Golovkin has vacated his WBA belt

So the official verdict does not matter according to you! I don’t expect you to like it but your opinion is not a fact.

 

He can take the winner of their rematch, casual.

 

If y’all are gonna talk about people GGG didn’t fight, I hope you acknowledge the people who didn’t fight him

Sturm, Cotto, Martinez

Jacobs and Clenelo absolutely waited him out as long as they could so he could age

Half the people named that GGG apparently ducked, didn’t even really want the fight, they just talked the talk

HOF, day 1, cope and seethe

 

Hopefully, he gets whatever send off fight and payday he wants and retires

 

Just looked at all the rankings by the 4 bodies

Not much for GGG to fight except the following

Zerafa (if he wins the vacant IBF, that be a decent sell in Australia)

Garcia (if he fights Lara and wins, that’s a fight with name recognition alone)

Munguia (no explanation needed)

Smith/Eubank winner (big sell in the UK)

That’s literally all there is at 160

So unless he is setting his sights on fights at 168, that’s it

 

In most cases, the official verdict is the correct one.

However, it is the opinion of the three "official" scorers, all three of whom are, like all humans, fallible.

Their task calls for judgment, hence their titles.

And as you well know, being a lawyer, when humans exercise judgment, there is always an element of subjectivity involved,

The world of boxing has had many controversial decisions, and many that are generally accepted as being clearly wrong.

E.g. In the 156 lb class at the Seoul olympics in 1988, Roy Jones clearly beat Park Si-hun. The judges, however, awarded the decision to Park Si-hun. Even Roy's opponent, Park is-hun admitted that Roy won the bout.

So we have a verdict that denied Roy his crowning achievement to that point in his life.

But we all know who won that bout, REGARDLESS of the thing you appear to consider sacrosanct, the "Official Verdict."

I'm guessing you haven't seen this fight, given your devotion to the infallibility of judges, so have a look for yourself...click on Watch on YouTube.




And that's but one of many such renderings.

Everybody knows that Pac schooled Timmy in their first fight, winning at least eight clear rounds, but more likely nine or ten.
The Official record notes Pac as being 2-1-0 versus Tim. But we know he went 3-0-0.

Lennox schooled Evander in their first fight...Evander knows it, his family knows it, even his dog knows he lost.
But 'officially' he holds a draw with the Lewis.

History records not only the official decisions but, thanks to modern media,, the feelings and judgment of the audience and the various sportswriters in attendance.

And as I've shown you already, the clear majority of serious boxing commentators scored both 160 lb bouts for GGG.

For a man versed in the theory and practice of jurisprudence, you seem to be having great difficulty with a simple concept here.

I have never disputed the fact that the judges awarded Canelo a draw and a win.

That is not the same as agreeing that Canelo won the fight, unless you want to quibble on the semantics of definitions.

In my opinion, and the opinion of most boxing observers, it is no more factual to say that Canelo drew with, and beat GGG, than it is to say that Park Si-hun won his fight with Roy Jones Junior.


So let me clarify the actual facts of this issue:

The official judges of the Canelo - GGG bouts rendered the official decisions as a draw and a win for Canelo.
You mainly agree with their decisions...in fact, in your judgment, Canelo won BOTH fights.

This content is protected

I, and the great majority of boxing fans who watched the bout, believe that GGG won both fights.

This content is protected

This puts you in bed with Adelaide Byrd regarding your take on the first fight.

To clarify, in case your irony sensor is still not working, I'm not suggesting that you are literally cuckolding Robert Byrd...I'm speaking metaphorically here, Olu.

 

Clarification I actually believe Canelo won all 3 fights not 2.
The difference between you and I, is because I accept the rules and the decision of judges like those of a judge in a court of law I accept the verdicts irrespective, hence officially 1 draw and 2 wins for Santos Saul Alvarez Barragan popularly known by his nickname El Canelo.

Incidentally I gave Tim Bradley the verdict over Pacquiao in their first fight.


I have seen more boxing than you and know more about Jurisprudence than you so I will not be taking lectures from you on boxing , legal philosophy and life.

As I have said to you many times I neither court popularity nor do I feel the need to follow the masses rather I trust what I observe and my judgment. Leaders don’t follow!

There is a reason I get most of my fight picks right. A lot of fools on here were picking Savannah Marshall to stop Clareesa Shields and Deontay Wilder to stop Tyson Fury because they believe the hype and lack discernment. Those of us seasoned in the sweet science knew exactly what was going to happen such as Marshall getting an asskicking by the more superior skilled Shields and lucky not to get knocked out and as for Wilder technically being so inept that Fury mugged him and rag dolled him.

I am neither Adelaide Byrd or Robert Byrd. I am my authentic self. Keep your attempts at irony to yourself or your inappropriate use of metaphors.

You need to take a step back humble yourself and engage me to tap into my wisdom about the fight game so you can learn.

 

That dude will never reply to this

 

Fool...

 

Fool...

 

And your Uncle ain't Azumah Nelson **** up...

 

Thats to close to realityfor Boo boo boi...

 

When the official is Adelaide Byrd , Bob Bennett your correct Boo Boo...

 

No clarification needed there Olu, the third bout was never disputed. If you check, you will find that I only claimed GGG to be unbeaten at 160. The third fight was at 168. I explicitly stated that Canelo edged the third fight at 168.

From that, we can conclude that you believe the judges to be infallible in matter of boxing scores.

It necessarily follows then, that you believe that Park Si-hun beat Roy Jones Junior in Seoul in 1988.

And that pretty much puts paid to your claim of being "seasoned in the sweet science." Even Park Si-hun disagrees with you.

Looking over your record of scoring on this forum, that's scarcely surprising.

But it certainly does shatter your self-congratulatory and oxymoronic remark regarding "...discerning observers like me who know boxing."

I am surprised that a man educated in logic and reason would make such a rash claim.
You could know how much boxing you have seen, but you could not know how much of the sport I have seen, and are not, therefore, in a position to make any comparisons on the matter.

Twice now in the same sentence, you make the same schoolboy error and profer yet another rash claim that strays into areas of fact that are not within your purvey.

I have not given you any lectures on any of those topics, Olu.

I have taken issue with your stance on the scoring of two fights involving Canelo and GGG.

Those are laudable qualities, Olu.

This bit is interesting but it relates to punditry, and is not really germane to the scoring of fights that have already taken place.

As Yogi Berra remarked, predictions are always risky, especially if they are about the future.

We can never know with certainty what will happen in a future fight, hence the excitement of upsets.

We were, however, discussing the scoring of fights that are in the past.

No one suggested that you were.
You continue to rebut statements that were never made here.

I'm glad to hear that. Authenticity is another laudable quality.

Now you're starting to sound like a sourpuss, Olu.

Tell me, which one of us started with content that you now you term, "inappropriate?"

Looking back over our exchanges in this thread, it looks like the 'inappropriateness' got started in post 171 when you opined on the consequences of your aunty's hypothetical dick:

My response to that particular post was entirely and very obviously tongue-in-cheek.

Medice, cura te ipsum !

Now it's you who are being ironic Olu, perhaps unwittingly.

You're lecturing me on humility while boasting and spouting braggadocio regarding your knowledge of boxing, jurisprudence and such.

Iterum, Medice, cura te ipsum !

 

Sometime Olu surprises.