Most controversial results: Canelo vs GGG 1, Ward vs Kovalev 1, or Haney vs Lomachenko

I think you misunderstood my ward vs Kovalev part, I scored for Kovalev saying it was most controversial that Ward should have lost

I didn't read the canelo part as we've been over this one before. Truth be told I have not scored it in some time n9t since between 1 and 2. Scored 2 for canelo. I'd watch your Canelo rounds to see if I change my mind

Well we agree on haney...I think tye robbery calls are lunacy

 

Is there really any point in reading anything after this sentence ?

 

Of course.

 

Golovkin won both fights against Clenelo 8-4. Second fight was not closer, at all. Golovkin landed cleaner heavier shots more consistently in the second fight.

Loma is undefeated. The only times he has been “beaten” is via a combo of robbery/huge weight disadvantage. Loma is p4p no 1 in front of Usyk. Corrupt judges scorecards mean nada

 

Your scoring notwithstanding, I did have GGG doing marginally better in the rematch than he did the first time. But you gotta remember, in the rematch, Canelo fought in the more fan friendly style that GGG and the public asked for after the first fight. So the fact that Canelo beat GGG at GGG's own game, in the way that GGG asked for it after the first fight, in a style that played to GGG's strengths, only highlights how great of a fighter Canelo is, and how much he cares about pleasing the fans.

Canelo frustrated the hell outta GGG the first time, and in my view he won the first fight more convincingly than he did the rematch, because he didn't allow GGG to land to the extent that GGG landed in the rematch. And he caught GGG with big eye catching shots. But despite Canelo being hit more in the rematch, he imposed his will on GGG and inflicted more punishment which was impressive on its own merits.

So the first fight was more impressive technically, it was Canelo's greatest showcase of the sweet science, setting traps, using footwork. That's why I value that performance much more than the rematch, but the rematch was impressive in its own right by how he dug down deep fought in the trenches and went to war with GGG, and the fact is that GGG did not engage in a toe to toe firefight in the rematch to the extent that was expected to, given what he asked for out of Canelo.

You may think that Canelo didn't really win the rematch, he only won the "story of the fight". But GGG made that the story of the fight by what he said after the first fight, and the media ran with it. So any way you slice it, GGG failed tactically. He called for a toe to toe Mexican style war, but when push came to shove, he wanted no part of the kind of war that he talked about. Canelo imposed his will on him and that was what the rematch was all about. The fans wanted Canelo to fight in the way he fought. Canelo delivered, GGG didn't.

But my focus is more on the first fight because that to me was a more impressive performance by Canelo. He frustrated GGG, he made GGG uncomfortable, he implemented a style that night tailored to negate GGG's effectiveness that Canelo had never shown before or after in his entire career. And it's unfortunate that the boxing public didn't appreciate what Canelo accomplished that night, and this is the reason why I continue to challenge the misconceptions as it relates to that.

It was without a doubt a masterful performance by Canelo the first time he fought GGG. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, he gassed a little in the mid rounds, but he dazzled early, hung in there, weathered the storm of GGG's comeback in the middle rounds, and closed the show like a true champion in the Championship rounds. It may not have been enough to win on the judges scorecards, but it will go down in history as a legendary performance.

GGG fans cannot grasp what happened there and that's what I'm here for. You can deny what I'm saying all you want, but I'm spitting the truth here about what happened there.

If you don't think he was beaten by Teofimo Lopez, if you don't think that was a clear loss, then you'll probably never score a fight against Loma no matter how one-sided it was. Loma was significantly injured, he was pretty much fighting with one-arm, he did next to nothing for the first 6/7 rounds.

I could make the better argument that Canelo is undefeated. His only 2 losses he was at significant weight disadvantages. And don't try to spin the Mayweather catchweight as some kind of advantage because he weighed more than Mayweather on the night. That's more BS that we hear all the time, the kind of nonsense I don't have time for. Canelo had to stave himself during fight week, rehydrated after barely making weight then still gave Maywaether hell for 12 rounds.

If you want to argue the losses to Salido and Haney were controversial, I get that. Teofima was a clear loss, but of course he was significantly injured. You could say a fully healthy Loma not at a weight disadvantage has never lost clearly. But you're stretching the truth. I get where you're coming from and I'm happy to debate any of this with you, but lets not get crazy.

 

Although they clearly got it wrong with the Loma, Haney scores. It wasn’t a robbery. Loma won but he left it to the judges. GGG got robbed hard first go with canelo tho.

 

So lemme get this straight, your basis for why a draw in the first fight isn't acceptable is because GGG didn't win the rematch? I'm sorry m.s., I like you but you sound like a raging fanboy with that kind of logic.

Who won the rematch has nothing to do with what's an acceptable score the first time. You said it yourself, you would be ok with a draw in the first fight if GGG won the second fight. So you are ok with a draw. Then why are you making it seem like you aren't? Oh right, the rematch lmao. This highlights the mental gymnastics you and other GGG fans use to claim that the result of the first fight was unreasonable. It's all based on a sense of entitlement GGG fans have that is rooted in ego and not wanting to admit you were wrong about your extravagant predictions that never panned out. To you, GGG deserved to beat Canelo by default because you thought he was so much better and would have such an easy time with Canelo. Until they fought that is, then Canelo proved he was better than GGG 3x.

"But GGG moved his arms more, body shots don't matter, defense doesn't matter, arms moving more matter."

Stop appealing to the lowest common denominator and things that are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Deep down you know exactly what happened both times, you won't allow yourself to admit it due to pride and ego. But I'm here to remind you, in as friendly and honset a way as I can. But I'm not gonna sugarcoat it or let you off the hook for faulty logic that does not add up.

The fact is, your view that a draw wasn't ok in the first fight apparantly is rooted in what happened in the rematch. That's absurd on your end. What happened in the rematch has zero impact on what is an acceptable score in the first match. You've resorted to likening this to a bank robbery or having 2 cars stolen lol. I've tried to throw you a bone on certain aspects of the first 2 fights, but you're trying to drag me down into the underworld with this nonsense, and there comes a point where I have to stop you and bring you to your senses.

I like you m.s. and I want to remain friends, but you need to do better and acknowledge that you have a deeply personal and emotional connection to what happened. You need to be more objective and, for starters, judge the first fight solely on its own. You claim that Canelo only won rounds 2, 3, and 12 in the first fight, then you say you would be ok with a draw if GGG won the rematch. This is hysterical man. Get a grip and come to your senses, please.

 

lol how did GGG get robbed? He didn't lose anything. He got to keep his titles, he was still undefeated!

"But he was robbed of a win."

 

I get that, and I'm asking you the other side of that coin. Do you see how some people scored it for Ward and thought he did enough to eek out a lot of close rounds? I mean a good amount of poeple did score it for Ward. A sizable majority scored it for Kovalev many of whom thought it was a robbery that Ward won. But some did score it for what. I just remember when that happened, there were heated debates on both sides about who won. It wasn't just unanimously seen as a clear Kovalev win or anything. That was the majority, but not the overwhelming majority. As others have pointed out, Kovalev was impressive early on, but did sort of fade late, and Ward arguably won a lot of close rounds. It's been a while since I've seen it, so I think it would be useful to go back, rewatch and rescore and ask ourselves how many rounds can you reasonable give to Ward and which rounds those were.

I was breaking that down in as much detail as possible so you have all the info. There was a lot there but I am very familiar with those rounds, particularly 4-9 and I'm all about splitting rounds and awarding scores in the fairest ways possible, sometimes unconventionally often to illustrate aspects about scoring that aren't considered enough.

Yeah, we agree on that. And that should tell you something. If we agree on that then there's no reason why we can't agree on the other fights. By the way, what do you remember about Froch Andre Dirrell?

 

Ward vs Kovalev, I havent watched it in 2 years or so but I remember Kovalev gaining a commanding lead before tiring and Ward slowly developing confidence and turning it up. I had it 114-113 but felt it was a clear win as I did not really find it hard to score the rounds. I guess someone "could always find something" I know experienced posters on here have disagreed mightily with some of my scorecards and I consider myself a good judge of fights. I'd happily rewatch this one to try and figure out a Ward angle, I just have not seen it in the several viewings I already had

I'll have to turn around and read through the details and take a peek at the GGG-Canelo fight

Froch vs Dirrell: I always had scored it to Froch now I was a Froch fan and never much of a Dirrel fan and that may have figured into my scoring. I sort of felt Dirrell had showed greater skill and ability but failed to execute in enough rounds to win. That said the last time I watched it which was about 4 months ago I had Dirrell come out and win the first 5 rounds. I couldnt believe my card so I took a break then watched the final 7 rounds and did not score them thoroughly but certainly would have had Dirrell winning. Lots of missed punches adn dirty fighting with Dirrel really having the cleaner work

I will say my scoring style has begun to really favor wwhat I think are the sharper and cleaner blows even if I guy is landing less. How do you score or what do you value or weigh the most when scoring rounds

 

Kovalev vs Ward and GGG vs Canelo. Haney vs Loma was not a robbery to me. It could have gone either way.

 

Loma. That was a masterpiece. Even Haney said after the 9th round he knows my every move and everything I'm gunna do.. does that sound like a man who thinks he's winning the fight ... and it was for all the marbles too.. that matters .. sickening affair that whole thing.. Must be horrendous losing that type of fight at his age when it was clear as day he didnt.. Ward v Kovalev was a robbery too but a predictable outcome.. there's a trend.. Vegas doesn't like European fighters ... and the sooner promoters and European Fighters start genuinely acknowledging that the better.. because it wont change.. you will rarely get a fair shake in Vegas against an American or a Mexican.. you practically have to knock them out.. boxing is still too American centric, I wish Fighters would stop being so naive and factor that into their careers & think harder for themselves instead of leaving it all up to promoters

 

He was robbed of two wins.you know the difference between a win and a draw don't you? That pathetic draw stole Golovkin's right to the leneal middleweight title.

 

Yep, robberies earlier in your career suck, but suck even worse when your 35 and older.

 

In the court of public opinion Golovkin won the first two. The first fight isn't even debatable.You trying to change people's minds is whats hysterical.