Golovkin outlanded Canelo clearly in the trilogy.

Punchstats can be misleading though, for example looking at the Bowe vs Holyfield 2 punchstats you would think Bowe won easily. As he outlanded Holyfield by 100 punches 353 to 253. Yet many people saw it as a very close fight that could've gone either way.

Now as for the Canelo/Golovkin fights, the 1st fight I think most people agree was controversial. And that Golovkin deserved to win in the region of 8-4/7-5.

But the 2nd fight you fail to mention Canelo had a significant edge in power punches landed 141-116. And that whilst Golovkin did land more punches overall, most of his offence was behind the jab. Whilst Canelo was coming forward landing the harder punches.

Overall I don't see anything wrong with Canelo winning fights 2 and 3.

 

Long story short. Golovkin shouldn't have accept the third fight.

Adding to the initial post of the topic: judging a fight, aside from the number and the power of the punches, we consider effective aggression, defense, ring control, but still most, if not all of these are in favor of Golovkin in the first two fights.

 

1. GGG
2. Canelo
3. Canelo

 

Effective aggression, power punches, were certainly not in favour of Golovkin in the 2nd or 3rd fights, that was Canelo who was the aggressor landing the power punches.

 

Pointless to argue over that, as you see it one way, I do another. Just don't mistake agression with effective agression.

 

I don't see your point though Golovkin was primarily on the backfoot in the 2nd fight using the jab, Canelo was the one constantly coming forward landing effective power punches. So how is that not effective aggression ? and since the OP is using punchstats then Canelo having 141-116 edge in landed power punches, further proves Canelo landed the harder punches in the fight.

 

And got outpunched in jabs, as his power punches didn't really damage Golovkin. It's not that a power punch gives you more points if its effectiveness isn't as expected. It's just that practically every punch that's not a jab is considered powerful compared to it. And as I told you - no point of arguing over that.

If you check the BoxRec fan scoring in their first two fights, you'll see most fans there see it that way. Sure, we can argue how legit is that, but we can do so over the judges as well.

 

Yes but that's just your opinion which can easily be argued that Canelo was the aggressor in the 2nd fight, and landed the more effective power punches. And i don't like using punchstats but since you brought them up in your 1st post, you left out Canelo's power punch edge in the 2nd fight 141-116 which is a solid argument in favour of Canelo.

Overall i can see an argument for the 2nd fight being scored either way, but i don't have an issue with Canelo getting the decision based on his effective aggression.

 

I scored the 2nd fight a draw but i have no issue with Canelo winning a close fight based on his effective aggression, Golovkin was on the backfoot for most of the fight. And judges preferred the fighter coming forward i see no issue with that.

The judges scorecards were also fair 114-114, 115-113 x2, Canelo winning the fight 115-113 or earning a 114-114 are totally reasonable scores.

The 1st fight however had a total bogus scorecard as we all know, but i don't see see much wrong with the scoring in fights 2 and 3 personally.

 

"Yes but that's just your opinion"

 

Well it is just like it's my opinion no different, my point was for every point he made for Golovkin in the 2nd fight. Canelo also has strong counter arguments for deserving the win in the 2nd, his opinion or my opinion aren't right or wrong. But regardless i don't see an issue with people believing Canelo won 2nd fight, just like i don't see an issue with people believing Golovkin won the 2nd fight, but i have an issue with people calling 2nd fight a robbery which it clearly wasn't.

 

We've had this discussion before and i agreed with you last time aswell, Golovkin did definitely deserve to take something away from the trilogy. If Canelo got the benefit of the doubt in the 1st fight, then Golovkin getting the benefit of the doubt in one of the other fights would've been fair.

I know a majority of the people had Canelo winning the 3rd fight which is fine, but is there an argument that Golovkin had as much argument to earning a draw in their 3rd fight, as Canelo did in their 1st meeting ? interesting to see what others think about that.