Rewatching Canelo vs Golovkin 1 rbr

The best part about these responses is it pushes your spam onto a previous page and no one reads it...


So, on behalf of the forum.


Didn't read.

 

That's a brilliant ploy you got there.

 

Sorry, Shadow, this is going nowhere.

You're just repeating stuff that I'm sure you think you saw...I don't doubt your sincerity....

It's just that I (and the great majority of other fans) did not see what you believe you saw.

Most saw GGG land the heavier punches, and more of them, while being the aggressor for most of the fight.

There's really nowhere more to go here...

If you write "dog" below a picture of a horse, the picture is still a picture of a horse.

As I've said, the fight is there on video for anyone to see and judge, and we can see who 'won.'

Describing it as something different from what we can see it is, will not change what happened, regardless of how the judges scored it.

 

The best shots that Canelo landed were far better than the best shots that GGG landed. They were more impactful and more eye catching. Canelo was far more accurate and economical in his punching. He landed at a much higher % than GGG. GGG landed more, but at a much lower connect % and of those that GGG landed, Canelo rolled with many of them negating their effectiveness. Further, Canelo showcased a higher variety of landed punches, mixing in more hooks, uppers and body shots.

How effective GGG was in his aggression is debatable, he was somewhat effective with his aggression. In some rounds, like round 7, he was very effective, in other rounds, like the early rounds, he was largely ineffective. Throughout the match, Canelo used GGG's aggression against him, made him miss and made him pay with counters. When GGG had Canelo on the ropes, he was unable to "go to work" in those sequences because Canelo was too slippery and elusive.

Ring generalship is loosely defined as "employing a strategy to make your opponent fight your fight". Canelo was better at that than GGG, and we know this in part because of how vocal GGG was after the fight about how Canelo fought. Remember GGG accused Canelo of not fighting GGG's fight, not fighting "Mexican Style". How could you argue that GGG was the ring general and made Canelo fight his fight when he was the one chasing Canelo all night and struggling to get into punching range, which is where he wanted to be.

Canelo's tactics clearly frustrated GGG, which GGG made very clear after the fight. GGG wanted Canelo to stand right in front of him so he could land without chasing him. That was the fight that GGG wanted, and Canelo didn't allow GGG to fight that fight. So therefore, unequivocally, based on that, Canelo was the ring general. Canelo dictated the pace of the fight, determined where it was fought, and made GGG fight a different fight than the fight GGG wanted. That's ring generalship. The ability to make your opponent fight your fight, at your pace, Canelo did that. GGG was forced to fight Canelo's fight, which played to Canelo's strengths, not GGG's.

 

Golovkin landed like two or three heavy shots in the fight.

You can say Golovkin landed more jabs, but heavier shots were Canelo.

Defense was Canelo.

Ring generalship was close but Canelo dictated the tempo in rds 1-4 and 10-12.

Golovkin might be a HoFmer, but Canelo will be an ATG.

Facts

 

Canelo is undoubtedly an ATG.

That's what makes GGG's victory such a great win.

 

Which GGG victory.

If you're talking about Canelo, Golovkin got a draw against Canelo's first fightbat the dull MW limit.

Mayweather's win against Canelo is better than Golovkin's draw against Canelo.

 

Well I'm not the one trying to re-write history and change what happened. I thought the draw was a fair result, and didn't scream robbery like the butthurt GGG fans did. I saw the same thing that the judges saw, a close fight that could have gone either way. Multiple swing rounds that can be interpreted in different ways take it from a GGG win to a Canelo win. That's what happened. This isn't calling a horse a dog, it's about recognizing how close it was, examining the key rounds and intelligently discussing who performed better.

 

A horse is not a dog. GGG never beat Canelo. He was lucky to get that draw then lost in the rematch. You saying GGG won doesn't make it true.

 

The judges scored it a draw, but you and I both know that GGG beat him.

I would rank it as GGG's best win.

 

You lectured me about not calling a horse a dog or mistaking an elephant for an ostrich. But that's precisely what you're doing lol.

You're saying "well yeah, it's an elephant, but you and I both know it's an ostrich."

It's not GGG's best win because he didn't win. A horse isn't a dog. A draw isn't a win. No matter how much you want that horse to be a dog, it never will be.

 

The judges included Adelaide Byrd who scored it 10-2 for Canelo.

'nuff said.

As I already told you, you and the judges have your take.

The great majority of observers have a different take.

The fight is there for anyone to judge, and conclude whether the decision was fair or a robbery.

End of story.

 

A draw is a draw. An elephant is an elephant. A horse is a horse.

 

Was Lennox Holy 1 a draw?