Has Canelo Had Most Consistently Bad Scorecards In Championship Fights Of Any Fighter In History ?

I don't know enough about the history of robberies in boxing to say for sure, but during my lifetime absolutely.

 

""These are not fair scores....."

Everyone has biased opinions, you're no exception. Embrace that and move one.

 

You're exaggerating. You're making mountains out of molehills.

The only truly "outragerous" scorecards were Byrd's 118-110 against GGG and CJ Ross 114-114 against Mayweather. The main reason why there was so much outrage over those is due to hype over who Canelo was fighting and Canelo doing far better against them than expected.

I do not see any of the other cards as unreasonable. I personally saw the Mayweather fight as much closer than most saw it, but I still didn't agree with the 114-114. I thought Byrd's 118-110 was pretty wide but I did see that as a close but clear (116-112 or 115-113) Canelo victory.

Again you're ignoring the fact that Canelo has had more big fights than anyone else, so you're not gonna find anyone else with that many controversial cards because no one has that many big fights. The more big fights you have, the more chance there are for controversial cards. Another factor is Canelo's style, which generally isn't a high output style. So this is incongruent with fans who score rounds by counting punches rather than considering the scoring criteria.

It makes logical sense when you know what happened in the rounds and when you consider that GGG hardly won any rounds clearly. Almost all the rounds were close and hard to score which explains why one judge gave most of the rounds to Canelo. GGG was unable to impose his will on Canelo in the 1st fight. Canelo not only landed the bigger shots in many rounds, but showed good footwork and ring generalship and control of range in other rounds.

The difference between 113-115 and 115-113 is two swing rounds, the difference between 115-113 and 117-111 is two swing rounds.

So we have there 4 rounds for each, and 4 very even rounds that the judges disagreed on. Are you new to boxing?

It's not a huge discrepancy when you're dealing with multiple close rounds. 4 close rounds can swing 118-110 to 114-114, or 116-112 to 112-116. Most close fights have 4 or more close rounds that could go either way. That's how that happens. Welcome to boxing.

 

I don't disagree with your assessment of tougher opponents result in close or controversial decisions. I think the problem is that the controversial decisions always favor Canelo.

 

Can you remember any fighter in the last decade who's been in as many big championship fights as Canelo has?

Can you remember any fighter in the last decade who's competed against as many difficult opponents as Canelo has?

There's your answer. No one over the last decade has fought as consistently in championship fights as Canelo has. No one's consistently fought against high level opposition as Canelo has. That's the main reason why he's had more controversial scorecards than anyone. That means more fights go the distance against quality opposition than anyone else, which means more hard to score rounds than anyone else.

There's other reasons for that too. As I mentioned, he isn't a high output puncher, so he's often outpointed in rounds but lands the more effective shots in those rounds, creating a dynamic between fan scorers who score rounds based on volume rather than a low output fighter who lands the better punches, which is definitely a common theme and source of contention in many of the scorecards you've highlighted.

 

Imagine being a Canelo fan at this point, how corrupt you'd have to be as an individual.

 

I'm not a Canelo hater, I even like him. I think after the retirement of Manny Pacquiao, Canelo remains the only "old school" champion with so many fights. There are too many champions with a score of 20:0.
But 113-115 against Bivol makes me wonder if the judges and I were watching the same fight? And all three judges; unanimously.
A minor mistake would have been if the judges had awarded 108:120.
I even wondered if Chanelo had won one clear round, would the fight have been declared a draw, or if he had only scored one knockdown in the fight would he have won?

 

If its just bad judgin why is it always in his favour?
Truth is unfortunately there is a lot of corruption in boxing so you see bad cards in favour of a side fighters who bring in the most money.

 

You think he drew with Floyd ?
He won one, maybe two rounds at most.


Against Bivol, two rounds, three at most,

And of course, two losses against GGG

He was trailing when he KO'd Khan.

And even though I scored both Trout and Lara for Canelo, the margins on the scorecards were much too wide.


He's definitely been very lucky when it comes to judges.

 

Yes.

 

I'd say Canelo has a good argument for the most favourable scorecards ever.

I think Ali also had some serious judge bias in his favour at times. Louis had some dodgy cards too but only 1 or two iirc. I remember the Walcott fight that he should have lost.

I get that Canelo has an eye pleasing style but that should not fool seasoned judges into scoring stuff for him that should not be scored. He's had some ridiculous scores in his favour. Bivol beat him like a bongo drum and the judges had it close

 

I think the judges are like: "Could we score this round for canelo? Yes? Then we should score it for him." If there's a slight doubt over who could have won a round, he gets the benefit, almost invariably. You have to whitewash a round against him to win it.