Has Canelo ever defeated the #1 in any division without controversy?

He can't fight himself. He was #1at middleweight . The next best was Jacobs and Canelo and without corruption he beat them both and slaughtered the rest, to the toon of 20 title defense 18 by KO. Some people just need to wake up..

 

That's because Mayweather was the bigger draw at the time, not to mention, he did take him to school so the right guy won. The powers that be had zero intention of letting Canelo lose to GGG if they had anything to say about it.A win over GGG would spring board Canelo to even new heights of super stardom. They couldnt let him lose to the Russian/Korean Kazakhstani.

 

Finally to answer the thread Question. Canelo fought for the vacant WBC 154 lb title vs career journeyman welterweight Mathew Hatton. Later after signing to fight Mayweather, he fought a unification against Austin Trout. It was in this fight I witness a robbery happening as it was happening.Rounds that Trout was clearly winning was going to Canelo via open scoring. There seemed to be no reason to even watch the fight because there was obviously no way Trout can win. I had Trout winning. Next was the Mayweather fight. That should be two losses in a row. A couple fights later Canelo fights Lara. I thought it was a close fight, but I had Lara by one point. Of course Canelo gets it again. Then at 155 lbs Canelo fights the rejuvenated undersized Miguel Cotto. It was a very close competitive fight, almost could have gone either way, but Canelo wins in a near shut out across the board. Cotto never stood a chance and that's why all he had to say is WOW! after the fight before leaving the ring. That's pretty much GGG'S response after GGG'S 2nd fight with Canelo.Canelo and his judging staff seem to extract these kind of responses from usually very pleasant personalities. Then came the fights with GGG, no need to go over these, they're about as controversial as you can get. The win over Jacobs was good. At 168lbs Fielding was no where near the best, and Kovalev is one of the best ,while not being at his best anymore.So I will have to say no to the above question.

 

Canelo should have been given the L against Lara for sure along with the obvious. Fury is a better fighter and bigger star than Canelo. Cheaters like Canelo (and Fury) should be banned from the sport forever.

P.S. @The Real Lance in this thread is the best Lance ever. Way better than that cheating POS Lance Armstrong.

*edit #5 or #6 (it's been a lot)* Forgot all about Canelo should have had a loss to Larry Mosley as well.

 

Because you hate Canelo does mean he lost fights you wanted him to lose! Your hatred of him is well documented.

 

He hardly slaughtered Jacobs and Canelo beat him. The history books a million years from now will record Canelo beat. So let it be written so let it be done.

 

Why bring race, nationality and politics into this. This is boxing and GGG met his match in Canelo who proved to be the more skilled technician and just as tough maybe more so.

 

Because that's reality, the money man first and foremost always gets all benefit of doubt, followed by nationality, with race not playing as big a part in the sport of boxing. At least in today's age.

 

Yes it is his fault. When you can't get big fights, you force them. Fighting hopeless opponents and bums while crying for a payday isn't going to earn you jack. He was lucky he eventually scored two free paydays despite doing nothing for them. Every single star out there took on serious risks to be recognized, even if it they were at a clear disadvantage.

 

It's not debatable — Cotto, Martinez, and Sturm wanted NOTHING to do w/ GGG.

 

How you see it is your interpretation of what happened. Like you giving GGG rounds every round 4-11 is pretty crazy. Rounds 4, 5, and 6 were extremely close. Rounds 10 and 11 are hard to give to GGG. The 45 second fire works display, are you referring to the the beginning of round 10, the round where Canelo was all over GGG at the beginning then went on his bike? That round Canelo landed more clean and effective offense in the first 45 seconds than GGG did in the final 2 minutes. By Canelo landing a lot early then backing away for the rest of the round and being elusive, it made it impossible for GGG to equal what Canelo did in the first minute. It's unjustifable for you to see that but then just give GGG the round for some reason. Canelo won the last 3 rounds pretty convincingly. It's hard to argue GGG won those rounds.

You give GGG the first round "close". It was a low output round, I thought Canelo edged it and landed better than GGG did, also he had better ring generalship than GGG. Could you argue GGG edged it? I would have to watch it back, it's definitely not a clear round for either guy, you are showing that you have given pretty much every close round to GGG while saying that the judges were trying to find reasons to give Canelo rounds. That's not being honest. The judges split many of the close rounds, and all 3 judges gave the 4th round to GGG a round that GGG got in more offense than he got in the first 3 rounds, but a round that he was still being outboxed and again Canelo was showing supreme defense and ring generalship.

So GGG got favorable scoring and he actually got more close rounds than Canelo did by the two judges besides Byrd. I don't see how you can give GGG (or Canelo for that matter) both rounds 4 and 5. I had to split those rounds they were so close and hard to score. If you gave GGG round 4 then you should give Canelo round 5 because Canelo controlled the first 2 minutes of the round. If you gave Canelo round 4 then GGG did enough down the stretch to finally give GGG a round after losing the first 4 rounds. But to score both those rounds to GGG and claim it was clear that GGG won those (when at minimum those were both toss up rounds) is biased scoring.

Round 6 was another hard to score round, arguable for GGG but certainly not a clear round. Round 7-9 I had no problem giving to GGG he outworked Canelo in those rounds though Canelo landed some great single shots. So you're trying to overly simplify these rounds and act like GGG won all these rounds about half of those were close to even and pretty much toss ups.

 

Cotto was at the end of his career, he wanted a serious payday for himself and he earned it. It's the same case with Martinez. They weren't interested in giving a nobody with zero notable victories a free payday at this stage of their careers. Sturm?, are you even serious?. But yeah, I can see why Golovkin would be interested in ancient fighters to give him a free payday. Shameless to the end.

 

If that as legitimate I would. despite juicing Clenelo has Never beaten GGG

 

You aint got a clue buddy Go watch tennis

 

Both Cotto and Martinez wanted a payday without the guaranteed beat down that would come with it.They weren't worried about somebody not deserving a fight with them, which is ludicrous. They were worried about risk vs reward, how much they would make minus hospital bills, and how much would the beating take out of the remaing part of their careers.