Prime GGG vs Sugar Ray Leonard (Hagler fight) MW

Ouma previosly fought for a middleweight title against Taylor, so this wasn't his first time. After losing to Taylor who was forced to fight Ouma from the outside with flurries rather than get into a trench war with Ouma who he was on the losing end of, Ouma continued to fight at a world level, barely losing against 154lb champions and contenders. Then when he fought Martirosyan, i thought he should have won that fight. He even dropped Vanes. Golovkin fought Ouma in the trenches, and Ouma turned back the clock for one last great fight. Taylor didnt dare stand toe to toe with Ouma and battle on the inside in Ouma's awkward southpaw wheel house. Golovkin stopped Ouma late, Who had never been stopped since his 10th pro fight. After the beating he took from Golovkin Ouma was never the same.

 

Golovkin likely came close to killing Ouma, i think he spent a good amount of time in the hospital after that fight.

 

Ok by your reasoning then Ngannou has claims to have beaten Fury.We can all rewrite history to suit our own agenda. And yes if is fact Bradley has a win over Pacquiao even if we dont like it

 

The only thing egregious about the first Nelo fight is the 118-110 card. A draw is a perfectly fine result for that fight.

 

Way to rewrite history. Ouma was never the same after he lost his title in an upset to Roman.
He was already notorious for his lack of discipline and it became worse not to mention fighting in a style in which he fought would also tend to burn out most fighters.
Ouma lost a lopsided decision to Taylor and that fight was never close. Taylor couldn't miss vs Ouma at times. And why would Taylor fight on the inside when he wasn't an inside boxer?
When he fought Vanes he did have a flash knockdown against him but you leave out that Vanes dominated the rest of that very same round.
GGG had his hands full with Ouma and his performance was blamed on "jet lag" lol.
Ouma coming in to his fight vs GGG had already lost to Rosado,Vanes, and hadn't almost fought in a YEAR before meeting GGG.

 

Really isn't from any objective scoring metric only people who say that are people who want to discredit Golovkin by not giving him a win he rightfully deserved

 

Yeah, that's a real open mind you have there. "Anyone who disagrees with me and the consensus must not want to give credit to GGG!"

And please tell me what an objective scoring metric is lmao.

17 of the 51 ringside cards had it a draw. 40 for GGG; 2 for Canelo. While yes, a GGG win is the most common score; 17 cards for a draw is by far the most I've ever seen for a fight. All 17 of them wanted to discredit GGG? But only 2 had the balls to just give Nelo the win?

The official judge, Don Trella, who scored the fight a draw, is among the best in the world - especially compared to the utter travesty of either repeated scandals, incompetence or corruption from Moretti and Byrd.

And here's a couple of quotes regarding Trella which took about 5s to find.

"He’s one of the best in the world, to be perfectly frank. I was certainly happy to help him. He knew boxing and he loved it. He really belonged there." - Harold Lederman

"Don is an excellent judge. We’ve been paired up a lot, and I know that when I work with him, it’s going to be the right score." - Glenn Feldman

 

And I'll just leave this here to make it known where my bias' lie.

 

Because the only people who bring up that it was a draw and not a legitimate win are the people who want to discredit Golovkin. Its like saying Whittaker didn't actually beat Chavez or Lewis didn't actually beat Holyfield in the first fight. Btw for such a good judge why did he score the Lopez vs Kambosos fight, which was a clear Kambosos win for Lopez? Sounds like your excellent judge isn't so great.......

Round are scored by CLEAN EFFECTIVE PUNCHING, Aggression, Ring Generalship and Defense guess who was better on 3 out of 4 categories? Clear win if you actually know how to score a fight

 

GGG is indeed a great boxer but the poster tries to rewrite history in GGG's favor at the expense of other great boxers.
Anyone that knows boxing knows that Hagler had a very rough road to the title and he had to fight basically everyone to even gain a title shot.
That is not the same road that GGG took and that isn't a shot at GGGs talent.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of boxing knows that Haglers opponents in general were a higher caliber then GGGs and again that isn't an attempt to discredit GGG it is just a fact.
Canelo did wait for GGG to age and I believe wanted no parts of GGG until he thought GGG was ripe for the taking.
First fight I thought GGG clearly won but it was not a commanding performance.

 

Or, it's almost like people have differing opinions on a subjective based scoring system. Or even just they want to treat an official result as an official result...

So, all 17 of them want to discredit GGG?

The NY Post, Associated Press, multiple Ring Magazine writers, multiple writers at ESPN, Sports Illustrated, the BBC, and so on. They all just refuse to give GGG his due credit? Is that it?

You'll have to ask Trella why, I'm not his supervisor, but if we're just basing the quality of a result, based on judge's interpretation of a different fight (lmao at how ridiculous this point is), I'd simply say to you why Maretti scored the first four rounds of Bivol-Nelo for Nelo; or why there was outcry for him to be banned after Haney vs Loma. Looks like GGG winning is crazy! We can go around and around in circles doing this.

Also, idk what you're talking about in your last paragraph. Which rounds did GGG win and why? Which rounds are inarguable for Canelo? In most rounds, neither were a better ring general, GGG didn't land the cleaner punches and doesn't have better defence so what is your point?

What is an objective scoring metric? Since you're the one who said it, you should have a fantastic answer.

 

I literally said it in my response Round are scored by CLEAN EFFECTIVE PUNCHING, Aggression, Ring Generalship and Defense. Guess who was better on 3 out of 4 categories?

 

Alright one more for the sake of it. First of all; those aren't even the categories of which a fight should be scored.

Clean and effective punching are just buzzwords. Quality vs Quantity is left up to the discretion of the judges; with quality being decided by the portion of glove which lands.

Aggression isn't rewarded, effective aggression is. As in, a fighter who effectively carries the contest gets credit for doing this; but loses said credit if he is ineffective in doing so.

I don't even need to tell you how Defence is subjective. The difference in terms of scoring between taking a shot on the gloves and taking it on the forearm, guess what. Also up to the judge's discretion.

Ring Generalship isn't even a scoring category. It's called "technical style" and there's no official guidelines because guess what, it's subjective.

Typing the wrong term in capital letters doesn't change that there is no objective scoring metric. It's why there's commission funded courses on how to teach judges on how to score a fight.

And in which rounds was GGG better at 3 of the 4? All of them, that's laughable. Half of them? Sure, that's literally my point.

The only way to debate a scorecard is to have one and compare them, so by all means, let's see yours.

 

It was a strange fight. My point is that Ouma, though he may not have been winning out right, but was hanging incredibly close with world class fighters. 8 months before the Golovkin fight he KOED Joey Gilbert at middleweight. Ouma obviously had one last great effort because he was fighting for the WBA middleweight title.Golovkin fought him on the inside which wasn't Golovkins usual fight, but fought Ouma in his wheel house and still wore him down and stopped him. Only after that fight was Ouma never the same. He was out for 2 years after that fight or more. Taylor would have got his ass handed to him if he fought Ouma in that style.

 

And we don't like it because it was wrong, and in the Golovkin fights it was wrong and crooked.If we don't correct it nobody will.