No use to man nor beast then. I can't find an isolate of round 2. I can't decide if it's worth isolating a couple of rounds myself.
FTR I gave Canelo the 2nd although I think you could give it to GGG and I wouldn't be to discomforted. The 12th I gave to GGG, you could give it to Canelo, but I wouldn't agree with you.
The diversification was that for a fighter labeled by the opposition as a wade in slugger he jabbed, moved and mixed up punches very well. I did not say he was shutting Canelo out .. it was competitive but I feel as did the overwhelming number of newspapers covering the fight by 34 - 2 - 15 that GGG deserved the decision.
It's funny because exactly what you describe above, I feel like is the same thing people do who thought Canelo draw/won their first fight. I never hear the specific rounds that can one to a draw or canelo winning, I just hear "I feel he landed the hard punches to the body and head".
I got 2,6,7 for Canelo and 5 which I saw as a swing round. GGG 1,3,4,9,10,11,12 and 8 which I saw as a swing round first time round. Upon further inspection a lot of the rounds where closer than I thought at the time.
We are basically identical. My swing rounds were 2, 5 and 8. 6,7 were pretty clear Canelo rounds and he did some good work there. Frankly even if you give all the close rounds to Canelo, he loses on my card. You have to start taking GGG's rounds away and giving them to Canelo for him to win.
Appeals to popularity never had much sway with me and I find it noteworthy that this and waxing lyrical about Golovkin (whilst neither highlighting Canelo's strengths nor pointing out any of his flaws), seems to form many of the arguments for Golovkin having won. As long as the press row scoring remains the basis for the Golovkin proponents to declare he won the fight, such arguments are, at best, flimsy. I know you didn't suggest Golovkin was shutting Canelo out, but my input into a discussion does not necessarily depend on direct interpretation/quotation from the opposite number(s). That said, what you suggested was even more preposterous.... " This content is protected " I'm not sure how you came to perceive such a vision, given most would accept that Golovkin chose to rely almost exclusively on the jab, which wasn't anywhere near as effective, as it has been made out to be, by the pro-GGG crowd. What else did Golovkin do to "outbox" Canelo? And, on the matter of the jab, the continuous chanting about Golovkin's seems like an exercise in overstatement, repeated like an advertising slogan. Like many things that are promoted so heavily, they usually turn out to be less than as advertised.
No, we don't even agree on that, because the last time I looked the relative handful of press writers did not represent every witness to the same event. The strength of their position differs only in that it gets to be widely published. So, sure - no problem.
Did you see scores from the people who cover boxing? 116 = GGG won 021 = Draw 009 = Canelo won [includes 2 Golden Boy promoters] 116/146 = 79% had GGG winning the fight. 021/146 = 15% had a draw. 009/146 = 06% had Canelo winning the fight. It is just me or do the GGG nay sayers who have argued con in the past also part of same group who think Canleo won the 2nd fight?
Agreed. Now I'd like to know if the people who scored it for Canleo are part of the same group who have argued con on GGG. My suspicion is yes.