Rewatching Canelo vs Golovkin 1 rbr

TBH i rarely agree with your scoring so I'm not gonna really take scoring advice from you

Im just a fan though and not a pro in the slightest

So if im wrong so be it

I dont think I am however

 

It's not about right or wrong, it's about scoring a round accurately and correctly. The problem we have here is that a lot of people take this stuff personally and end up scoring matches out of anger and emotion rather than objectively and unbiased.

I asked you a simple question about who landed more clean effective punches and who inflicted more damage because I'm trying to understand your reasoning for scoring Round 3 for GGG. Look - I respect people who see rounds differently than i do. Like I said, there are many rounds in this match that I could see how people gave to GGG. Rounds like 1, 4, 6, maybe even 11 or 12. But after rewatching Round 3, I don't put it into that category because it was apparent that the vast majority of clean effective punching was landed by Canelo. I mean, it really was pretty clear and supported with comments from Lampley, RJJ and Max during the round and backed by Harold Lederman at the beginninng of the next round.

So you and others giving that round to GGG is troubling because the emphasis is supposed to be on clean effective punching and defense. It's not about counting connects with a disregard for effectiveness and impact. And the last 30 seconds only solidifed that as a Canelo round, while the OP sees the end of that round as Canelo throwing away the round. That's a glaring divergent interpretation and scoring of that sequence, and we see more of the same in round 4 when Canelo went back to the ropes again. If people are giving GGG rounds 3 and 4 mainly due to Canelo going back to the ropes and doing so without getting hit, then you're not crediting that accordingly. The same reasoning went into some who scored Round 10 to GGG.

I mean, that's potentially 3 swing rounds given to GGG simply because people are misinterpreting how fighting off the ropes should be credited, in which case we definitely need a crash course in how to properly credit fighting off the ropes. Scoring a round against a fighter for putting on a clinic while showing off defensive mastery fighting off the ropes is just plain wrong.

 

Your invitation to him will result in frenzied wall of Banal text ...he is insane...

 

@Pimp C we could use your expertise in here. The scoring of round 3 is crucial to scoring and judging this match, because it involves aspects of scoring that people obviously see and credit very differently. My question to you Pimp is first, how you score Round 3, and second how you interpret the last 30 seconds, which saw Canelo backing away and picking off shots along the ropes, and not allowing GGG to score. The OP used these last 30 seconds to argue Canelo threw away the round by being too defensive there and awarded the round to GGG based on that. I don't know about you, but this doesn't make sense to me.

It seems that a lot of people really frown when a fighter starts showing off defensively like Canelo did there, channeling his inner Willie Pep and scoring by showcasing defense mastery along the ropes. Do fans just not appreciate it when a fighter shows off his defense and ropes skills like that? When a fighter goes back to the ropes and picks off shots like that, it shouldn't be seen as a negative, rather it should be credited as part of defense and ring generalship. It only should be seen as a negative and scored as such if it is excessive, not entertaining or if his opponent is able to break up to the defensive showcase attempt by landing with his opponent on the ropes.

It's one thing to penalize a fighter for being too negative, but it all depends on how exaggerated, prolonged and successful the defensive showcase spurts are, and how it jives with the rest of the round. In the case of round 3, Canelo was in complete control of the round, landed more than enough offense to win the round in the first 2:30, and proceeded to put on a clinic in showing off his defense to end the round.

 

I scored the fight a draw. I will have to go back and rewatch that round.

 

You brought up that GGG was the Champ at the start, and said that there were 6 rounds that could be argued for Canelo, yet you gave 3 of those rounds to GGG and had GGG winning 9-3. You keep stressing GGG's Champion status, then scored multiple close rounds to GGG that you say could be argued for Canelo, enough to arrive at a draw. One of those rounds, round 3 you scored for GGG based on the last 30 seconds because you claimed Canelo was "running". During the "running", Canelo stopped several times to fight off the ropes, and proceeded to pick off all of GGG's shots which is not easy to do and he even landed the only clean punch in that sequence, a jab.

So it sounds like you for some reason are finding reasons to give GGG close round after close round while repeatedly bringing up the fact that GGG was Champ going in. I'm saying the fact that he was Champ should have no impact on the scoring, so why do you keep bringing that up as if it's relevant in the RBR? I'd rather you address why you scored these rounds to GGG when as you admit they each could be scored for Canelo. So what made the difference, and as it pertains to round 3, how does that last 30 seconds swing the round to GGG when he missed a lot of punches while Canelo was showing off defensively and GGG got hit with a jab the only clean punches landed in that sequence. What you're saying just doesn't add up, and I'm trying to understand your reasoning.

 

Golovkin schooled a juiced to the gills Canelo. Without the peds Canelo gets stopped.

 

You said "no one truly believes Canelo should have won this fight. There's 6 rounds that can be argued for him, but ultimately Golovkin came out on top. He was the champ at the start, the champ at the end, didn't blemish his record and had public opinion behind him."

It sounded like you were making a parallel between retaining his title and GGG coming out on top. I mean, he did have Champion's advantage, but it has no relevance in the scoring. You've drawn a line in the sand at a draw being the best Canelo could possibly do, while reinforcing the fact that GGG was Champ at the start. You also said that a draw didn't blemish his record, while many GGG would disagree with you. So it seems that you are putting a lot of emphasis on GGG being the Champ and 6 rounds being the maximum amount of rounds that you could score for Canelo.

I'm saying, it makes no difference if he was the Champ at the start or if he has public opinion behind him. What matters is how the rounds should be scored, which is why we should be focused on, instead of other things are aren't relevant to that and only detract from that discussion.

 

Nice one!

 

Apologies if I misinterpreted your statement. I've seen this kind of logic used so many times, that when I start hearing things one after the other like :
"GGG was the Champ"
"Canelo couldn't win more than 6 rounds"
"No one believes Canelo could have won"
"Public opinion supported GGG"
"The draw didn't blemish his record", etc.

This all sounded very familiar, so I think you can understand how that sounds like the Champions advantage argument that has been used by others. In fairness, it was not expressed by you, but it did sound a lot like what I've heard before. It might all just be a coincidence but your statements lined up with the Champion's advantage arguments that have been used in the past. I expected the next thing you to say was that Canelo needed to take the fight to the Champ in order to win the title lol.

Now, I get that you didn't say that, but that was the "story of the fight" that seemed to shape the perception of both fights. So if I jumped the gun on you there, my apologies, but I think you can understand how suspicious I am of anyone making the kinds of arguments you were making, particularly as it pertains to the scoring of the match and the limit at which you put on how many rounds you think Canelo could win. It just seems all to convienient that you draw a line in the sand at 6 rounds max for Canelo, while talking about GGG being Champ, public opinion, etc.

 

OK fair enough on that. But at the same time, that's a big part of the perception surrounding this match. It's not just me arguing with fanboys, it's literally the basis for a good chunk of what the boxing fanbase believed happened here, which just to happens to be inconsistent with what actually happened. Case in point, you came to the realization only after rewatching it that a draw was an acceptable result. That means for 5 years you lived in delusion that a draw wasn't an acceptable result, so you suffered from this phenomenon as well, and only have just came to your senses, whereas unlike you, I've always had an accurate view of what happened and it didn't take me 5 years to figure out that a draw is an acceptable result like you did.

So you having this epiphany is evidence of this not only being my problem, but a general boxing fan problem. After all, I wouldn't be so used to arguing with fan boys if people didn't believe the kind of nonsense they do. And further, this whole idea ended up backfiring on GGG and his fans. Accusing Canelo of not fighting Mexico Style set GGG and his fans up for disaster in the rematch. And remember, this all started because GGG himself accused Canelo of not fighting Mexican style in that post fight ESPN interview, and claimed that Canelo was "running". So it wasn't just a fan creation. It was fans parroting what GGG said, and that largely shaping the popularized view of the scoring of the match. Isn't it curious how GGG while accusing Canelo of "running" and not fighting Mexico style in that interview you accused also said he gave Canelo maybe "3 or 4 rounds". Remember Canelo in the post fight interview in the ring said he won about 7 or 8 rounds. GGG standing there with the wounds of war talking about Canelo not fighting Mexican Style and "running" is pretty ironic. And here you are accusing Canelo of "running" at the end of Round 3 and scoring that round to GGG based on that, a round he didn't deserve I might add.