Has Canelo had too many controversial fights to be considered an ATG in the future ?

Nothing wrong with 115-113 Bivol. First 4 rounds were good Canelo rounds (could be argued for Bivol but nothing wrong with having Canelo 4-0 after 4). Bivol was getting beat up in those rounds, was on the defensive, covering up on the ropes. Those were not great Bivol rounds. Frankly to not conclude that 115-113 is reasonable would be to say that you couldn't score each of the first 4 to Canelo which would show that you were clearly biased against Canelo as any reasonable person with no agenda can't watch those rounds and not conclude that those were good Canelo rounds. Then there was round 9 which was a clear Canelo round. The other 7 rounds were each clearly for Bivolv which makes 115-113 an almost perfect score given the closeness of those rounds compared to the 7 Bivol won. Now I can understand why you see those as biased as 4 toss up rounds all going to Canelo. But in doing that it fails to take into account the differences between Canelo's output in those rounds vs Bivol's. It was not as if both men did the exact same things and the refs just decided to say a tie goes to Canelo. It was actually specifcally what Canelo did in those rounds that is apparently lost on you, that or you're just willingly ignoring it and trying to paint a picture. Now as I said previously, I totally get those who scored it 9-3 Bivol, maybe even 10-2 Bivol. I'm not saying that's a stretch because again 1-4 were all close and Bivol did do good things in those rounds, worthy of winning those rounds, but when put against what Canelo did in those rounds, it becomes a comparison between what you see as quantifiable and what you consider unimportant.

So before I even address GGG 1, 2, Lara or Trout, if you refuse to see 115-113 Bivol as reasonable, then I would say sorry you are actually biased against Canelo. Not that you have to score it 115-113, not that you can't disagree with it or have it 117-111 or maybe 118-110, understanding that you scored it that way but that you had to make a decision to give some of those 4 rounds to Bivol, and that's debatable. Then when you openly and honestly examine GGG 1, 2, Lara or Trout you'll find that those scores (minus perhaps Byrd's 118-110 or the wide card against Trout) most of the scores in these matches and most importantly the verdict was well within what any sane minded person would agree is reasonable. Unless you're unreasonable and too biased to award Canelo rounds when he performs in a successful and effective manner.

 

In the first 4 round Bivol got schooled. But in schooling Bivol, Canelo exerted a lot of energy in those rounds and it made him tire in rounds 5-8. In round 9 he came back with a vengeance but sadly it was only for 1 round and then Canelo went back to being tired again in rounds 10-12 and not throwing enough or defending well enough. Bivol took advantage of Canelo's stamina issues that night. But even during many of those rounds Bivol won, Canelo was having big moments and landing good shots here and there and putting on a show at itmes, but he was just being outworked by Bivol. Being outworked by someone isn't really the same as schooling someone. Now Bivol did do some schooling but any counter schooling came as a mid-fight adjustment after being schooled early and learning the hard way what he needed to do to outmaneuver Canelo en route to a decisive but narrow UD.

 

Don't be silly. It's claims of judge bias in cases where the judges produce a reasonable score that show how biased you are.

 

If a case can be argued that Canelo won each of the first 4 rounds, which is plainly the case then there's no problem with that score. Complaining about it shows an inability to accept the reality of what happened there. The story of the fight was that Bivol overcame the rough early start to come on strong in the mid-rounds and close the show in the late rounds. And that way of winning it is even more glorious than the story you're going with, that this wasn't even close, that it was not competitive, which frankly is a delusional way of looking at it.

 

Bivol ran off alright, lets not forget that it was Bivol who refused a rematch at 175, Canelo wanted the rematch at 175 but Bivol refused because he knew how tough it was the first time and had his doubts about his ability to win in a rematch.

 

You can call it whatever you want but all you're doing is exaggerating what happened because you're insecure about how close it was. Bivol's wore the wounds of war on his bicep.

 

Professional judges are not fanboys, clown.

 

The match was scored quite accurately by all 3 judges. Canelo won the first 4, each close but justified, Bivol won 5-8, Canelo won 9, Bivol won 10-12. You can cry about it all you want but that's what happened. The fact that you have to make up some conspiracy nonsense instead of just accepting the verdict like a normal person.