Again the difference is my issue with VAR is "referee decisions" and the "process of stopping a match, deliberating over a decision that changes the trajectory of the match". Your claim about Canelo and Kovalev being a fix / sparring session is that not only the officials and the judges were in on a fix, but that the fighters themselves were not trying to win, that Kovalev intentionally lost as some kind of a pay-off scheme. So you can't equate my issues with VAR in football to your pay-off scheme conspiracy about Kovalev taking a dive. That's far more conspiratorial than having issues with VAR in football.
You don't understand the equivalence and have just wrote a load of drivel and spin, you can stop responding to my posts now
You're the one being hostile here. We should be able to agree that both Canelo GGG matches were close fights. In truth they were both classics and were major pieces of boxing history. Any reasonable fan watching those matches should be able to recognize how close and debatable they were. You however have not. You claim that both were clear cut wins for GGG. That's where the disconnect is. I have no problem with you or anyone else arguing that GGG won either match. But you refuse to show that same respect towards Canelo fans who argue he won. When you have a close fight, two parties who see it differently should be able to have a friendly debate over who won. You haven't shown a willingness to do that.
No, that is what YOU said. "Landed the cleaner more impactful punches." So I showed you some evidence of who landed the cleaner more impactful punches. As for me, along with the Cleaner punches, I also score who demonstrates better defense, who is dictating the tempo of the fight, and who's aggression is more effective... And I score each round individually... The 10 Point Must Scoring System. Since I us 10 pt must, I had both fights fairly close. If you're just going to add all the punches and see who landed more then you may score the fight for Golovkin, but that is not pro boxing scoring so your opinion on who was is void. If you score on who landed more power punches, Canelo wins, but again, that is not pro boxing scoring.
Again the main priority is landing cleaner more impactful punches which judges most definitely follow. Let's say fighter A and fighter B land 10 punches in a round, but several of fighter As punches are clearly more impactful...fighter A has a better case for winning the round. Everything else is secondary because it all leads down to what/what does not land and perceived impact.If your defense is stellar and you're not landing punches then you're not winning the round. If your aggression is effective, you are landing punches. Vice versa ineffective aggression = being aggressive and not landing punches. Fighter A dominating centre of the ring and getting outlanded by a fair margin = poor case for winning the round. It all leads down to landing cleaner punches because that is the main priority in boxing...landing punches.. And not landing punches.. Not fannying around... Jesus f christ, how hard is it to comprehend this... Can't believe I have to even say this. Whatever system you're using is flawed
Remember Kell Brook had his eye socket fractured twice, by Gennady Golovkin and Errol Spence, it could happen again against Canelo Alvarez.
What if fighter B outlands fighter A by an average of 4 punches, but those punches are all jabs, and fighter A outlands fighter B in power punches, fighter A makes fighter B miss a higher percentage and total punches using defense, and fighter A lands at a higher percentage, and fighter A lands the cleaner punches more consistently, who would you have as the winner?
I stopped reading where you said you didnt out right claim it was rigged for England You blatently did
He clearly stated that was just one of 4 factors. Stop spinning things, You're like the Jen Psaki of this forum.
Semantics. Most fans despise VAR, especially in England. When England got that penalty in that semi-final, it felt like some funny business was going and plenty of fans had the same impression. The match was being played in England, and you had a fanbase that already was vocal in their dislike of VAR. You're trying to equate what I said about VAR in football to Q's claims in boxing. My point was that VAR is a corrupt system because it allows people sitting in an ivory tower to deliberate over decisions that have a direct impact on who wins a match. When the people in that ivory tower are from England they have an inherent bias to favor their home country on a decision like that in a match of that magnitude. There's nothing like VAR in boxing so the comparison between my VAR comments and Q's claims about boxing are very different. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that VAR creates opportunities for match rigging because they have an ability to stop a match, review key decisions and overrule the official and change the course of a match.
