Canelo Alvarez vs Kell Brook

How am my one can pick Brook is beyond me.

 

Didn't Kell only fight once at 154? So Canelo is the answer.

 

If you think that fights are scored by the number of punches landed you're ****ing ignorant af.

 

Brook. 154 Canelo wasn't world-beater Canelo and anyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves.

 

If you have seen any of my round by round posts (which I highly suspect you have) you'd know that I don't just count the punches obviously. You take into the count the number of punches and the perceived impact. Everything else is secondary,.

Lara didn't just outland Canelo but he landed the cleaner shots over 8 rounds . That better for you?

 

When you learn how to score using the 10 pt. system you can brag about your rd by rds.

Have you even heard of the 10 pt. must scoring system?

 

Look at you trying to be patronising. You support a drug cheating, match fixing, card stacking ginger gtfoh with any analysis of scoring rounds

 

Those are conspiracy theories my man. Take off your tinfoil hat and learn how to be objective.

 

So you don't know the 10 pt. system...

It's what I thought. Learn it and you'll enjoy boxing more.

 

Q went off the rails trying to argue that GGG won Round 6 of the rematch, one of Canelo's strongest rounds that even die hard GGG fans said Canelo won. At that point he certified himself as a GGG fanboy extraordinare. He'll never live that one down. He literally ran away from what was a round by round punch by punch comparison, and I was really trying to reason with him and hear him out. But after that 6th round of the rematch debacle, he just flipped out and since then he's been completely over the top when it comes to Canelo.

I would like to see Q come back to earth but this guy is completely lost when it come to Canelo. I've never seen a more biased scorer in my life. This dude pretends like anything GGG throws landed, and anything Canelo lands missed, I even posted screenshots where you can clearaly see punches connecting that he said missed, but even when faced with photographic evidence this guy wouldn't back down from his arguments. And he tried to even turn the tables on me, like I'm the one saying punches landed that missed and vice versa. It's sad because I was genuinely trying to reason with Q and reach some kind of compromise about how close rounds were. But he was having none of it. Initially he was very motivated to debate rounds with me, but I think he didn't like being called out on his BS. But it was never about me trying to prove him wrong or make him look bad, it was only to make him aware of what punches landed and what didn't.

 

So did Brook.

That turned out to be a problem for him.

 

At 154, I've got Canelo but that said Brook would have given him a good run for his money and it'd be no mismatch.

Brook should've stepped up and campaigned at 154 instead of killing himself for years at 147 and then making the big leap to 160 to fight a prime GGG.

Canelo wasn't the force we see today back at 154.

 

And at a green 154 Floyd v clen boy I edge to brook
Not a charitable vote a genuine one
Have a good weekend

 

Coming from the guy who believed VAR was rigged at the Euros for English fans to become accepting of it

 

England advanced to the final on a penalty that the world saw as a dive, whilst two balls were on the pitch. VAR however did not intervene. VAR was wildly unpopular with the English fans and had a VAR decision gone against them there it would have created more outrage. My argument was simply that VAR is inherently corrupt as a system, and that it has been destroying football's soul, it gave the impression that it was rigged for England to win with what happened on that play. Most of the football community agreed it was a controversial decision for England to advance on. The difference between VAR in football vs alleged corruption in boxing is that with VAR the decisions are in your face during a match. Fans can point to specific decisions being wrong, fans can see that match flow is disrupted. With boxing, alleged corruption is just claimed generally with no specific evidence provided.