If your name is floyd or canelo you can win rounds by being backed up, sliding off the ropes, shelling up and throwing pitter pat combos at 25% power off the ropes. If you try this and your name is tevin farmer or maurercio herrera you will find you have lost every single round
If your name is Floyd in this forum, you're the worst boxer in history, you pay off all judges, you pay off the city, you pay off NSAC, you send spies to other fighter's camp, you're scared to fight everybody ... blah blah blah
Agree with Canelo, not so much with FLoyd. Canelo has had fights that where he is getting out landed while moving back and he wins. Floyd, not so much.
Yep just like how the Australian boxing commission paid off the refs & judges to help Horn get the W in the Pac fight.
Floyd gets credit for arm punches, blocked punches as if they were scoring blows, never gets called for his cheating inside the ring, sucker punches too lol.
What "fights" are you talking about? Please tell. Also, you're probably new to boxing so I'll explain that the Pro scoring system differs greatly to amateur. Prize boxing would never use compubox or punchstats as one of the scoring criteria. So whether a fighter gets outlander or not doesn't necessarily have to be a factor in judging.
I dont want this to come off rude that is not my intention, but I usually find that people trying to compare other fighters performances to Floyd usually dont seem to know why the performances are different and what makes what Floyd special compared to the other boxers that hes being compared to. I keep seeing people trying to compare what Canelo, Lara, ect do, with what Floyd does. They arent the same thing. That being said.... the point of your thread stands that there are different standards in boxing for different fighters. It was true then, it is true now, and it will always be. Popularity and/or money will change standards and perceptions. Not just in boxing, but in most things.
Well every fighter has his positives and his negatives. There are areas that Floyd is better than Canelo and there are areas that Canelo is better than Floyd. Like for one, Canelo is a bigger puncher than Floyd. Canelo has 34 KOs while Floyd only has 27 KOs. Canelo doesn't need to rely on some of the stuff that Floyd does because his punching power is an equalizer. Like for example, if Floyd would have fought Amir Khan, there's no guarantee that Floyd would stop Khan. That's why people wanted to see Floyd fight Khan, because though Khan is chinny, he knows how to win rounds and Floyd doesn't have the kind of power that generally stops fighters. So yes Canelo can't or doesn't do a lot of the stuff that Floyd was able to do, but he's able to generate more power on his punches than Floyd does and utilizes a different move set than Floyd. Though there are similarities and surely Canelo has adopted some of Floyd's better attributes to become a better defensive fighter himself, at the end of the day Canelo is a more dangerous puncher than Floyd is. As far as the point of the thread, the OP mentioned Floyd and Canelo get credit for winning rounds in ways that other fighters don't. It's because Floyd and Canelo have reached the top of the sport in their respective eras and thus get a degree of favoritism that they've earned over time. I mean Ali got plenty of favoritism. His win over Ken Norton in their 3rd fight most people thought Ali lost, but Ali got the decision. Arguably Canelo did better vs Golovkin and has more of an argument to winning than Ali did over Norton. Certainly it's comparable, and Ali got the win, Canelo didn't even get the win, he had to settle for a draw. So yes to fighters in the sport especially tacticians like Floyd and Canelo get rounds without having to out-volume someone. They can win rounds that they land less punches because their punches are of a better quality and they have better defense and are able to keep their opponents to low connect precentages. (I'm not talking compubox numbers, I'm talking about what actaully lands clean) The criticisms of Floyd and Canelo winning close rounds, sometimes rounds they may not outland an opponent is what this is mostly about, the same could be said of Ali later in his career especially, but again he earned that by reaching a certain level especially after he beat the unstoppable Foreman. Floyd and Canelo are both the best of their respective eras and each have their strengths and weaknesses. But for both of them their strengths largely outweight their weaknesses. One difference between Floyd and Canelo is that Floyd has been criticized for being too defensive at times and sometimes having dull or boring fights. Don't get me wrong, most of Floyd's fights are highly entertaining but there's an argument to be had that Canelo is a more exciting fan friendly fighter than Floyd. Canelo can knock people out, Floyd really can't knock people out. Like even the Hatton knockout, Hatton just walked into a check hook. Floyd himself admitted that that knockout pretty much fell in his lap. Then there's the Ortiz knockout, which only was made possible as a result of a Ortiz headbutt. Whereas Canelo's gone out of his way to knock people out, like Khan. He's knocked people out with thudding body punches like vs Smith. Floyd just hasn't had knockouts like that, so while there are some areas Floyd is better at Canelo in, like he has a slightly better jab than Canelo, particularly the way he sets it up, he's just not as naturally strong as Canelo is. So Floyd's better at some areas of boxing and Canelo is better at some areas of boxing. And each of them are at a level that allows them to do things and fight in a way that others fighters can't because they aren't as skilled. So that's why Floyd and Canelo win rounds, because they have better defense, and know when to land punches to keep their oppoents off balance and just doing the little things in close rounds that the judges see and cause them to win rounds.
Look, Floyd is a lot better than yall wanna give him credit for. I diss andre ward all day because he is a ****ing fraud. Mayweather is actually good.
A lot of boxing's scoring is a popularity contest and/or based on personal favoritsm (often for personal gain). Ali in his later years could sit on the ropes, clinch, make a joke to the public while clinching and win the round that way. We all know boxing's scoring is very inaccurate, favorable for boxers that are from big countries and/or well connected, and very much open for corruption.
Over than maybe Castillo I (which even though I scored the other way was close), I don't see a fight that Floyd ever really got a 'gift' in or shouldn't have won. Whereas a judge scored his fight with Canelo a draw lol so I don't think Floyd is the man to bring up here