GGG-Canelo media scorecards & CompuBox

Close to my scoring. I thought Canelo's best rounds were 2,3 and maybe 10 or 12. I had it 7-5 the first time around, but now, what with the rewatching in slomo and whatnot, I think 8-4 to GGG is more realistic.

 

I'm right there with you and many others with the scoring. Most of the rounds were clear and easy to score. I honestly believe some of the people who thought Canelo won, are enamoured with Alvarez's style and gave him more credit for his flair than most. I admit it's a beautiful style to watch but most people don't score boxing matches on style. They score on who was more effective between the two fighters.

 

And that's the thing, there's a lot of positives to Canelo, he's really good to watch when he's on form. His major weakness is his 50cc gas tank. Surely he can afford Nacho or another top-notch conditioning coach? All that said, he simply didn't do enough to beat GGG, and all the more if you consider the challenger is traditionally supposed to take the champion's belt away from him.

 

Most of the rounds were not clear, I don't know why you keep saying that. Some of them were, but at least about 6-8 rounds could be argued either way. 1,4,5,8,9,11 etc were too close for comfort just to name a few. I think what you mean by scoring boxing matches on style is scoring boxing matches on quality vs quantity. I mean in many of these rounds you're giving rounds to G simply for throwing a few more punches and landing a few more glancingly (mostly ineffective) punches. If Canelo may have landed slightly less punches, if his punches were better, he wins the round. I score boxing fights on quality, unless the quality is relatively even, then it would go to quantity. In Canelo vs Gennady most rounds were not even in terms of quality. Canelo was landing the better punches, so even if Gennady landed slightly more punches in a round, the punches weren't good enough in my view to win him the round. That's why I had Canelo winning. It's really not hard to understand and it is very debatable. I will respond to your other post in more detail when I get a chance, and I really encourage BCS8 to take a look at Round 8.

Round 8 is an interesting one because Canelo was backpedaling a lot, which may make you so inclined to just score the round to G for coming forward, however take a look at the punches that were landed and the quality of them. This was not an easy round to score, despite everybody seemingly having given the round to Gennady. A fighter can win a round by backpedaling if they are landing the better punches.

 

Round 3 was a GGG round imo

1,2 to Canelo
3,4 to GGG

 

Its not flair when Canelo is landing cleaner and harder blows.
Flair is what Leonard did to Hagler, shoe shining the last 15 seconds of a round and lifting his hands up after a round that he won it.

Flair is what Bradley did vs Marquez, flicking the jab and posing right after, bending his shoulders from side to side as if he's playing defense and in control, but when you look at the punches being landed closely, you see Marquez' punches were effective where as Bradley's were flicks, poses, and strutting around the ring as if to signal, "I'm in control" yet is he really when the punches in comparison to the opponent isn't nearly as effective, nearly as clean, crisp, and hard?????
That my friend is whats called flair.
Canelo didn't institute "being flair" tactics vs Golovkin, he was actually the one landing the cleaner, harder blows, no illusion in that!!!

 

If the punches from GGG were really ineffective the fight would have looked completely different. You are selling Alvarez short if you are claiming most of Golovkin's punches were meaningless.

Alvarez is a very good boxer with a ring IQ that rivals some of the top practitioners in the sport. If he was unable to find his rhythm and implement a successful fight strategy due to ineffective punches, that would mean he's no where near the pedigree most believe him to be.

Quality vs Quantity has nothing to do with a fighters style. If a boxer is a pressure fighter vs a boxer who is a counter puncher the majority of the time the pressure fighter will throw more punches and the counter puncher will throw less. That isn't always the case. There should be a balance of quality and quantity in every fight for all fighters.

When Alvarez is on point, he has a solid work rate to compliment his textbook counter punching technique. Against GGG his work rate was impacted and although he had maintained the integrity of his technique throughout the fight, landing some very solid punches....he didn't have the ability to find enough of those spots to win more than a few rounds.

I mentioned style as a possible theory for those who saw Alvarez winning. The way Alvarez moves, his flair and flash stands out. I think some preferred the style over the substance.

We already know he can be effective when he's controlling an opponent...we all know what that looks like. We saw it when he beat Amir Khan, James Kirkland and Liam...He didn't show the ability to control the fight with GGG and we saw a side to Alvarez that was foreign.

 

Alvarez has a swagger to him that carries over to the ring. His punches look and sound great which come from his boxing form, speed and style. GGG has naturally heavier hands....his punches aren't a flashy, but the impact is greater and had more effect. That's all I'm saying. You can't judge a book by its cover and you also can't judge or gauge the effectiveness of a punch based on how it looks.

Faster more flashy punches will always look as though they are more powerful but not is not always the case. Heavy handed fighters like Golovkin genrate a kind of power that may not look like much but the impact has quite the effect.

Based on how Alvarez responded to GGG's punches in how he opted to backup vs move forward indicates there was something behind those shots that were effective. On the other hand, GGG taking the clean punches from Alvarez didn't make him change up his style one bit.

 

Casuals don’t know how to score fights and you’re using random people on YouTube as your evidence that may felt CanYellow won.

Laughable.

 

Exactly.

 

I brought up the youtube comment sections to show that there's a healthy split between those who thought Canelo won and those who thought G won. I didn't use the youtube comment sections to prove that Canelo won (what a ridiculous thing to say), it was a response to a post that claimed that 90%-95% people had G winning and that "the people have spoken".

Many G fans have used the first page of this thread (the amount of people in the media who had G winning) and supposedly other polls where apparently the majority had G winning to do exactly what you're laughing at, to suggest that G won because supposedly the majority of handpicked people think he did. I simply brought up the fact that "not everybody thinks G won”, that if you look around outside of your bubble you'll find plenty of people who had Canelo winning. (the youtube comment sections is just one example of that)

 

You stated "I honestly believe some of the people who thought Canelo won, are enamoured with Alvarez's style and gave him more credit for his flair than most."

I don't know what's causing you to have that belief, and I'm not sure if you were refering to me or not, but frankly I could make the same argument about G, that people thought G won due to his style, due to his come forward pressure style.

I wanted to point out that I didn't score it because I was "enamoured with Alvarez's style" but rather due to Quality vs Quantity. (that who wins a round isn't necessarily determined by how many punches each fighter lands, but the quality of those punches) In many of the rounds, G may have appeared to land a higher quantity of punches, but Alvarez can still win the round if he lands more quality punches.

Of course determining how much better Alvarez's best punches were than G's best punches is very subjective, which is why I've tried to go through the rounds and point out some of Canelo's best work, so you get a better sense of why I had him winning. Many of G's punches were ineffective, partly blocked, or partly avoided. JohnnyDrama99, why don't we go through some of the rounds that we disagree on and discuss who landed the highest quality punches. That way we can get through the theoretical and get into the real.

 

Boxing should have its own B()lls&hit file, and put this one in there. This way 20 years from now when a new boxing fans sees draw with an * he can refer to the file and the above media scores & compubox #'s/

 

My comment wasn't directed at you at all. You made your arguments and they were thoughtful. I don't necessarily agree but I have no qualms with conflicting perspectives. Especially if you take the time to expand on your reasoning which you have.

People already have made the assumption that the overwhelming majority gave credit to the pressure Golovkin applied and dismissed the overall effectiveness as "meaningless" or "ineffective" offense. That's where I sternly disagree. The effectiveness was evident based on control and the ability to force Alvarez to fight out of his comfort zone. Meaning GGG fought his fight to the "T" vs Alvarez making Golovkin fight a quintessential "Canelo-esque" fight.

We already went through each of the rounds in previous posts. I don't mind doing that at all. It provides insights and clarity to what took place inside the ring between these two. For me...the fight was very easy to score and not very hard to call. I believe with such a one sided taken from the people who gave their take on the fight and the polls giving fans a voice it aligns with my stance on this

 

We only just started going through each of the rounds we disagree on, and I am about to post a more detailed response to one of your posts yesterday. What I mean by going through the rounds is that you haven't for example explained why you thought G won the 2nd round, you haven't like for example given timestamps of what you thought were G's best punches in some of these rounds that we can compare to Canelo's best punches. I will post my response to some of your points yesterday momentarily, and hopefully we can go into greater depth examining some of the rounds that we disagree on.