Vs Trout, Vs Lara, and vs Khan his opponents were not coming directly toward him, so he naturally became the aggressor and started to walk them down since they weren't engaging. Vs Triple G or Liam Smith, he had fighters that like to come forward, so he didn't have to be the aggressor as much in those fights. The fact that Canelo is versatile enough to fight off the backfoot or coming forward depending on the situation is one of the things that makes him so tough and so well rounded. Your idea that you can only win a fight going in a specific direction doesn't make any sense. Canelo adapts to the situation at hand. He's capable of fighting effectively backing up or moving forward.

 

No, not A fighter, just 1 particular fighter, Canelo. When he wins a round in the ring he wins the round on the card, when he loses a round in the ring he wins it on the card. Hard to debate this with you because you claim its fair and i claim it is corrupt so it doesnt really matter what happens in the fight, Canelo gets awarded for it.

 

Look I'm not here to make claims about what is fair and what isn't in boxing. We live in an age were most judging decisions are hotly debated and most big fight decisions someone's screaming robbery.

I understand that you believe that Canelo has gotten credit for winning rounds that you don't think he deserved, and you think there's some kind of corruption involved. That's your theory, but that's nothing but speculation on your part. I don't always agree with the official judges but it's pointless to just throw your arms up in the air and just scream corruption to the high hills when there's footage to study, there's punches landed to discuss. The judges are just people with an opinion on who won the rounds. (who are under a lot of pressure on fight night) If it was up to me there'd be more even rounds which would force fighters to win rounds more convincingly so there wouldn't be as much controversey. We as fans really can't do anything about the judges, I try not to get too carried away with the judging and just try to enjoy the fights for what they are. If you get to the end of the fight and you don't know who won, that's the sign of a great fight. If you think somebody won but he doesn't get the nod, then you come on here and talk about it and who you thought won.

 

90% of ESB posters say Golovkin won. Good luck explaining that away.

In this case, yes.

No idea which punch it is but it was probably a good punch. So what? Canelo landed some pleasing shots. Who is denying that? He just landed too few.

He is good.

He's also the recipient of a string of favourable scores, no matter what he does. He runs away? Ooo, ahhh, look at that defence. He comes forward? Eeyyy, check out the aggression, gotta reward that.

Everybody sees it except for you and a few other Alvarez ball-danglers.