Canelo Bivol rounds 1-4 - "close fight" comprehensively debunked debunked

Bivol & Usyk broke the mould.. so many EEs getting shafted in big fights abroad.. they have to be exceptional .. finally they are becoming so good they cant even job em!

 

This is the problem with people who are deluded. The reality is selective and they will provide the one voice that agrees with them whilst ignoring the 1000 voices that don''t.

 

Not in rounds 1-4 he didn't, Canelo was defensively responsible in those rounds and picked off most of Bivol's shots. Bivol's jabs landed % in rounds 3 and 4 were in the single digits, round 2 was in the teens. Bivol jab %s were at 10% or lower in 8 out of the 12 rounds, that's excellent jab defense by Canelo. In rounds 1-4, even the shots that Bivol landed, were not big or eye catching enough to compare to Canelo's uppercuts or some of Canelo's other shots. That's what you don't seem to understand. And boxing judging is in fact subjective, unlike the shape of the earth which is objective. With the globe, the problem is you can't prove it because we can't actually see or quantify the curve. It's just based on NASA images and belief, and NASA has lied to us before (faking moon missions, filmed in a studio, Stanley Kubrick) so my point there was if they lied to you about the moon missions why would you believe any of their fakery after that? Same reason why you think every Canelo fight is corrupt. In your mind you're been burned before so you see a trend and therefore are suspicious any time he fights. Same reason why flat earthers don't believe NASA or any of the space crap because they're already faked the moon missions, why believe anything they show us especially when it can't be proven. With boxing scoring, you can't prove Bivol won the runds, I can't prove Canelo won the rounds so we should agree to disagree but respect where we're coming from. All I can do is point out to you the uppercuts and what Canelo did well in those rounds. That's why I don't think there's much point to me watching the rounds because you'll never agree anyway so what's the point?

They did have more mustard on them, and what I would say to you is that in rounds 1-4, BOTH Canelo and Bivol were missing, Canelo was blocking well in those rounds as well. In round 3, for example, according to Compubox. Canelo landed at a higher % that round and the landed punches were very close. Bivol was only credited as landing 1 jab that round and MISSED 30 JABS. So that was superb blocking from Canelo that round. In rounds 2 and 4, Bivol only landed a couple more jabs than Canelo, the power punches were even but Canelo landed the heavier shots, so those are close rounds no matter how you try to spin it.

 

This content is protected

@kiwi_boxer Yii-hah!!

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

 

Yes. Had Canelo on his back foot taking shot after shot.

 

Is he using compubox trying to safe Clenbuterolos face?

 

@shadow111 12-0 Canelo. Are you happy now?

 

Not sure why he would, compubox had Bivol outlanding Canelo in every round.

 

Q I'm referencing the punch stats because they were being thrown around to argue Bivol outlanded him by so many punches, that because the Compubox were so one-sided that proved that Canelo was dominated or even worse that he couldn't win any rounds because Compubox said he was outlanded in every round. You're now arguing how wrong the punch stats were, which only serve to illustrate how they shouldn't be relied on at all, especially to score rounds, but since they're out there and being used to strengthen the argument that it was one-sided for Bivol overall, they can also be used on a RBR basis to indicate how well Canelo did in some of these rounds like Round 3.

What you're trying to do is suggest that the punch stats were really even more one-sided in favor of Bivol because they didn't credit him with enough jabs because you are counting jabs that may or may not have landed. Compubox is guesswork and with jabs especially in a fight with two fighters with such good defense, it's not surprising that the jab numbers are so low for both fighters, because they both pick off so many shots with their gloves. The compubox counters probably only count jabs when they are absolutely positively sure a jab landed and it's hard to be sure on many of them, especially in real-time from whatever angle they are counting them from. You may even have a better view of some of the jabs from the TV camera vs where the compubox counters are sitting at ringside, so it's no surprise that you have concluded that Bivol landed more jabs than they gave him credit for. The problem Q is that you are so invested in trying to prove that Canelo didn't win rounds that I don't see what the point would be for me to rewatch round 3 and argue with you over which jabs landed because of our history in trying to do this in Canelo GGG 2.

I do care about really taking a closer look at these rounds though, but I know from experience that no matter what I bring to your attention, you're just not gonna budge on what you see, and I'm really not interested in getting into a hissy fit with arguing over which punches landed. That said, if you show me that you recognize that these rounds were closer than you are currently arguing (even if you still think Bivol won the rounds) then maybe I'll get into the nitty gritty with you. But you have to show me that you really can swallow your pride, humble yourself and try to put the shoe on the other foot. Because whether you believe me or not, I am 100% genuinely trying to be unbiased and fair about these rounds. And the one difference between me and you is that I am far more respectful and open minded about people who score rounds differently than me. With you, you draw lines in the sand like you cannot see how Canelo could win any of these rounds. And there's a big difference between scoring a round for someone but still being able to see and respect how someone could see it differently, and thus far you have not demonstrated that you are willing to open your mind and eyes to alternate points of view. If you do that, then I'm happy to go through these rounds with you, but it must be done in a fair and honest way.