Rewatching Canelo vs Golovkin 1 rbr

I rewatched it earlier, I scored it a draw. Don't even remember what my 1st card was. I just know anything from a draw to 2 rounds either way is acceptable to me due to the sheer amount of close rounds. Watched this time with the intent of giving each round to both guys, or in other words trying to see a argument each way for every round. Apologies in advance , but anyone screaming robbery is an idiot, it was a close fight.

Yes Canelo fans want to find ways to give the fight to their guy, but so do GGG fans it's the nature of the sport. I feel like Byrds ******ed card gave GGG fans an excuse to pump unsubstantiated outrage after the fight. (Never mind that Lederman's card was just as ridiculous the opposite way) One thing I always maintained was the actual score she posted was a minor thing in the grand scheme, whether she had him ahead by 1 round or 50 it still had the same impact on the decision. She clearly felt he won so how wide she scored it wouldn't have changed a thing. Stupid is still stupid however.....

About the much debated round 3, I scored it for Canelo, I felt he did the better work that round. For those who really like details Sanchez tells G in the corner between rounds: "we gave that one away" so go figure....

 

Precisely. Anyone screaming robbery is an idiot, has no clue how to score matches, and clearly was scoring this match on emotion with fanboy energy. Just yesterday @exocet76 claimed that it was a "total robbery no ifs ands or buts". You go back over the last 5 years and look at the sheer amount of people who claimed it was a robbery, it's a large number of posters.

Yup, it's the nature of scoring. Canelo fans would naturally pay more attention to Canelo's work, and look for reasons to give him rounds, but the same is true GGG fans. It's human nature to have some bias and focus on the guy you are rooting for. But the difference is that GGG fans gave him rounds simply for being the aggressor or counting connects, which isn't really using the scoring criteria to decide rounds. The scoring criteria puts an emphasis on clean effective punches and "effective" aggression, not merely just aggression or counting punches. So it's more of a comparison of the quality of punches landed, rather than a mere tally of connects. And the bigger problem is that GGG fans, while scoring rounds for GGG for reasons that aren't sound, then act like that's the only way a round could possibly scored and basically freak out at anyone who challenges them over who won the round.

Stupid is stupid, but the reaction to her card somehow morphed into outrage over the decision, the result of a draw, which is what happens when fans get emotionally invested. They lose track of what they're outraged over and all of a sudden start making it about who should have won, rather than if Byrd's score was correct, which we can all agree it wasn't.

He clearly did the better work, and great point about Sanchez telling G in the corner "we gave that one away". Forgot about that, more supporting evidence that Canelo won that round. His own trainer admitted he gave that one away lol. Ironic since luf claimd Canelo gave it away in the final 30 seconds for backpeddling, going back to the ropes without getting hit. It's not hard to see that Canelo was ahead at that point and those last 30 seconds didn't do anything to change that.

 

Yep. That's Drainlube for ya. He also had Golovkin/Jacobs 9-3 for Jacobs lol.

 

I have GGG winning their first fight and Canelo edging the second.. Third should've happened a lot sooner.

 

I said I'm not sure about 11, I will have to review it. I think 116-112 is a stretch for GGG, that would be giving him too many close rounds in my estimation. You should try to split close rounds if rounds are hard to score to produce a more accurate card. When you give a fighter more hard to score rounds than the opponent, then you create an imbalanced score.

The goal is to produce the most accurate score possible, there are rounds that a fighter wins clearly and there are rounds that are more even where it's splittng hairs to determine a winner. However each round carries the same scoring weight to the winner, 10-9. So a 10-9 in which a fighter dominates or clearly wins a round is not the same as a 10-9 in a round that could go either way. But it's scored the same so that's why you need to split close rounds.

So if you have multiple toss-up rounds in a row, it's wrong to give the same fighter close round after close round especially if you are unsure of who should have won. So with rounds 4-6, I have no problem if someone scored any of those rounds for GGG, because there are reasons you can cite that support scoring any of those rounds for him. But I do have a problem with scoring each of those rounds to the same fighter. 4-6 are each much closer and more competitive than rounds 7-9 which were more one-sided than 4-6. So 4-6 should not be scored the same as 7-9. Same concept with rounds 11 & 12 of the rematch. Both rounds are extremely close and hard to score, so to produce a more accurate score, those rounds should be split to produce a more accurate score.

Scoring is more than just choosing who wins a round, each round should be judged on their own, but the decision to award a close round stays in the back of your mind when deciding how to score another close round. Splittng close rounds is a part of that decision-making process, it's human nature, otherwise you are scoring toss-up rounds the same as dominant rounds, which leads to inaccurate scores. That's something fans complain about, like with Kovalev Ward 1, with Ward winning all those close rounds and getting the decision, but with the rounds that Kovalev won being much more dominant and clear.

No, splitting close rounds is a more accurate way to score. In many close rounds, there are acceptable reasons to score a round for either fighter, and it's up to you to choose who won each round. In a close, hard to score round, it's often a subjective choice that weighs on judges minds and affects their scoring of other close rounds.

LOL I never said I agree with a 116-112 GGG victory, you are putting words into my mouth. I do not see a clear path to 116-112 for GGG. I made it clear that it is unacceptable to score rounds 4-6 for GGG. At least 1 of those rounds to shoud be scored to Canelo because they are all extremely close. Further I said I'm "not sure" about round 11, I will have to take another look at that one to judge if GGG winning is acceptable.

Round 4-6 should not be scored the same as rounds 7-9 as 4-6 were much closer than 7-9 and should be credited as such. You need to split close, hard to score rounds otherwise you will produce an inaccurate score. Judges do this all the time, they remember what happened in a previous close round and when they get another equally close round they give it to the other fighter to keep the score balanced and as accurate as possible. That's how you get scores like Trella scoring round 7 to Canelo, a clear GGG round. He must have realized that he gave GGG too many close rounds in a row prior to that, and that weighed on his conscience so he found a reason to give Canelo round 7, a round he didn't really deserve but GGG definitely didn't deserve rounds 3, 4, 5 and 6 which Trella gave him which is horrible scoring. He shouldn't have given round 3 to GGG, and on top of that he gave 4-6 to GGG as well, when at least 2 of those rounds (3-6) should have been given to Canelo. So even with scoring round 7 to Canelo, he still gave GGG one more round than he should have between 3-7. So while GGG fans like to point out Trella gave round 7 to Canelo which I agree was wrong, the net difference between 3-7 was still that he gave 1 more round to GGG than he should have which is why the result was a draw instead of a Canelo SD. It's critical that you understand this.

So in conclusion, I agree that you, in theory, previous rounds should have no effect on how other rounds on scored. But in practice, it doesn't work like that as judges remember how previous close rounds are scored when deciding how to score other close rounds. Doing that produces a more accurate scorecard, and not doing that creates controversy and bad decisions that fans call robberies.

 

You're a stubborn one, trying to reverse engineer me deeming a score acceptable. There aren't 8 rounds that I thought could be independently judged for GGG, as I have not deemed 11 as acceptable for GGG. I said we need to review that round, and I only said that because you scored it for GGG. You scoring round 11 for GGG and me saying we need to review that round does not translate into me deeming it acceptable as a GGG round lol. Nice try though.

So, to review, 1,4,5,6,7,8,9 is 7 rounds, not 8. That's 7 rounds in which I have deemed "acceptable" to independently score for GGG. You don't seem to comprehend my point about splitting close rounds. I don't think scoring 4, 5 and 6 to GGG is unacceptable, but to your point, I can understand how someone could independently score each of those rounds to GGG if they were so inclined, if you set out to look for reasons to score those rounds to GGG. But doing so would be giving GGG 3 close rounds in a row, and doing that is very favorable to GGG, made even worse by you scoring round 3 to GGG. Keep in mind that you scored 7 rounds in a row to GGG, rounds 3-9, which I consider preposterous scoring in a match with that many close or good Canelo rounds in succession. I hope this clarifies my position.

 

I'm not backpedaling. You're just making stuff up. As proof, see my post #205 on page 14 in which I posted my RBR which was back on Thursday.

Note the rounds in which I labeled "close" or GGG rounds, which did not include Round 11. I expressly stated in that post that "Reasonable scores between 116-112 Canelo and 115-113 GGG."

I have been very consistent that the only rounds in which I deemed acceptable for GGG were 1 and 4-9. Now stop making stuff up and misrepresenting what I said. I do not see a path for 116-112 GGG and haven't ever indicated that.

 

LOL where do you come up with this stuff? That's very deceitful and dishonest on your part. I was throwing you a bone for scoring round 11 to GGG. I said I think we should review that round since you scored it for GGG. I never in any way shape or form claimed that I have independently accepted round 11 as a GGG round. For you to be this deceptive about what I deem an acceptable score is troubling. You throw away all the progress made when you lie and misrepresent like that.

I've been very consistent, if you misinterpreted me throwing you a bone about round 11, saying we need to review it as me deeming it acceptable, that's quite a spin job on your part. The point about needing to split close rounds has obviously gone way over your head, yet ironically you yourself stated that you deemed 6 rounds close that you split between both fighters, giving 3 of those rounds to Canelo and 3 of those rounds to GGG. So without even realizing it, you've essentially adopted this principle in your own scoring. The difference of course is that the rounds that you deemed close are different than the rounds that I have deemed close.

In any event, it's good practice to split close rounds rather than give one fighter all the close rounds. That's the problem people had with Ward Kovalev 1 and plenty of other fights where 1 fighter wins half the rounds pretty clearly and the other fighter wins the other half despite all being close. What you did by scoring 3-6 to GGG is the same mistake Trella made. The difference is he realized his mistake and scored Round 7 to Canelo to even things you. You didn't which is why you have the fight ridiculously wide at 117-111 which is far too wide in a fight this close as sdot_thadon pointed out above. The sooner you realize that you scored the match too wide the better. But on the bright side, at least you recognized that a draw is acceptable.

 

" where do you come up with this stuff?"....Wow you mind that parrot doesn't hit your head Walter...

 

Well more RBR scorers seemed to have given GGG round 11 than round 10 or 12. So if more people gave GGG round 11 thn 10 or 12 then it's probably the best case for GGG out of the last 3. But as I said, we need to review that round in order to make that determination. You're trying to make it seem like I OK'd your scoring that round for GGG, when I just offered to review that round. That seems to be the misunderstanding here.

Because I recognize that it's a difficult match to score and can understand how someone could have GGG winning in a match this close and competitive. For one, GGG was outworking Canelo in many rounds, and some scorers have a hard time scoring rounds against a fighter who throws more punches and are the aggressor. It's also easier to see who should win a round the more you study the round with every rewatch. The first time you watch it, you might not be paying enough attention, you might be biased to favor the aggressor, etc, but the more time and effort you take into fine tuning the round the differences should be more clear and there's less excuse for scoring rounds incorrectly the more time you watch it.

You're making the drama by claiming I see a path for 116-112 for GGG or that I find that acceptable. I don't. That said, I recognize that some people scored it that and like I said on Thursday, "116-112 GGG and wider demand further examination". So lets examine it further, lets examine rounds 6 and 11, two close hard to score rounds that you gave to Canelo that we haven't got into yet.