(Must read) How GGG was screwed by the system

No worries mate.

 

Its an example of boxing corruption. Its not a direct comparison for the type of robbery. As stated, a minor robbery and a major robbery both have the same outcome, the wrong guy winning.

 

There’s a difference between a clear robbery and a close fight that could go either way.

 

Still, the wrong guy won. When a majority of experts says GGG won. It means something.

 

I don't care about the majority, I care about what I saw. The fight was a close fight that could go either way, it wasn't a one-sided affair. If you dare compare Alvarez vs Golovkin I to the RJJ robbery, then you are a nut.

 

If you believe that the majority of experts opinions don't matter... you are a nut.
You're opinion means jack all compared to a season boxing professional or boxing analysts/coaches.
If you dare think that Canelo hasn't got "favored/bribed" judges on his side, then you are a nut.

 

118-110.

 

Says the nutcase that compared Alvarez vs Golovkin I to RJJ's Olympic robbery. You need a hospital.

 

lmfao that's about the most ridiculous comparison you could possibly make.

 

i used RJJ olympics as an example of corruption in boxing.
If you can't understand what an example is, i would highly recommend going back to KS2 English classes.

 

When did i make the comparison saying that GGG vs Canelo was as bad as RJJ Olympics?

Or are you just that mentally challenged to read for yourself ?

 

"If we go by judges, Roy jones got beaten by Park Si-Hun Because he lost majority of the rounds from the Koreans "clear boxing skill"."

If you think that is comparing robberies, then i hope whichever company you work for, have some type of "back to school" GCSE course available for yourself. It clearly just states, Boxing judges can be corrupt and wrong.

 

It was idiotic of you to bring up the RJJ Olympic robbery trying to relate it to Canelo GGG. It's even worse than those who try to compare it to the Sweet Pea Chavez draw. Just the other day I called out somebody for trying to act like GGG beat Canelo in the first fight as clearly as Sweet Pea beat Chavez. This is a common tactic around here from GGG fans to take the worse "robberies" ever, particularly those that ended a draw like Whitaker Chavez or Holyfield Lewis and act like Canelo GGG was just like those. Comments like these are insulting to everybody's intelligence and you went even further by trying to relate it to RJJ getting robbed at the Olympics.

It was just an out of left field comment by you to bring up RJJ at the Olympics in the context of Canelo GGG. As Pimp C very clearly stated, one was a close fight with many hard to score rounds that coud be argued either way the other was a clear RJJ amateur domination where the other guy got the victory that Roy clearly deserved. For you to bring that up made it look like you thought the two fights were in any way similar. This is what I mean by many fans having a foggy memory of the first Canelo GGG fight. Citing percentages of online polls or a handful of media people's scoring doesn't mean anything as it relates to how close the fight actually was. If you polled the spanish speaking community in Mexico you'd probably have over 75% having the first fight for Canelo. I get that most seemed to have the first fight for GGG, and there are many reasons for that. A lot has to do with expectations fandom and the style that Canelo fought in which many don't credit when it comes to winning rounds. To no surprise more had Canelo winning the 2nd fight largely due to him coming forward more which is what GGG and many of his fans asked for. But to me I thought Canelo was even more dominant and impressive in the first fight with how he gave GGG a boxing lesson.

So don't try to walk back your comment now or act like I didn't understand you right. Bringing up what happened to RJJ at the Olympics to explain in any way shape or form how Canelo GGG was a robbery against GGG is laughable. "As an example of modern day boxing corruption"? It wasn't even a professional fight. Canelo GGG 1 was a highly competitive affair with many close rounds. RJJ clearly was robbed at the Olympics. GGG wasn't robbed of anything vs Canelo, he was gifted a draw in a fight that he didn't deserve to win but admittedly was close with many hard to score rounds.

 

So stating that a corruption has happened previously instantly means i'm comparing the two ?
You really are trying to clutch at straws on how defend flimsy arguments.

Corruption has happened in boxing judges before, it will happen again.
Canelo has a string of "Dodgy score cards" such as Mayweather, Trout, Lara and now GGG.

Please tell me how you can defend 118 - 110 without saying "Corruption". The compubox figures says otherwise, most analysis video's say otherwise, even most professional's say otherwise. But of course, You + Pimp C + Scar know better than them right ? The fact you are stuck on a boxing forum creating wall's of text with no substance instead of earning a living from your opinion.

"Canelo was gifted a draw" --- There lies the problem. Gifting someone a draw when they lost is not an acceptable answer to the question of corruption. Its exactly whats wrong with boxing. If the score was 2-1 Leicester vs Arsenal in football but Arsenal where the home team, they still lost. They don't get a "gift".

So yes, Please learn to read a comment before jumping on the bandwagon.

 

What's wrong with boxing is fans crying robbery every time there's a close fight because the fighter they were rooting for didn't win. GGG was gifted a draw, not Canelo. Canelo landed more clean effective punches, more body shots, etc. GGG moved his arms a lot but he wasn't landing on Canelo clean. GGG really was outclassed in the first fight by a much more highly skilled opponent.

I don't have to defend Byrd's card to have Canelo winning. My scoring of the fight was between the judges extremes. And I'm not sure Byrd scoring that 118-110 is corruption. She probably was paying more attention to what Canelo was doing than the other judges. A lot of judges just see arms swinging and score rounds to the guy who's moving his arms more. That's a big problem with boxing. A judge in SRL Hagler had it 118-110 for SRL. Was that corruption ?

I don't think it's that crazy to give some of the middle rounds in the first fight to Canelo. I think Byrd was just rewarding Canelo for setting traps and landing the biggest more significant punches of the round and not being impressed by what GGG was doing, which was just coming forward and throwing shots that Canelo was mostly slipping or didn't land with any impact. Some landed, but when you compare GGG's best punches to Canelo's punches Canelo's were still better even in the middle rounds. That's why I don't have a problem with anyone who scored it for GGG. You went into the fight with expectations and are fans of GGG and naturally give him rounds that he's outworking Canelo in. But he's eating bombs.

And this hits on another point which is lost on many people, that the outrage of the first fight and why so many screamed robbery / corruption was due to Byrd's card, not the fact that it was a draw. But it turned into it being about the draw in a very dumbed down way with many upset GGG fans not wanting to accept the reality of what happened, that Canelo gave him a boxing lesson.

Bringing up a football / soccer match and comparing it to boxing scorecards boxing is interesting. I've thought a lot about that myself personally. In football / soccer there are concrete goals which determine who wins, with boxing it's subjective. But surely you could have a football match where a squad wins 2-1 but is outplayed in the majority of the match. Lets say the other team has more possession more shots on goal for example. If the football match was broken up into rounds with each goal being a 10-8 round then you still could have the team with less goals winning just like you could have a boxer with less knockdowns winning based on dominating more minutes of action throughout the match.

Boxing matches without a knockdown would be like a nil-nil draw in a football match with no extra time or penalties. Imagine if after 90 minutes of a scoreless draw 3 judges were tasked with deciding who won instead of going to extra time or penalties. That's what makes determining winners different inherently in boxing compared to other sports and why there's more controversey since no two people see the same fight the same or credit the fighters the same. But what you're doing is you're assuming that there's corruption because you disagree with a result but you aren't proving corruption. Anyone can say "it's corruption", and I'm not denying that corruption does exist in sports or in boxing. But regardless when it comes to boxing it's about how close a fight actually is through your eyes, not whether you believe there was corruption, because it's unprovable. But we can agree how close fights are on a round by round basis and that more than anything else should determine whether something is a robbery not whether you personally believe there was corruption involved. Frankly steering the dialog in the direction you are trying to take us takes us away from talking about what we should be talking about which is the fight itself.