My Golovkin vs Canelo 2 round by round.

I personally cannot say that I could score it a draw, but I can tell you that I thoroughly enjoyed the fight and grit that each brought into the ring. My respect for Canelo's skill grows each match. My respect for the thunderous jab of Golovkin edges it in my eyes so often. It really is a pin point weapon.

I'd be interested to read your assessment of the middle-later rounds.

What throws me off is that so often after the fight I heard educated professionals such as Andre Ward, Errol Spence, etc claim that one of the reasons that Canelo won was because Golovkin claimed to be the aggressive and come forward fighter and so when he chose to box and utilize his jab that it somehow nulifies his work due to the expectation of him fighting coming forward. This is something that I'm hearing frequently after the match.

 

Kellerman: "So far guys, however you have it scored...and like when we were watching Andre Ward vs Kovalev, Canelo's winning the story of the fight so far. However you have the rounds scored."

Lampley (in obvious embarrassment of Kellerman): "While GGG is winning the COMPUBOX numbers of the fight..."

 

What throws me off is that so often after the fight I heard educated professionals such as Andre Ward, Errol Spence, etc claim that one of the reasons that Canelo won was because Golovkin claimed to be the aggressive and come forward fighter and so when he chose to box and utilize his jab that it somehow nulifies his work due to the expectation of him fighting coming forward. This is something that I'm hearing frequently after the match.

What does that have to do with the actual punches landed inside the ring? Whether or not someone entered the ring as the stalker, counter puncher, box and mover, puncher with a puncher's chance who happens to box beautifully that night, etc. It only matters what happens inside the ring and:

• 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.

 

Battle of the novels? Translation? I'm not quite certain what you're talking about. If it's the fact that several boxers and media personalities are focusing on their preconception of what GGG was supposed to fight like, as somehow a legitimate reason to not score his punches and actual output inside the ring then yes, you are correct.

 

Haha yes I do. I love boxing. I could write and read about it all day long. Especially James Toney, Roy Jones, Paul Spadafora, Floyd Mayweather, Usyk, Archie Moore, Vasyl Lomachenko, Sven Ottke, Sweet Pea, Winky Wright, Willie Pep, Sugar Ray, Nicolino Locche, Ricardo Lopez, Larry Holmes all day, the great jabbers, Archie Moore ten times more.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

That ******* cleaned my clock! I did (allegedly in the minds of some) defeat Nick Bruiser however. Whether or not they want to recognize my win, kinda like GGG v Canelo!