The 118/109 score was as corrupt as you'll see but I had Trout by a round - close fight no robbery whatsoever.
I scored that 116-111, could see it being a bit closer but I was more impressed with the conviction of Canelo's work. Canelo controlled the fight a lot more and personally I feel more inclined to reward the man who shows more power. Within reason I think scoring fights is subjective though.
Austin lost the fight before he entered the ring. All the outside influences favored Canelo and i'm halfway into the fight and i've got Trout winning 4-1. It's rounds based on what you like but i find Trout is picking off the chest and body shots with gloves and find his work isn't being recognized by fans,judges or commentators. Canelo boxing well i must say but Trout edging the rounds with his craft IMHO.
I thought Canelo won. He barely landed much: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pwJ_aO-OKZQ/UXNf2s6oWOI/AAAAAAAAhZc/5viW3PZI1Es/s1600/7.gif
There were so many points in the fight where you could make a similar .gif. I was shocked at how easily Canelo was evading everything Trout threw at him.
huh? thought the commentary was ****ing atrocious, Canelo slips a 5 punch combo and the moron commentator says "good combination by trout!" heres a perfect example, in the mid rounds trout threw a 3 punch combo, canelo slipped it and landed a big uppercut, commentator goes "good 3 punch combination by trout and a good uppercut by alvarez" then the replay shows trout missing and the uppercut and the commentator goes "theres the significant punch by alvarez after trout missed a couple" huh? missed a couple? I thought trout landed a good 3 punch combo?
I thought Canelo won and was a fair result bar that 188-109 card, that's ridiculous but maybe that certain judge prefers powerful accurate aggressive boxing rather than pitter patter trying to score points kind of boxing and that's why its so marginally for Canelo?
Im disappointed in Canelo that he didn't go for the knockout. Trout had nothing on him and was hitting air/gloves. Landed a jab here and there but nothing meaningful really.
huh? lol dunno why I keep sayin that tbh but seriously, while I do think Canelo should have definately upped his workrate at times, I still think he controlled the fight, Trout did steal some rounds to be sure, but even he was visibly discouraged by how easily Canelo was slipping his shots, his first words after the fight were "he was the better man, I didn't think he was that good", and that wasn't just good sportsmanship, he knew he was beaten the commentators (merchant should retire) were making out at some points like Trout was putting on some kind of master boxing display when he was struggling to land cleanly with a single punch another example, Trout threw a ten punch combo with Canelo on the ropes, about 2 of them landed and barely clean, commentator "good rally by trout!"
When you start hearing phrases like "dictating the range", "forcing the pace", "controlling the real estate" and the fighter isn't landing? It means the team have a favourite. Showtime had a bit of a mare describing the action last night. They completely overstated how effective Trout was with his jab and completely understated how Canelo was making him miss.
I think people need to take into account that the commentators are also there to make a fight sound exciting to the viewers at home. They're not just there to score the fight, if the main event is dull with little clean action they'll talk up any activity at all and try and make the fight sound more exciting than it is. I pay no attention and usually have music on anyway but if I do watch it with commentary I always do so on the basis that most of what they say is razz anyway.