Does anybody else think Canelo won the first against GGG and lost the second?

Agree with both these posts ^

The first fight was closer and Canelo caught Golovkin in traps more. For those that are excited about defence, Canelo did well. I ended up with an 8-4 score.

The second fight was competitive in the start with quite a few swing rounds. Canelo had a little golden spot in the middle before Golovkin found another gear and swept the fight.
I likewise scored it 8-4 to GGG but could see it wider. Golovkin was the guy making Canelo miss in the second and he landed much heavier leather on him, and in combination.

I personally thought the second fight was easier to score than the first.

The only reason I believe people are scoring the second fight closer is because of 2 reasons:

1) The judges gave it to Canelo. That in itself is a kind of a magnet swinging opinions towards the decision.

2) The commentary about "the story of the fight" where Golovkin was supposed to push Canelo back and instead Canelo held the centre of the ring. To me that's BS, because a fight isn't seen through a filter of prior expectations, it should be seen in isolation as a seperate event in itself. Do we give bonus rounds to fighters everytime they exceed our expectations?

I have a different "story of the fight". Namely, that Golovkin riled Canelo up and made him come to him, at which point Canelo got outboxed, was made to miss and was hit in combination. There are also two standards being unfairly applied here. In the first fight people were giving Canelo credit for his defence. In the second fight when Golovkin made Canelo miss, there was not a peep from people that were waxing lyrical about Golovkin being made to miss.

Nevertheless, the fact is that GGG, as the champion, threw more and landed more, and if you want a true "story of the fight" it is that it's tradition in boxing for the challenger to have to TAKE the belts from the champion and Canelo in no way did that in either fight.

 

But yet the consensus appeared to have the rematch closer than the first fight with more %s having Canelo winning the rematch than they did the first fight.

Why do you think that is the case ? The Byrd factor? Is it because the majority of the fans don't give as much credit for fighting off the backfoot than they do for coming forward? What's the reason for that do you think?

 

I just explained it.

 

Of course that was your "story of the fight" it was your whole mantra for a year, to bait Canelo into coming forward more and get him to engage in a toe to toe war. You thought if you could get Canelo to come forward more, and engage in a slugfest with GGG, like GGG wanted him to do in the first fight, that Canelo would get stopped, or hurt, and it would play right into GGG's strengths. I mean that's the real story of the fight how Canelo fought off the backfoot a year ago and about how GGG didn't like Canelo fighting that way and he started talking about "mexican style" and saying Canelo didn't fight the first fight "Mexican style". GGG was trying to rile Canelo up to get him angry and to fight the kind of fight GGG and Sanchez wanted Canelo to fight, which Sanchez thought would produce a more entertaining bout.

Well it worked, you Sanchez and GGG got what you wanted, Canelo came out fighting "Mexican Style" and he stayed in GGG's face all fight and took the fight to GGG. However you having so much pride about how GGG was the better "fighter" you couldn't bring yourself to admit that Canelo was getting the better of him fighting that way because Canelo was fighting how you GGG and Sanchez wanted him to fight but you still couldn't beat him.

Can you show me some of your best examples of GGG making Canelo miss in the rematch? There's no doubt that Canelo gave GGG more opportunities to showcase his defense by coming right at him. We all know that Canelo is a more skilled all around boxer with a higher level of defense, so I don't know if anybody really ignored when GGG made Canelo miss in the rematch, it's just that it wasn't as impressive as how Canelo made GGG miss in the first fight and how he made him pay when he did. (like those big uppers and right hands in the middle rounds of the first fight) But I encourage you to cite some examples of GGG's defense making Canelo miss in the rematch as we need to pay attention to that as well, and not just when Canelo does it.

Also another factor that I haven't heard a peep from you about is body punches. Going into the rematch, a big key from many boxing fans and media members was body punches. GGG was outlanded to the body in the first fight and many thought a key to him winning was to land more body punches in the rematch. Well despite Canelo coming him at him for 12 straight rounds and standing right in front of him, GGG landed less body punches than he did in the first fight (granted one or two of them that he did lnad in the rematch were pretty solid) but the fact is he landed even less body punches in the rematch whereas Canelo landed more. That I think you need to admit was a key to Canelo's victory. More body punches from GGG may have won him some of those close rounds, but he just didn't focus enough on the body. Do you agree with that about the body punches, and how do you explain that? And this is where I think it goes back to your story of the fight and how you wanted Canelo to come forward which you thought would naturally allow GGG to land body punches at more regularity. But what you failed to take into account was how effective Canelo's offense was, which put GGG in greater peril and made him less willing to go to the body for fear of getting hit since unlike the first fight Canelo was constantly in punching range.

He may have thrown more and landed more, but most of them were jabs only a small portion of the jabs he landed were as clean or as hard as Canelo's power shots.

Canelo did more to fulfill the narrative of needing take the belts from the champion to win the titles in the rematch by coming forwad, by being constantly in your face by landing many more power punches, many more body punches, etc.

GGG was forced to fight off the backfoot for portions of the rematch. To make a champion retreat like that with constant come forward aggression and power punching like Canelo maintained all night is indicative of a challenger taking the belts from a champion by walking the champ down, forcing him to retreat, reducing him to a jab, etc.

 

I remember scoring it for Golovkin, the fact that I cannot remember round for round, minute by minute is because I have a life.

I'll go check in the RBR for you then get back to you if it makes you feel better?

 

BCS8 is part of Golovkins training team now?

 

OK I'm just trying to understand how you had GGG dominating the first half of the rematch. If you don't remember how you scored it, then that's fine. I just don't see how you can debate scoring without knowing how you scored it or going through the rounds.

 

There you go that was my card and post.

 

OK Great thank you for posting your card. So we both agree on the first 4 rounds. Good. We also agree on the 7th. Fantastic. But we disagree on rounds 5 and 6. So those are the rounds we'll need to review to see where your disagreement is.

 

Canelo lost clearly both fights. The first one 7-5 and the second one was a schooling from GGG in effective boxing 8-4. But some dumb guys tell everybody how canelo beat ggg.
Go and watch WWE

 

Is that Kellermans way of looking at it?? The story ?? WTF way is that ?? Its like hes oiling up the wrong decision to slip in to everyone's lap. Its rounds won, punches landed, " the story of the fight" I feel is twisting the truth. Hes one of those sly ****ers that tries to put a spin on **** to convince you, like Bernard Hopkins, if you listen to him he just makes simple stuff complicated, like hes telling you something you don't understand. A con man

 

As corny and as poorly timed as Kellerman's "story of the fight" statement was in the middle of the rematch, what he was describing was indeed the story of the fight. And you know who made that the story of the fight ? Abel Sanchez and GGG, with their whole "Canelo didn't fight Mexican style" in the first fight.

I mean for a year we had to hear about how GGG didn't think Canelo fought the first fight like a real Mexican right, who comes forward, who stays in the pocket, right? That was the story that we had to hear from GGG and Sanchez for a year heading into the rematch. That was why a lot of people thought GGG won the first fight, that was the main argument made as to why GGG won. You have to take the belts from the champ, that involves coming forward we were told.

So when Canelo decided to come right at GGG in the rematch, that was the story of the fight. Canelo wasn't boxing GGG this time, he was coming right at him. So if you're going to use the come forward argument to argue GGG won the first fight, then don't complain about it when it becomes the story of the fight in the rematch and Canelo wins fighting that way, the way you wanted, the way many said Canelo needed to fight to win.

 

Can we not use " the story of the fight" as an explanation of anything, its painful..Let Kellerman say it and it be forgotten, buried, fans don't have to repeat that nonsense. I don't know, perhaps its me, but i'd have no problem if someone beat the **** out of Kellerman JUST for that comment alone

 

that I can agree on. BCS8 brought that up and used it in his argument. couldn't agree more that it was an ill-timed corny and cringeworthy comment by Kellerman, but that said, Sanchez and GGG definitely created that "story" with all their "Mexican style" comments, which backfired as Canelo used that strategy to beat GGG.

 

I do think its ok for BCS8 to say it though