Thoughts on Canelo-GGG II

Here are all the cards from people covering or in boxing.

This content is protected

= Felt Golovkin won
021 = Draw

This content is protected

= Felt Canelo won [includes 2 Golden Boy promoters]

116/146 = 79% had GGG winning the fight.
021/146 = 15% had a draw.
009/146 = 06% had Canelo winning the fight.

So Klompton, when 79% of those scoring have one man winning and only 6% the other, call it for what it is.

A robbery that was given to Canelo and a news paper win for Golovkin.

Since you bought up facial damage, who was cut worse? That would be Canelo easily. They must have put crazy glue in Canelo's cut.

 

Yeah, there seems to be a bit of a cult following around GGG who's abit out of touch with reality. How anyone can see this as a robbery is beyond me.

As you say, Canelo landed more clean, damaging blows and in this fight he also forced the fight. But based on some compubox nonsense GGG fans still rage about him being robbed on both occasions. Rationality has gone way out the window on this one.

 

If you watch close and then compare you can see in both fights compubox was counting punches that were blocked or missed entirely for GGG. Just because a punch makes a smacking noise when it hits gloves or a guard doesnt mean it is a scoring punch. Its not.

Furthermore, compubox as an indicator of who won a fight is pointless because it pushes the sport into amateur territory. Pro boxing is also about the amount of damage a punch does which cant be quantified by punch stats. If GGG landed ten pitty pat jabs that Canelo rode with or partially blocked showing no effect and then Canelo snapped GGGs head back with a left hook you tell me who you would rather be? Thats pro boxing. Points count but damaging punches, defense, ring generalship, etc all count as well. Who had better defense? Canelo. Who was fighting his fight? I.e who was the better ring general: Canelo. Who landed the harder punches: Canelo. Who was the aggressor? Canelo. So because GGG landed more light jabs, the majority of which werent even clean, and made it to the final bell hes the winner? Maybe if this were the golden gloves but not in pro boxing he wasnt.

 

Aaaaand, that's what it comes down to with Klompton. I hope that one day he'll recognise the great talent that he had in his very own time, lived through, and yet somehow missed.

 

Wait, GGG was even more the aggressor in the first fight. Yet I never saw anyone who said Draw or Canleo as the winner bring that up for the first fight. Now some are conveniently flipping it around. Simply stated, GGG threw more, landed more, and had Canelo hurt. There isn't a debate on that.

 

I do. Hopkins was a great middleweight in my time. Hagler was a great middleweight in my time. GGG is a product of the modern talent poor watered down sport. The guy was approaching Hopkins’ record before most people knew who he was. Why? Because he was feasting on setups while claiming everyone was running from him. His first quality fight he gets the benefit of the doubt, where were all of these guys on their high horse then? Then he spends two years calling out a smaller guy and refusing to meet at catchweights while refusing to meet bigger guys himself at catchweights. He fights the smaller guy and gets a draw. Whines and gets a rematch. Loses and whines some more. Do you think in 10 years we will be waxing poetic about his victories over Vanes, or Brook, or Wade, or Lemieux or any of the other setups he faced? No. Hes going to remembered for the fights with Alvarez that he couldnt win. Even if you thought he deserved those fights you arent going to be able to think back wistfully about how he took on this smaller guy and beat his ass. The best you could possibly convince yourself of in regards to these fights is that he squeeked by in them. Hardly the advertisement for this all time great you were hoping...

 

Yup. When Golovkin was trying to pressure Canelo in the first fight and missed some dramatic shots, people were giving Canelo points because "he made him miss". Golovkin made Canelo flap air plenty of times in the rematch but all those defense-loving pundits are strangely silent this time. Why is that?

My own criteria stay unchanged. Golovkin threw more, landed more and did more damage.

He legitimately landed the hardest shots of the fight, he wobbled Canelo, broke his nose and was on his way to tearing his eyelid off.

I get that Canelo did more bodywork but Golovkin hit Canelo in the head more. I hear those saying "but jabs!" and raise them "but Golovkin's jab!" is a far harder shot than your regular rangefinder. It snapped Canelo's head back all the time.

Simply, people saw Canelo stand his ground and the shock of him being able to go toe to toe with GGG made them think he was beating GGG. He wasn't.

 

What do you mean approaching Hopkins record. Since when does a NC count for a title defense? Hopkins title opposition wasn't the best either. If you want the straight dope he's 0-4 vs Roy Jones, J. Taylor and James Toney. Well okay the Toney fight was at 168 pounds. But those are the best four names Hopkins fought at 160-168. Mercardo drew with Hopkins.

 

Let's talk about these guys:

http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/4998
http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/5159
http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/5710
http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/15203

if you want ta talk about a guy feasting on "setups".

Sorry, could you tell me what weight this fight was at? I think my eyes are playing tricks on me:

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Saul_Alvarez_vs._Julio_Cesar_Chavez_Jr.

Nope. I saw the fights and it's clear as day that he won both. The vast majority of people agree with me.

 

I think Golovkin won both fights.I watched the second one in a bar inThailand Sunday morning, sitting with two American guys who were both rooting for Canelo, both of them thought Golovkin won clearly.As did I but not by the margin Harold Lederman gave him. Paulie Malinaggi, a good reader of a fight imo also felt Golovkin was robbed. Forcing the fight ,ie coming forward doesn't win you, or at least it shouldn't ,win you the fight it has to be effective aggression, imo Golovkin won the fight with his jab. At 36 I thought he put up a marvellous performance.
Going into the fight I felt it was a pickem match due to Canelo's inactivity and Golovkin's age.Gennady is past prime but still did enough to win by 2 rounds on my card.I like both guys. Golovkin goes up in my estimation ,he maybe top 30 all time at 160lbs.

 

I'm with you and I'm not sure it would even be good enough for the Golden Gloves, but I certainly take your point. The whole Golovkin outlanded him [in jabs, according to compubox] argument is borderline demented, in terms of justifying the scorelines of professional, championship boxing matches. The same argument is made, in regards to the scoring for the first Canelo/Golovkin fight and Golovkin's bout with Jacobs.

If the scoring criterion of 'Clean, hard missing' was in force, then Golovkin fans might have a justifiable claim for some of the wishful scoring (e.g. 116-112 for Golovkin), which I am seeing mooted for the rematch. But, it wasn't and never has been.

Neither has the criteria: 'Lackluster jabbing'; 'Jabbing the gloves/arms'; 'Being out-landed in power punches'; 'Notable lack of head movement'; 'Not fighting off the back foot'; 'Being consistently countered', etc etc etc...

It's just my opinion but, overall, I saw the:

- more effective aggression from Canelo
- cleaner, harder punches from Canelo
- better defense from Canelo
- better ring generalship from Canelo

As close as the fight was, Canelo winning was not a shock to me.

 

Well it was a shock to the 4 Brits,2 Americans and 1 Aussie who watched it with me Sunday morning, we all felt Golovkin had won.

 

Technically,

He's 1-1 with Jones. 0-2 against Taylor (correctly stated), but he never fought James Toney at 160, 168 or any other weight for that matter.

So just to clarify: He's 1-3 against Roy Jones Jr and Jermain Taylor.

On a side note, GGG is a great fighter who simply dug in and did his job exceptionally well. He does lack the signature victory that he should have gotten with the Canelo fights but in all honesty, GGG will have a future post Canelo.

As for Hopkins? his Middleweight reign may look average but he has some decent wins here:

1) Tito Trinidad
2) Howard Eastman
3) Oscar De la Hoya
5) William Joppy
6) Glen Johnson
7) Syd Vanderpool
8) Segundo Mercado
9) Keith Holmes
10) Morrade Hakkar

I'd give his middleweight reign the edge over GGG.

 

Were you all actually 'shocked'? It was a close fight, granted, but I can't see how anyone would have been genuinely shocked by the result.

I'd also add that, regardless of Golovkin's jab, it wasn't exactly shutting Alvarez out. When I think of fights won by a decision, in which the winner's jab was highlighted as the key to their victory, the losing opponent has essentially been unable to deal with the jab in any way - or, at least not for any sustained portion of the fight.

In such cases, to all intents and purposes, the opponent has become visibly ineffective in the majority of the rounds. However, this wasn't the case for Alvarez, in my opinion. He was, in the main, not deterred in coming forward and was still able to land clean, hard punches on Golovkin and was doing so to a greater degree than Golovkin managed in return.

I honestly didn't see the result as surprising.

 

This is the only argument you have for him winning but unfortunately for you media scores are biased and favour the more popular boxer , as this thread here proves. --

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...quaio-vs-jeff-horn-popularity-judging.615380/

Manny Pacquaio didn't beat Jeff Horn , but all the media people said he did , mainly because they predicted Manny to win and were biased.
Manny didn't win just because 90% of journalists say he won , so using the same people who scored the Horn fight to Manny as justification why Golovkin won isn't a credible argument.

Able Sanzhez said the judges verdict is to be respected. You put stock in other people opinions , ie journos who dksab , so what say you when GGG's own trainer says the decision was fair??

Media people isn't a real counter argument.

A real argument is how GGG made no adjustments for the rematch , how he had his tools taken away rendering him a jab merchant , and how he didn't stand his ground against the smaller guy who he criticized and mocked for 'running'.

GGG went against the gameplan , didn't press the action as much Canelo did and boxed/jabbed hoping for a decision.
He failed to improve on his first performance , whereas Canleo did , in spades , therefore Canelo was the deserving victor.