Rewatching Canelo vs Golovkin 1 rbr

I accept that you see it differently, but I just don't think you've taken a close enough look at it. If a round is "hard to score" then in a RBR topic there should be a desire to examine it further and start spiltting hairs to find better reasons to choose a winner than what you did which is just say "eh I can't decide, but Canelo was backpeddling at the end, so I gave it to GGG". That's just lazy scoring. You're better than that. Rather than scoring the round based on who was backpeddling at the end, which is rather unimportant and not relevant to who should win a round, you should go back and rewatch it until you can see who landed the better punches and who was more accurate in their punching, which includes the final 30 seconds. If you can't do that, then in my mind you're not doing your due diligence, and that was why I pressed you on it. Not to argue with you or to prove you wrong, but to help you see what happened. You didn't do that, so I don't agree that we're "finished" discussing the round. I think you just walked away from discussing it and you decided to be lazy and take the easy way out. I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it drink.

And just to add, round 3 one of the most important rounds in the match, if you can't see that round 3 was a Canelo round, then there's probably no point in discussing round 4 or other close rounds, because it suggests that you have either a GGG or an "aggressor" bias. If you're scoring rounds based on who is the aggressor as some kind of a tiebraker because you can't decide on the merits, that's a problem. Before you can walk, you have to crawl, and before you can run, you have to walk. Crawling's better than being in a crib though, at least you see a path to a draw, that's a good first step, but I'm just saying there's levels to this, and before you can advance to other much harder to score rounds, I think you should really hone in on round 3 more so you can advance to harder rounds. Because for me, round 3 wasn't really that close or hard to score, and I say that because I judged the round primarily on the quality of punches landed, not who was backpeddling at the end. So your priorities seem to be out of whack, and I'm trying to help you be a better scorer. Not that you're wrong or I'm perfect, but I am judging the round on the correct aspects of the round, namely punch effectiveness.

I don't know, you'd have to ask him, but if I had to guess I'd say that he meant that it's easy to accept the draw given how close the fight was, which is sort of along the lines of what you said about a draw being a acceptable result.

By the way, what do you think about people who say that the draw was a "robbery". Surely you disagree with those people now, right? Surely it wasn't a robbery as tons of people have been claiming for years. That's the one area that I think we can definitely agree on which is why I think there's hope for you.

 

Why is it so controversial though? You said yourself that you've concluded that a draw is an acceptable result. If a draw is an acceptable result, then there shouldn't be anything controversial about the result. Look at the amount of people who over the last 5 years have claimed that it was a "robbery" because GGG didn't get the decision. These people have no clue what they think they saw, because they took biases and expectations into the match.

So I think we need to really dissect why it was seen as controversial and what all is behind that. If it's due to an "aggressor" bias among other biases, like the "champion's advantage bias" that some (not you) clearly applied to their scoring, like "Canelo had to take the fight to the champ to beat the champ". This led to the "story of the rematch" with Canelo coming forward and taking the fight to the champ and getting the decision, which Canelo was challenged to do. But it never should have come to that, and it wouldn't have if the boxing public at large would have recognized the success Canelo had the first time fighting off the backfood. If this result wasn't seen as controversial or a robbery.

The rounds that you determined are close and different from the rounds that I determined were close, so we're coming at this from a different perspective and judging it with a different criteria. You with an aggressor bias would naturally find some rounds hard to score that are actually easier to score if you aren't focused on who the aggressor is. Like for example, I consider rounds 4 and 5 much closer and harder to score than round 3, you probably thouoght rounds 4 and 5 were easy rounds to score. I can assure you they weren't. They only seem easy for you because you're judging it "on a curve" with extra points and more slack given to GGG for being the aggressor, because Canelo was backpeddling, etc.

 

Good, but keep in mind that :

. . . almost everyone who scored it for Golovkin considered it a robbery. So if you want to appeal to popular consensus, then that also applies to the robbery claims, which was the overwhelming prevalent view of the result, an idea that you seem to disagree with. But I suspect that you may have agreed with those who considered it a robbery until your recent reward, or at least didn't disagree with that idea until this week, which is why it was seen as so controversial.

And by the way, there's a long list of fights that a sizeable majority considered a robbery, but wasn't really. Pacquiao Bradley 1 is an interesting example where, similar to GGG Canelo 1, Pacquiao was the heavy favorite and people expected him to just dominate Bradley, and that didn't exactly happen, but HBO sort of got caught up in Pacquiao's star power and acted like it was such a clear victory for Pacquiao. I don't think there's anything wrong with scoring it for Pacquiao, but I don't think people really paid much attention to Bradley and what he was doing. I think most people just saw Bradley as like a stepping stone for Pac that he was just there to give Pac a quality win or something that no one gave much of a chance. The difference between Pacquiao Bradley 1 and Canelo GGG 1 though was that GGG was far more busted up by Canelo's heavy shots than Pacquiao was against Bradley. Like Canelo's punches were far more eye catching and effective than Bradley's punches on Pacquiao. So that among other things is why people consider that a worse robbery than Canelo GGG 1, but for different reasons, mainly because Bradley actually was awarded the decision which angered people more. But it's an interesting comparison none the less, and I would agree that it's a bigger robbery but at the same time, it was far less clear of a Pac win than many people act like it was.

That's complete speculation on your part and projection as to how big of a Canelo fan you think I am and what you think I would do if Canelo lost any of those matches. It's actual delusion frankly, because first of all, I'm a boxing fan first and I've never been one to cry robbery. So you're way off base in painting that picture. When he lost to Mayweather, I didn't claim it was a robbery, I didn't even argue Canelo won, i didn't even argue it was a draw. I accepted the loss because Mayweather did what he had to do, the only problem I had there was thoee who exaggerated how one-sided it was. I saw it was a relatively close fight but admitted that it was pretty clear that Mayweather was the better man that night and did enough to win. If Lara got the decision, I would have disagreed but never would have called it a robbery. You're just flat wrong about that, but it's pretty par for the course around here for you to believe that I would do that for reasons that you've invented or imagined on your own.

I'm not at all set in my ways. But there are certain things that I won't budge on. That may sound like a contradiction, but all you have to do is look at how I treated GGG fans who said he won. I was always respectful and showed a willingness to understand different points of views. I never call people idiots or disparage them for seeing it different like others do to me.

But there comes a point where "enough is enough" and you have to stand your ground or else you'll be rolled over and when people lie about me or misrepresent I call people out as I see fit, but, I always do so with a certain respect and integrity because I'm not here to make enemies or argue just for arguments sake. It's about having an intelligent discussion, and for you to label me a Canelo fanboy, it's total ignorance, and a silly accusation. Always remember that I'm a boxing fan first, and unlike a lot of GGG fans, I didn't take biases or expectations into each match. I judged the match on the merits, on the scoring criteria, and have done my best to support my score and reasoning.

 

Spoken like a person who believes that the earth is round.

 

7265475634 words of defending Canelo later, Shadow insists that he doesn't have a man crush on canelo.

 

Right, yet according to you its a very strong round for Canelo

Classic shadow, accuse others of doing the exact thing you do, all the time. Every single punch and every single movement Canelo does is simply genius to you.

Again, classic shadow.

It's a façade, what's more disrespectful is outright lying, being deceitful which is your game.

Again I've gone through this. That's a good spin it on it. You're calling this a landed punch for simply touching Golovkin's head.

Lmao

Yes you are trying to credit nothing because Canelo did nothing but backpedal out of range. You wouldn't give points for this like you're doing in any fight. Backpedalling out of range is not defense, its simply. Backpedalling in an and out of range avoiding and landing punches is good defense.

Good spin

Being swayed by commentary is all too common. BT were seeing the round differently. Commentary can be helpful when punches supposedly land but you can't see the angle or if they effectively land. And even if they call it landed you can't 100% confirm it if the angle is a tricky one.

High level defense is not Backpedalling completely out of range refusing to engage the opponent. You don't get points for that I'm afraid. What you're doing here you could easily argue GGGs defense was sublime, he was actually coming towards Canelo trying to engage him and Canelo coudl barely touch him... See look how I spun it shadow style

 

It was, but you called me a monumental idiot for scoring that round to Canelo, a round that pretty much everybody agrees was a close and hard to score round. lufcrazy is on the record saying he can see how someone could score that round for Canelo, but you can't? Lederman gave the round to Canelo and made it clear he that Canelo landed some "really good power shots" and he "thought he was hurting Gennady with those power shots". So if Harold Lederman saw Canelo hurting GGG with really good power shots, and scored that round for him, then that would indicate it must have been a strong round for Canelo.

Do you find it ironic just he just so happens to be the clear P4P #1 fighter in the sport? It's not uncommon for universally recognized P4P #1's to have "genius" punches and movements. It's just that for whatever reason you refuse to see how great Canelo is. That's your issue, not mine. I might be in the minority when it comes to who won Canelo GGG 1, but you're in the minority when it comes to who the P4P #1 is and how great he is as a fighter.

Please, I have far more integrity than you. I go out of my way to show everyone respect. I'm always up for a good debate, you on the other hand often get bent out of shape and like to come at me sideways, hurling insults my way. You give off immature vibes, but It's never too late for you to change and become a better poster. I know you have it in you.

It touched GGG but it didn't land? Is that your argument lol. It was the only punch landed by either fighter in that 30 seconds. How bout we count how many punches GGG threw in that 30 seconds vs how many Canelo did, then calculate the % landed.

Picking off shots, blocking shots, making your opponent miss isn't "something"? Doing that scores points for defense and ring generalship, or do you not understand the scoring criteria. And GGG didn't do any scoring since he missed everything, so the only one who scored in that 30 seconds was that jab by Canelo. Ever hear that Willie Pep won a round without even throwing a punch?

Typical that you would interpret me bringing up what they said about that round as being swayed by it. We do need to be on guard about being swayed by commentary, but that generally occurs in a mass formation sense like Pac Bradley 1, when you have the commentators fawning over a hyped fighter like Pac was at that time. In Canelo GGG 1, that wasn't the case, if anything the bias was pro-GGG as he was the favorite and the unofficial scorer Harold Lederman scored the match for him, despite giving Round 3 for Canelo and praising what he did in that round. So for a pro-GGG scorer like Lederman to score that round to Canelo, there must be something to it, Canelo must have done something pretty good there for him to do that and talk about how good it was.

He didn't refuse to engage because he stopped 3 times on the ropes and picked off shots. It's one thing to back away and run away without engaging. That's called stalling. Stopping along the ropes, and skillfully picking off shots intelligent one after the other is not stalling. It is very difficult to do what Canelo did there and you like many others fail to appreciate it.

 

So I'm a fanboy for agreeing that a GGG decision was acceptable, but you're not a GGG fanboy for not agreeing that a Canelo decision was acceptable? How does that work?

 

You honestly don't know what you're talking about.

No it wasn't.

Yes because you are a monumental idiot

Lol, no it doesn't.

No he's not.

First of all, anyone who thinks Canelo is P4p no. 1 is void of any intelligence and integrity. And secondly, I don't know how true that opinion is as many think Usyk is p4p 1, which he is far more deserving of it.

You have zero integrity. I get triggered by you because you flat out lie, exaggerate and be deceitful time and time again. Acting like you have integrity gtfoh

Again, you're emphasising the jab which was more Golovkin's head moving into it. That's not on any level a scoring jab like you're making it out to be you halfwit

Again, Canelo was back pedalling out of range refusing to engage. And you haven't answered my question, GGG was coming straight at Canelo and Canelo couldn't hit him clean surely this is great defense? Argument works both ways

Go at it as you will, I'm not responding to your drivel any longer. You're not a fanboy, you're a Canelo bot.

Canelo can do no wrong, every move he does is beyond skillful and genius.. Despite, getting beaten twice by a 36yo GGG, once by a 36yo, once by a smaller Cuban 7-5/8-4, having a close fight with drained Jacobs (yes you can argue 5-6 rounds for Jacobs you fool) and bang average Trout, and having to stack the deck completely in his favour and fight in home corrupt states. Hardly a "world" champion let alone p4p material. This is not to mention 3 or 4 blatant fix fights he's engaged in. This guy is nowhere as skilled as people think he is - I suspect you know this, but as a bot you must credit Canelo from every conceivable angle

 

This coming from a guy who thinks every Canelo fight is fixed and Canelo isn't P4P material. You're too deep down the rabbit hole, but the aggressor bias is a real thing, people even admit they have it, and say stuff like if a round is close they'll score to the guy coming forward. That's largely what happened in Canelo GGG 1. luf flat out admitted he gave GGG round 3 solely for Canelo's "backpeddling" to end the round. That's lazy and improper scoring. Don't even try to deny that. You don't win rounds by chasing missing punch after punch.

If it wasn't, then why were these kinds of comments made during the round?

Lampley : "Triple G seems clearly thrown off, by having to worry about counter punches from a power puncher."

RJJ : "Triple G's breathing pretty hard already, Max he looks a little uncomfortable right here."

Max: "He's being outboxed."

Roy: "Yes"

How do you explain these comments if Canelo wasn't having a very strong round? And how do you explain Lederman scoring the round for Canelo?

Says the guy who thinks every Canelo match is rigged and a fix. Says the guy who claims Canelo isn't P4P material despite being universally recognize as the #1 P4P fighter in the sport. Yeah . . .

Yes he is. Canelo's P4P #1 in every P4P ranking and has been for many years now.

So pretty much everybody except for you. Some fans have Usyk #1 but even that is a dwindling minority. Based on winning a lackluster decision vs AJ is completely absurd.

Everything I said is spot on. It's deceitful for you to claim Canelo matches are fixed. That's a lie, it's deceitful to claim that Canelo isn't P4P #1. He clearly is. You're the delusional one, not me. I always keep it 100%.

I said it was the only landed punch in that 30 seconds, which is wholly accurate.

That was one punch, you know how many punches GGG missed or had blocked during that 30 seconds? 1 glancing jab to the side of the head is better than missing over and over again. Punching accuracy - landed vs thrown.

I'm very human, you post like a bot, most of your posts closely resemble a broken record. The same stuff over and over again. i.e. "Everything's a fix" "It's all a conspiracy" "ahhh Canelo"

You're too far gone to really engage with, but I do find you funny. Canelo lives rent free in your head, as far as getting beat twice by GGG or Lara, only in your delusional mind. As far as Jacobs, 115-113 Canelo is very favorable to Jacobs. Like you said, you could argue that at best for Jacobs but it also could be more like 117-111. Canelo could have won those late rounds more clearly but he didn't have to, it was already so one-sided he had the fight in the bag and was pretty much coasting at that point. You could argue Canelo won the first 6 rounds, from that point on, Jacobs was too far behind to win a decision. Not due to a judging conspiracy like you probably think but because he was easily outboxing Jacobs round after round because he's far better, and Jacobs is no slouch.