Thoughts on Canelo-GGG II

You seem to think you have some kind of moral upper hand. You don’t.

Rather than explaining your summary point that Golovkin showed "

This content is protected

", you’ve reverted to the same, tired references to ‘the majority’.

I am not concerned one iota for the last word, this is me pointing out that you have no argument to support your claim, since appeals to the majority and platitudes of "you’re entitled to your opinion" are not arguments.

You cannot support your statement; nor can you or anyone else support an argument for why Golovkin, without a shadow of a doubt, deserved the decision.

Continuous references to the ‘majority’ and the ‘minority’ is tantamount to a collective ‘sheeple’ mentality, with its cheerleaders promoting a cause, rather than making any sense.

 

A sport where it's deemed legit to give all the benefit of the doubt to one competitor on a consistent basis and none to his competitors is not a sport, it's WWE with less script.

 

^That’s not an argument for why Golovkin deserved the decision, beyond doubt, in his rematch with Canelo, either. Your words relate to a broader sentiment; a general feeling of unfairness because of perceived favoritism towards Alvarez, but it does not deal with this fight specifically.

It actually sums up what looks very much like the central cause for certain people’s inability to be totally objective about this one fight.

Close fights happen. When they do, observers should not expect their preferred outcome. I didn’t and, whilst I thought Canelo had just pipped it, when the results were announced I’d have not complained if Golovkin had been declared the winner. I think I could have made a case for why I thought otherwise, but I’d not have called it a ridiculous decision and definitely not a robbery, either.

I can see some fans are too wrapped up in the wider conspiracy theories to accept the simple fact that neither fighter could break absolutely clear of the other - in which case, the result was always going to be razor thin.

 

CompuBox is an interesting curio, it isn't in any way definitive of how a fight should be scored, or the result arrived at.

 

Not only is it not definitive or how fights should be scored but its also based on perception. If a guy ringside thinks he sees a punch land in a nano second and clicks his button its scored. However, as I pointed out, you can go back and watch GGG-Canelo 1 in slow motion and see that CompuBox was scoring a lot of his punches that Canelo slipped by a whisker. Or punches were being scored that SOUNDED like they landed but in fact only hit gloves, which is not considered a scoring blow. A guy, depending on where he is seated might THINK he saw a punch land but it doesn't actually. So CompuBox is really a pointless statistic that amounts to a house of cards buildt on quick sand. Because the numbers aren't 100% accurate at their best. There is no weighted statistic for an actual powerpunch (any punch other than the jab is considered by CompuBox to be a powerpunch). Meaning, as McVey pointed out, that some limp as a dishrag jab counts every bit as much in CompuBox statistics as a punch that wobbles a guy. Two limp jabs count as more. Yet in pro boxing a guy can get hit with 30 ineffective jabs and land one powerful hook that hurts his opponent and win the round. So the statistics they provide aren't based around any metric that professional boxing is scored by. And that was really the story of this fight in my opinion in regards to CompuBox. Those numbers whereby GGG "outscored" Canelo were based around jabs (many of which were ineffective). Canelo was landing the harder punches, forcing the fight, fighting his fight, and had better defense. You score a fight on: clean punching, effective aggression, defense, and ring generalship. I don't see how anyone can say GGG did better than Canelo in ANY of those four departments. GGG fought a completely atypical fight for him (and wasn't effective at it), he wasn't the aggressor, Canelo had better defense in both fights, and landed the better punches and more of the damaging punches. So some bogus CompuBox statistic is meaningless. And going into a fight saying "I knew he couldn't win" and then crying that a one round swing is a robbery is just an already biased mind looking to draw a conclusion it agrees with. One round swings aren't robberies.

 

You are just seem to be incredibly naive. They gave it to the money draw twice, it is as simple as that.

 

‘Of course - The only reason someone could have scored the fight for Canelo is because they are so “incredibly” unaware of how the world works.’

How much more pathetic are these non-arguments going to get?

 

Nobody in the press media had that fight for Canelo.The vast majority of fans scored it for GGG or a draw. So they are all wrong and you are right ?

In light of that, you have a general comsensus that the first fight was already robbery.But that is meaningless right?

 

I'd say I'm right about it being an extremely close fight and the result not being a "robbery". Do you think I am wrong about that?

I'd also say there's no hard evidence of there being a conspiracy against Golovkin. Do you think I am wrong about that too?

I'd also say there's little strength in any of the points made for Golovkin having won clearly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, save the 'majority of...' mantra (which isn't an argument). Do you think that is unreasonable or do you have a well-articulated case for exactly how Golovkin clearly won the bout, which doesn't involve the need to jump on the 'Majority Happy Bus'?

I'd also say that few are crying about it as much as you and a handful of others on this board are - over a week later. Am I wrong about that?

The bottom line is, if you don't have a case, built on what happened in the fight itself, then you should quit whining about things you have no real evidence for and/or can't even explain properly.

Meaningless in relation to what?

 

zzzzzzzz.

 

As I said you are just being incredibly naive if you think these things do not happen in boxing.I use my common sense.

This thread showd you the facts, numbers that only a very small minority (probably biased) thought Canelo actually deserved the official verdicts.On top of that you have a money fighter who already got favouritism from the judges in the past.But to you that is all meaningless, right?

 

8-4 for G both fights. Judging is a joke at this point and the sanctioning bodies & athletic commissions dont obviously care. On top of that you have the 3 ### ##### on HBO that are the 3 worst announcers in the game at this point. Kellerman is so overbearing its indescribable at this point.

 

I haven't said that "I think these things do not happen" have I? To suggest so is just blatantly incorrect and straw-manning on your part.

However, what you've outlined above does not constitute evidence of a fix. All you've got is a bunch of opinions, almost all of which are indicating the fight was very close, which I happen to agree with.

You keep calling me naive for not agreeing with your point of view, but to be quite frank, if you think what you're using as evidence makes your case for a fix then it's probably you that needs a few more lessons in life.

As I suggested before, if you can't explain why you think Golovkin won clearly, i.e. based on what actually happened in the fight itself, then you should stop whining about the result - because, it's just noise, otherwise.

 

Threw more punches, landed more punches, landed harder punches, won more rounds, made Canelo miss more dramatically (which for some reason was a major scoring point for the Canelistas the first time round) and actually had Canelo hurt twice whereas the opposite can't be said. That's why he won the fight.

Oh, and traditionally the belts have to be "taken" from the champion and Canelo did not take anything except a beating.

But, I guess tradition only counts in Classic when it's "Old Guy X" vs "Some New Guy".