Rewatching Canelo vs Golovkin 1 rbr

Shadow, no one cares about how you score rounds, because you simply do not have the ability to or exaggerate everything Canelo does. You've got to be a monumental idiot to give Canelo round 3.

And you call essentially back pedalling staying out of range and not doing anything as "defense" is outright pathetic . He was literally doing nothing but let Golovkin pressure him in those 30 seconds. And that jab you refer to at 0:16 you're acting like this did any damage or was clean. Just because Golovkin's head may have touched the inside or a part of Canelo's glove does not mean that is a clean landed jab. It looks more like Golovkins head moves into it. You crediting this as a landed jab is so Shadow.. Trying to give credit to essentially nothing. Yeah it may have touched his head, congrats. Seriously, what are you doing? You can't be a fanboy.. They aren't this stupid. Cough up. You're a bot

 

What? Holy ****, no it wasn't a very strong round for Canelo. And you're appeal to commentary is ****ing stupid, BT were doing the opposite to Lampley and the like. If you're taking commentary into account youre an idiot.

No he didn't

Wow lmao.. Back pedalling out of range without even trying to land is good defense and ring generalship? You're an imbecile of massive proportions

 

A monumental idiot for Giving Canelo a round that pretty much everyone agrees was close and hard to score? If the consensus is that this round is considered close and hard to score, then what's wrong with scoring it for Canelo? You always do this Q, you overplay your hand and go into super exaggeration mode. Harold Lederman scored tihs round for Canelo as well as many fans at the time, even those who scored the match for GGG. I don't think you're capable of having an intelligent discussion of this round given your history of running away from debates with me, but there is a very strong case for Canelo winnng this round and less of a case for GGG. Now I'm not gonna start calling people idiots for scoring it for GGG because I have more respect for other people than you, especially those like luf who, while we disagree on certain rounds, at least has the decency to discuss it without flipping out.

At best for GGG, it's pretty much a wash since GGG wasn't able to land any punches during this time. The difference was that GGG was missing punches and having punches blocked, whereas Canelo wasn't throwing, so he wasn't missing. Maybe you don't understand how punching accuracy and efficiency works, but this is a concept that you need to learn to score rounds like this accuracy. Scoring rounds based on who was coming forward and who was retreating without focusing on landed puches is missing the plot.

Ask yourself this very important question - what's better - to not throw or to throw a lot of punches and miss all of them?

Giving GGG the round because you thought Canelo was being too negative there is a conceptual scoring problem. This speaks directly to what acie2g just brought up, that to you, and others who gave this round to GGG, it’s more about the fact that GGG forced Canelo to the ropes, which is a lie in itself, because Canelo went there voluntarily as part of a strategy, but it's that you ignore the actual work being done there. This is horrible scoring fundamentals, because 1) you are crediting GGG for missing punching and having punches blocked 2) you aren't crediting Canelo's defense. GGG doesn't get credit for simply coming forward with Canelo on the ropes. It's what happens there that counts, not the fact that he was there. If this is conceptually lost on you, you need to reexamine these sequences. You won't, because you have too much pride and are too focused at coming at me sideways.

The jab landed by Canelo at 0:16 landed better than any punch thrown by GGG in that 30 seconds. That speaks volumes as to how that 30 second sequence should be credited. If you refuse to see that, then that's your failure to recognize what happened there and credit it accordingly.

When you say I'm trying to credit "essentially nothing" for that last 30 seconds of fighting off the ropes, backing awey, picking off GGG's shots, and landing a jab, Canelo should have at the very least gained points for defense, but even if you don't see it that way, if you value aggression and walking forward, trapping your man on the ropes for example, if you merely treated that whole sequence as a wash since neither man landed any major punches, that's still better than using that to actually swing give the round to GGG as lufcrazy did. Canelo did more than enough to win the round over the first 2:30, and GGG landed nothing there to warrant him being given the round based on what happened there. If anything, Canelo should have been credited for defense there, OR at worst that should be seen as a wash, and Canelo wins the round based on the previous 2:30. The idea that GGG would be awarded the round for missing punches in the last 30 seconds, and having his punches blocked while being hit with a jab, with Canelo him schooling him on the ropes is a big problem and is a poor way to score and decide that round.

 

I'll have to give the BT feed a listen and see what they said. I appealed to the commentary there because they were seeing what I was seeing, which you seem to be ignoring. As we are at a stand still on how this round should be scored, mentioning what they were saying about that round is relevant. It's not the be all end all to how we should view the round, but they were important points and something to consider.

Defense must be a foreign concept to you. Yes showcasing a high level of defense at the end of a round that he was winning, blocking shots repeatedly along the ropes, staying there without getting hit, and landing a jab, is better than missing a ton of punches and being made to look silly as GGG was there. Defense is one of the scoring criterial and FYI ring generalship is loosely defined as "making your opponent fight your fight", when you go back to the ropes and make your opponent miss punch after punch, that's ring generalship in action.

 

You're ignoring the specifics of what acie2g was getting at there, which you have a tendency to do. You did not address his points, about how GGG fans gave GGG rounds in that match simply for coming forward, because and only because Canelo happened to be on the ropes, while ignoring what happened while he was on the ropes with Canelo staying there and putting on a defensive showcase. Ignoring the fact that Canelo made GGG miss punches, picked off shots, showed how skilled he was at fighting off the ropes, etc. Fighting off the ropes and high level defense like that should be credited, but as I mentioned earlier, even if you don't and just see those 30 seconds as a wash, that's not as bad as what you did, which was actually give the round to GGG based on him failing miserably at trying to land on Canelo with him on the ropes. That's sad, and you're better than that. You decided to award GGG round 3 based on what happened in those last 30 seconds, a sequence in which GGG was unable to land punches with Canelo on the ropes, and got hit with a jab. That's horrible scoring and you can't walk it back now because you already drew that line in the sand, so you have no choice but to deflect and talk about other things because you know you can't justify what you did there.

 

I scored the second fight 7-5 to GGG although I can see it the other way I just disagree. The first fight was a total robbery no ifs or buts.

 

Only GGG fanboys think the first fight was a robbery, who came in with an expectation that GGG would win, and when that didn't happen, decided to cry like a baby about it. Anyone who doesn't recognize how close that was DKSAB. Maybe you should find a new sport with such a horrible take. Go suck on your baby bottle and let the real boxing fans who see it for what it was discuss the RBR.

The whole point of this topic is lufcrazy finally coming to the realization that the draw is an acceptable result, that he sees 6 rounds that you could give to Canelo. But you failing to learn anything from this topic continue with your the first fight was a robbery nonsense. That ship has sailed, It's embarrasing for you to still take that stance after everything we've been through. Learn how to score a prize fight, stop living in GGG fanboy land. Canelo outperformed him, outboxed him early, outslugged him late, landed the harder shots, landed far more body shots, schooled GGG on the ropes. It's sad that you can't see that, but it's your loss. If you need me to walk you through any of these rounds, just let me know, you obviously are in need of some guidance.

 

Calm down Shadow. I was giving my score for the fight and saying I could see it going the other way. The first fight I had pretty wide but I might have to rewatch it. So I'm mot sure why your throwing toys out of the pram. Also I didn't go in with any expectation regarding the fight as I was a fan of both fighters. I've always had may the best man win mentality watching boxing. Yes the boat has sailed and it's in the history books but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of boxing fans think the first fight was a robbery. I know I've debated you a few times regarding Canelo but that's only because you cannot be objective on this particular subject. Yes we all carry a degree of bias but few like yourself take it to an absolute extreme. We both know deep in our hearts that the judges on occasion get it wrong for whatever reason .so the official result is just that but the consensus opinion has to be considered and cannot be just dismissed because it doesn't suit on that occasion. As there maybe a time when your fighter gets robbed and you will be screaming from the rooftops so you can't have it both ways.

 

No, stop lying. You said you could see the rematch going either way but that the first fight was a "total robbery no if ands or buts". That's total ignorance on your part and now dishonesty about what you said.

The myth that the first fight is a robbery has been exposed with this topic addressing that whole idea, lufcrazy made it clear that he now sees a path for a draw which he didn't before. That speaks directly to expectation bias, to see this as a robbery for 5 years then to reexamine it and now understand why a draw is acceptable. I challenge you to do the same thing, because it's important. And this isn't about me being right and proving people wrong, I could care less about being right. I care about the boxing public recognizing close matches and understanding what happened here. We all see things a little differently and I don't claim to be perfect, but I know a close fight when I see one and it is very troubling to hear people constantly cry about close fights being robberies because the guy they were rooting for failed to deliver.

As far as being objective, you accusing me of not being objective while claiming the the first fight was a "total robbery no if ands or buts" is hilarious. No if ands or buts is the definition of "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" that's egotistical. We've had our ups and downs, but I know you're better than this. It's just that you're not allowing yourself to budge from your position. You should rewatch it, and if you do you have a chance to redeem yourself. It's never too late.

 

I'll tell you what mate. I will watch both fights this weekend and see how I score it. The second fight for me was a lot closer so that's more a coin toss but we'll see how I score the first. I have changed my opinion when fights have been close in the past I'm not sure the first qualifies as that. I will come back to this thread when I'm done.

 

Shut up mark.

 

You said it was close and hard to score, but your reasons for scoring it for GGG were very weak. Because Canelo was backpeddling in the last 30 seconds? It was hard for you to score because you weren't paying enough attention to how much cleaner and more effective Canelo's punches were throughout the round and you don't know how to judge when a fighter is backpeddling like in those last 30 seconds. GGG didn't land any punches when that happened and Canelo did, so that was not a sequence that could have won GGG the round. You need to land punches and have some kind of success in order to win a close round down the stretch. GGG didn't do that.

Yeah, but I think what he means is that it's easy to accept that it was a draw because of how close it was. You had a lot of hard to score rounds that could have gone either way, so a draw wasn't a bad result because it wasn't a clear enough win for either fighter and a fight that close warranted a rematch.