And what about you? Looks like you been posting non-stop since Saturday. Get some sleep yourself too, don't wanna over do it partying too hard after the big win.
Those first 4 rounds all being scored for Canelo by all 3 judges is suspicious for sure. I think I had in 10-2 Bivol, Giving Canelo the 2nd (without much conviction) and the 9th.
This. If they actually would of given that to Canelo there would be no question of corruption it would be laid bare for all to see. It's like they started off with heavy Canelo bias but realised he was going to lose big and had to start scoring properly after round 5.
It just shows that any Canelo opponent has to clearly control a round against him to get a 10-9 in their favor. If you edge a round against Canelo, forget about it!
But look how many rounds GGG "edged" against Canelo. Saunders and Plant edged some rounds against Canelo. Jacobs edged many rounds against Canelo. The Jacobs fight woulda been a lot wider on the cards if they gave Canelo every close round. So lets not get carried away, it's not easy to win rounds against Canelo, but it sure as hell can and has been done.
Yeah I think a few of those first 4 rounds Bivol more than just edged them too (the first one definitely) and they still went to Canelo.
It's not just the fact the scoring was the same in those opening 4 rounds, it's the fact it was so obviously wrong AND they were the same. Also 115-113 WAS a wide score card, given that to anyone with eyes, Canelo won 3 rounds in the whole fight. So in this instance we didnt have 1 judge with an obviously suspect card, we have 3. Scorecards which deviate from the consensus of the other two judges can also indicate corruption. But, this is normally in the context of the other 2 judges posting somewhat reasonable scores. So you see that where you think youre pointing out a contradiction between two opposing points, they're actually the same point; anomolous judging. And yes, three anomolous judging decisions is a greater indication of corruption than one.
Don't try that. You were biased all over, and was talking all over your Clenbuterolos **** in the RBR thread. Then you start with the excuses, and all that nonseses. You looks like a good guy, but that bias is just killing you. Just because you are supporting someone, doesn't mean you have to lick his *** or worshipping him. Don't make me quote your ridiculous post and your scoring in the RBR thread, cause it will be bad for you. And it's not us that exaggerating with Clenbuterols. Actually most people have giving him way more credits than this fraud deserve, cause he clearly should have at the very least 3 more loses, in reality 4.
Exactly my friend. Same thing in the GGG fight. GGG was the champ, but somehow any close round was Clenelo round, hell any round that GGG wasn't dominating was scored for Clenbuterolos. And then his fans say we exaggerate ....
The problem with this argument, and I've said this before, is that no one agrees on which "3" rounds Canelo won but many keep saying he only won 3 rounds and that's the max you can give him lol. Then you ask which 3 rounds, one person says 1, 3, 9, someome else says 2, 4, 9, someone else might say 2, 3, 4 and 9. Someone else even gave him round 10. At the same time people will sware that 3 is the max you can give him but then the same people who agree with that disagree on which rounds. So it's a completely nonsensical argument to say the max he could win is 3 rounds when no one can agree on which 3 rounds those were. Please tell you understand this problem.
How can they be biased? They are not casuals, they are professional experts. They are there to be just and fair.
