The GGG fanatics are sweating bullets! LOL

I thought Canelo was brilliant too. He exposed Golovkin with those sharp counters and earth shattering uppercuts, and just his ring generalship in the early rounds. AA it's clear to me now that you recognize greatness.

 

Was duped by a man he hired for the DLH fight. Apples to oranges when discussing Clenelo. Truth is out there in Vargas’ case.

 

It means Golovkin doesn’t really give two hoots about PEDs and nor does Canelo,clean boxing program isn’t gonna catch anyone in camp are they?

 

He was way better than I though put it that way,I had it 7/5 to Golovkin and wasn’t to angry about the draw but to suggest any other result is delusional

 

Yeah it's apples to oranges alright. Vargas cheated and used being duped by his nutritionist as an excuse. (which you believe) With Canelo it was likely due to meat contamination which is a much more plausible explanation than making an excuse like you were duped by your nutritionist !

The difference is with Vargas, there was clear undeniable wrongdoing and guilt on the part of his team. With Canelo there was no proof of wrongdoing from his team.

 

Dearie me, I was just following the excellent advice of the old proverb: "Like one who grabs a stray dog by the ears is someone who rushes into a quarrel not their own" when I get invoked and have no choice

It's not my nature to stay silent when asked for my opinion, so please forgive this intrusion into the thread.

First let me say that I like both of you - nothing personal here. Let me explain how I see things.

A. The fight: I saw the fight as a close win for GGG. I've posted my scorecard several times before - 7-5 GGG and watched it several times. This is closer than many on this forum saw it. I can still respect those who saw it a draw or even a 7-5 win for Canelo, however I must take exception to those who claim that Canelo "schooled" or "beat up" GGG. I have not claimed robbery but GGG was unlucky simply because a random selection of judges was about 90% likely to give him the win (I did a post with the stats based on media scores and fight forum polls).

B. The original post:

This content is protected

​

 

I agree with what you're saying except about your suggesting that having Canelo winning is delusional. On the one hand you call Canelo's performance "brilliant" but then on the other hand say having him winning is delusional? There's an inherent contradiction there. If you put on a brilliant performance, at the very least you're certainly in the ball park of "winning". That doesn't mean you can't think he lost or it was a draw, but being brilliant often leads to winning so that's got to be in the ballpark of what is reasonable if you admit he was brilliant.

 

Mexican fight fans still respect Vargas but have totally disowned Clenelo Surely that tells you somethig PeeWee

 

ROFLMAO Are you sure youre not MVC's alt

 

No not at all,just that folk need to wise up that one can be brilliant,in a close competitive fight and actually lose twelve close rounds.
Ok that wasn’t the case and like I say a draw wasn’t awful as neither were particularly decisive but the general consensus and even from the likes of Kellerman was that Golovkin won by a round or two,Canelo got the absolute best result he could of hoped for and yes he was brilliant but to me that just shows how good one has to be to beat Golovkin as he had a pretty normal night and still should of won.
Just to explain my earlier comment if you saw Usyk v Breidis and followed those scoring it on here,I don’t think CST80 will mind me saying he had it wide for Usyk but I’m pretty sure he gave Breidis credit as he was competitive but my point is being competitive doesn’t automatically win you the fight which all those who don’t get KOd by GGG seem to get credit for.

 

Well that was Paulie point wasn’t it about him being put on the ropes,he was on the ropes cause Golovkin put him there.
The more I think about this I just find it hard to believe Canelo could do any better,sure he starts well but Golovkin won’t be as fazed next time so no free rounds there,if Golovkin works out how to pin him down then that’s bad for Canelo and conversely if Canelo plays it different and stands more with GGG then he will come of worse or get KOd.
Despite what folk say about Canelo running I think he was smart like Jacobs was but thing is with Golovkin he’s still gonna be at you all the time so Canelo is gonna have find more,do more and Golovkin is gonna have to be worse than his first fight and I ain’t sure that’s gonna happen.

 

AA will have to speak for himself, but my take on his post is that Clenelo put on a brilliant performance in light of the fact that many were expecting GGG to KO him in a beat down.

 

Superb breakdown so Paulie at have been off about being put on the ropes as you’re right he didn’t take too much punishment.
I remember Saunders v Lemieux and Saunders just circled him keeping him in the center,I’m not sure Golovkin will be as hesitant either in the rematch,the first three rounds he gave a lot of respect stepping back out of range as appose to how he usually fights.

It’s still a massive task for Canelo re of Gs age,for all folks talk of his defense you never see him get head butted,cut or even banged up.

 

+1 hits for google from me tonight...

 

This content is protected

However, when trying to undertand the Byrd card (to which your explanation is very reasonable, as you don't allege some kind of a bride as others have) you still have to look at the specific rounds that she scored for Canelo that the other judges didn't, and ask yourself "how well did Canelo do in those rounds".

This is what continues to be missing when the Byrd card is talked about. We're talking specifically rounds 5, 6, 8 and 9. (also the 3rd round but Lederman gave Canelo the 3rd and many fans agreed that Canelo won the 3rd despite the other two judges disagreeing with Byrd and scoring it for Golovkin, personally I think rounds 3 and 4 were just the judges looking for reasons to give a round to Golovkin after Canelo winning the first 2 rounds pretty clearly . . . this kind of thing happens often in major fights) Now with round 6, several fans on here agreed Canelo won it. So that leaves rounds 5, 8, and 9 as the only real debatable rounds that Byrd was on her own. Your statement stating that "judges do feel pressured to score in favour of the A-side" suggests that Byrd may have felt some pressure to score close rounds to Canelo. As reasonable of an argument as that is, I still don't buy that.

I don't believe Byrd felt any pressure to score these rounds to Canelo. What is the likelihood that in rounds like 5, 6, 8 and 9, she scored those rounds to Canelo because she (unlike most) observed the kinds of quality punches Canelo was landing that Golovkin was not. With round 5, it was the lead that Canelo built over the first 2 minutes before the big punch by Golovkin on the ropes that swung momentum. With rounds 8 and 9, it was valuing the big uppercuts / big right hands vs the glancing lighter volume from Golovkin.

How likely in your view KiwiMan was it just her observing these critical and noteworthy moments vs generic "feeling pressure to score for the A-side fighter"? The former seems to be far more likely of a reason as to why Byrd gave Canelo those rounds than the latter. But yet hardly anyone believes that or makes this argument. This seems to be very illogical as fans seems to be coming up with crazy theories to explain her scoring of these rounds rather than observing what happened in the rounds.​