Most controversial results: Canelo vs GGG 1, Ward vs Kovalev 1, or Haney vs Lomachenko

Stop bro, Canelo won rounds 2-3 &12. Thats it!!!

 

1-3, 10-12, and 4-6 were debatable.

 

yeah, ok.

 

Ward vs Kovalev over Loma and Haney? Cmon guys….

 

https://www.azcentral.com/gcdn/-mm-...ix/Phoenix/636412052773530445-GAGGG-promo.jpg

https://images.daznservices.com/di/...mbr71fcdae.jpg?t=-445037247&quality=100&h=300
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/tLX...image/image/59256023/usa_today_10286785.0.jpg
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/jhG...s/chorus_image/image/56714625/848145584.0.jpg
https://www.reviewjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/11074769_web1_BOX-CANELOGGGFIGHTMAIN_091617ev_019.jpg
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/onesport/cps/624/cpsprodpb/83D9/production/_97835733_ggg_canelo_getty2.jpg
https://img.bleacherreport.net/img/...5307d2921c5_crop_exact.jpg?w=1200&h=1200&q=75

https://sportshub.cbsistatic.com/i/2017/09/17/18fe4072-01d4-4246-abf6-3390d0766e72/canelo-ggg.jpg
https://www.reviewjournal.com/wp-co..._web1_BOX-CANELOGGGFIGHTMAIN_091617ev_019.jpg

 

Kovalev vs Ward though close I thought it was easy to score there weren't really swing rounds

I have scored the Golovkin versus Alvarez fight several times and have never been able to give Alvarez more than 5 rounds but it was an incredibly competitive fight and had swing rounds

I actually scored the fight for Haney 115 113 and don't consider it a robbery in the slightest as there were many swing rounds in that fight

 

Is there a reasonable argument that Ward won 7 close rounds and did enough to legitimately eek out a victory? It's been a while since I've watched this fight, it would be interesting to know what rounds you gave to Ward and which ones you didn't, and go back to re score it.

OK well at least you acknowledge that it was an "incredibly competitive fight" and that there were swing rounds. That wordage suggests it was close and hard to score. What were the swing rounds for you? And why weren't you able to give Canelo more than 5 rounds. Did you give him 5 rounds? Which other ones did you struggle to give him? I don't think it's an unreasonable take to give Canelo about 5 rounds and make the argument that he came close, but didn't do quite enough. I gave him 1-3 and 10-12 but I know some people gave GGG Round 1, or 10 or 11. To me that's a stretch but I can see why people saw those as close. I always go back to the rounds that people seem to be forgetting about which are rounds 4-6. Even if you gave GGG some of 1-3 / 10-12, you can just as easily give Canelo 4, 5 or 6. And 7-9 while they were pretty clear GGG rounds, as I've pointed out while Canelo was clearly outpointed in those rounds, he did land the best single shot in each of those rounds. It's not out of the realm of possibility to give him 1 out of those 3, particularly 8 or 9 (more than 7 which was more one-sided for GGG than 8 or 9) or to score one of those even.

It's all about balancing out the close rounds with accurate scores that represent the overall level of closeness and competitiveness. I see rounds 4-6 as (cumulatively) "about even". So scoring Rounds 7-9 were definitely in GGG's favor, but 8 and 9 were closer than 7. When I say Canelo won 7 or 8 rounds, there's a range of acceptable scores when deciding on rounds 4-9.

i.e. :
Canelo winning rounds 4 and 6 and GGG winning rounds 5, 7, 8 and 9
OR
Canelo winning round 4, GGG winning rounds 5 and 7, and GGG winning EITHER 8 or 9 (but not both in this scenario), with round 6 scored even, and either round 8 or 9 scored even as well (but not both), the other to GGG 10-9, to give credit for the big single shots Canelo landed in those rounds (or one of those rounds, whichever shot you think was better, or based on which round you thought was closer, 8 or 9, outside of the big single shot) to credit GGG for his work rate and overall level of effectiveness in those rounds while also recognizing how effective Canelo's big single shot(s) were in those rounds.

"But every round should be scored on its own and shouldn't be related to what happened in other rounds."

I get that, and if I took that approach, I could just as easily give Canelo rounds 4 and 6, while giving GGG rounds 5, 7, 8 and 9, and it would be the same difference in terms of scoring.

OR (another reasonable scenario) **fyi round 5 was very close, although GGG finished better than Canelo in the last minute, and I gave it to GGG because of that finish, Canelo was ahead after the 2 minutes and there's an argument that he won the round**

So GGG winning rounds 4, 6, 7, and [8 or 9] (but not both) with Canelo winning round 5, and [8 or 9] (but not both)

Either of these scenarios result in the same margin on the scorecards. The problem with giving GGG 4-9 6 rounds in a row, as many people did, is that Canelo boxed very well in rounds 4-6, and those were extremely even even if you ignore punch effectiveness and just count punches, 7-9 while Canelo was clearly outpointed he landed the best single shots (by far) in each of those rounds. Those single shots were so good you can argue he won the round based on how good those shots were alone. Byrd certainly agreed in rounds 8 or 9, to which she was heavily criticized for, however it's definitely arguable if you go through the history of boxing, there are rounds like that where one guy gets out worked with mostly light and glancing stuff but then lands the no doubt about it best single shot of the round and the judges are so impressed they give him the round. If you don't think that sort of thing has happened throughout history you don't know boxing.

So the scoring of rounds 4-9 in the first fight is like a black hole that no one arguging GGG won it clearly wants to touch, and that's telling because if you don't deal with what happened, if you don't focus on what Canelo accomplished in those rounds, rounds people say GGG won each clearly, then you're taking a delusional stance. Of course I recognize that each of those rounds 4-9 on their own merits are arguable for GGG, so it's not unreasonable to give 4-9 to GGG, but as I discussed earlier, that's a road that you would gone down, the flip side is that several of those rounds are arguable for Canelo. Cumulatively I see rounds 4-9 as GGG did about 2 points better in those rounds, but not 6 points better. I could live with 4 points better and giving Canelo only one round between 4-9, but even then that's enough to give Canelo the victory if you also gave Canelo 1-3 and 10-12 which each are rounds that are even more arguable for Canelo in many people's minds. Not everyone gave Canelo all 6 rounds of 1-3 and 10-12 but in general most agree that each of those rounds were good Canelo rounds. If you gave any of those (1-3/10-12) to GGG it woudl have been splitting hairs to do that, none of those were clear GGG rounds, and if we're honest, none of 4-6 were clearly GGG rounds either. You could argue GGG edged each of those barely, but that sounds more like favorable scoring to give the same fighter close round after close round. Now the same could be said for giving Canelo 1-3 10-12 but it's apples to oranges, in each of those rounds he gave judges more reasons to score him those rounds, whereas in 4-6 he did well but he didn't punctuate those rounds to the extent that he did in 1-3, 10-12.

In the end it was "incredibly" competitive as you say but in my view, there needs to be more focus on rounds 4-6 in particular, and if you gave GGG all those rounds then that's favorable scoring, or at least as favorable for GGG as scoring 1-3 and 10-12 for Canelo is, if not more.

We agree on this. Not a robbbery. I was fine with Heny winning, I thought he did enough, particularly impressed by the body shots and the combinations he was able to put together. And Loma did run out of steam in the 12th.

And what did you think of Froch Andre Dirrell? How did you score that? Was that more of a robbery than Haney Loma?

 

Nice pictures. What's your point though? That it was a classic?

 

I didn't read this, but you can break down the 3rd fight and find ways for GGG to come out on top. The last four rounds the fans on boxrec scored for GGG, round 1 was contolled by GGG with the jab, thats five rounds. Then the 2nd was close, round 6 was a swing round and i believe round 8 was real close as well. GGG in 1st and 2nd gear at the age of forty pushed Canelo and had Canelo very uncomfortable late, and totally greatful for the win. He found out that GGG at 168 lbs is even more durable than ever.

 

Loma and Ward were very close and competitive. Canelo and GGG wasn’t close, but Canelo gave him a workout at least. Big difference. 118-110, get realllll.

 

Kovalev-Ward - I felt most strongly about being a W for Kovalev.

Loma-Haney - I had it for Loma but an argument COULD be made for Haney, I think it'd be biased scoring (from my perspective) but I can see it.

GGG-Canelo I was fine with the draw. It's the 2nd fight I had more of a problem with.

 

So the 2nd fight you had for GGG? I had both for GGG , but my biggest problem was they gave all the benefits to Canelo. If left the first fight a draw and GGG won the 2nd fight majority decision, i would be ok with the draw, if they gave GGG the first fight and left the 2nd as is, a close loss, it would be more reasonable, but a draw and a loss for GGG, when he should have two wins, totally messed up.

 

Yes. That it was a classic, that both men had their moments, that it can be interpreted in a variety of ways.

 

Most important thing he said was that he was fine with the draw in the first fight, he recognized how close that was. And you're not being consistent, on the one hand you said Canelo only won 2, 3 and 12, which of course is extremely favorable to GGG. Meaning that you had it 9-3 GGG, an absurd score given how close it was. And now you say you would be ok with the draw in the first fight if GGG won the 2nd fight. That's not how this works. Each fight is its own thing. The draw in the first fight was perfectly reasonable, you said yourself you would have been ok with it if GGG won the 2nd. Well wait a minute, were you ok with it when the first fight happened or weren't you? What does the scoring of the rematch have to do with what happened or what are acceptable scores in the first fight? The answer is, nothing, the 1st and 2nd fights couldn't be more different.

 

One bank robbery is not as bad as two. Why is that so hard to understand? If somebody stole two of your cars and completely got away with it, wouldn't you be greatful to at least get one back if you could? That's what i mean. Niether robbery is acceptable.