Thoughts on Canelo-GGG II

How many times did you have to rewatch the fight to convince yourself that fantasy perspective of yours had an ounce of credibility?

 

I watched the fight twice. I guess i haven't done a slo-mo pass yet.

On the first fight the punch count from both boxers dropped quite a bit. These guys have excellent defence and a lot of the stuff landing in real speed is revealed to be slipped or blocked in slo mo. The winner, however, didn't change. If anything Golovkin gained from the slo mo pass because his defence is more subtle.

 

I asked you this before, but maybe you just didn't see it. Is it your belief that there is no judging biases in regards to Canelo? If not, can you explain some of the cards scored for Canelo is the Trout, Lara and Mayweather fights to name a few. These seem grossly out of line with the actual fight, which taken at face value, seem to shown a bias in scoring towards Canelo. What are your takes on the scoring of these fights?

 

I must have missed the question previously.

I think he's certainly had some odd looking cards in the past and the ones that stand out for me the most are the those, which resulted from his fight against Trout. What I found particularly shocking about this set of cards was the widest one, in favor of Canelo, came from Stanley Christodoulou, who I consider to be one of the best judges out there.

The Alvarez/Lara fight was very closely contested, but cards from two of the judges in that bout reflected how close it was. One dissenting judge made the difference.

I can't explain the scoring for either of the above matches, no more than I can explain the CJ Ross card, which had the Mayweather/Canelo bout a Draw. As such, I cannot with absolute certainty say that they were caused by bias, when it is just as likely that a judge or two had a night of incompetence (as they do, on occasion).

To my mind, the only bout of the three mentioned above, which resulted in a questionable winner, in as far as it could have gone either way, is the Canelo/Lara bout. A Draw would have been well-deserved. I think Canelo probably did enough to beat Trout and Mayweather deserved his win, without question. So, yes, some of the cards have seemed way off the mark, but there was only one fight from the three that was truly 'razor thin' close.

 

Funny how the scores always favour Clenelo. You'd think he'd have at least one close fight that went against him, but no.

You'd think he thrashed some guys with the cards he got, but, no.

 

You talk like we are in a court of justice.How in the world should I get evidence that there was a fix? Are you a 10 year old or what?

Biased decisions happen on a regular basis in boxing.How often is there evidence of a fix?

You do not agree with me? When are you going to realize that nobody agrees with you.Nobody of the press media agrees with you.Only 6 percent of the fans agree with you.The first fight was already a robbery.Dubious scoring in the past has happened.But according to you there is no bias there?Yes I call you naive.

 

Thank you for taking the time to answer. The thing is though, we don't need to be 100% certain, nor do I think it's possible to get there sans admissions by judges. So much like in the court of law, we are looking for preponderance of evidence one way or another, or at the very least a pattern we can draw inferences from. Seems to me that pattern is that Canelo gets extremely favorable cards. I agree that the Lara fights was close, and why the one judge's card seems way off. However, you could at least say that maybe the judge gave all the close rounds to Canelo and that's why the card was wide. However in a fight he clearly lost, it seems ever stranger to get to a card of a draw or a win on his part. At least you seem to agree there have been some odd cards in his favor, but aren't ready to take the next logical step of bias after a pattern seems to have clearly emerged.

 

Can you reword that ...

 

You write like a scorned, millennial, keyboard warrior. Do you have any idea how desperate you appear?

Most people scoring it for Golovkin aren't claiming foul play, as you are. I'd say that the majority of people, who didn't see Alvarez winning, had it 115-113 for Golovkin or a Draw. This is hardly making it a huge statement against it having been a close fight.

This was your approach to me:

You are wrong on all counts.

The simple truth is that it was a close fight and the scoring didn't go the way you wanted it to. I hope you can get over this, one day.

 

Luckily for Canelo the scoring always goes the way he wants it to. Remember 114-114 vs Floyd? He nearly got whitewashed and some blind bat of a judge had him drawing. LOL

 

I do remember that card, against Floyd. I mentioned it only a couple of posts ago. Canelo still lost that bout, however. So, the scoring doesn’t always go the way he wants it to.

 

First of all, it is very telling to me that you have a habit of not responding to any arguments made.

Your response to everything, that this was a close fight is very unconvincing. Did it ever occur to you that a close fight can be a robbery? I do not know who you are trying to fool by conveniently ignoring the big picture. You are trying to regard the rematch as an isolated event, yet keep ignoring biased judging in faveur of your hero in the past. Your demand for hard evidence has already been exposed as utterly ridiculous.

Contrary to your believe, I am not a GGG fan. I have been following this sport for 25 years and quite frankly I have become a bit tired of biased judging over the years. Maybe you are the one who has to learn a few more lessons in that regard in the future

 

Which is kind what I'm saying though, but I also understand your point. But, if there is a bias, or worse a bribe, it's generally done with one judge or two, it's not generally done with all three. So him still losing a fight where one judge had a crazy off card doesn't eliminate the possibility of a bias being there with a judge(s)

 

It doesn't rule out the possibility. But, then again, anything is possible.

As I've said on this board a couple of times recently, we deal primarily in likelihoods. Right now, I'm just guessing, but I'm also confident that I could find plenty of examples of scorecards, in which there has been a widely 'dissenting' judge, out of the three. Do we cry a foul every time this happens?

I also suspect we could find quite a few examples of genuinely bad judging over the years, which makes certain of the claims about Golovkin/Canelo (II) pale in comparison.

 

There's a certain irony in you making the above statement, immediately after I just showed you your first response to me, in this thread. As a reminder...

Is that^^ an argument? It was barely worth a response and yet here we are.

Yours, that it was a 'robbery', is less convincing. Not even the Golovkin camp claim an injustice. Almost all the scores, unofficial or official, agree a narrow decision or a draw (I mentioned this in my previous post, but you have ignored it).

I think that, to apply what you are suggesting above to this fight, you'd need to have a thorough disregard for the criteria used to score professional boxing matches; a lack of appreciation for how close a lot of these rounds were and have more or less decided to see whatever it is you wanted to see, in advance. See also my previous response.

I'm not trying to fool anyone. The thread relates to thoughts on this particular bout, which I scored for Canelo, at the time, by a gnat's kneecap. Do you think I should just get on board with your fantasy and conspiracy theories, based on your 'big picture' perception only and change my scores, at your say so? I think not.

I haven't made such a demand. Again, a little twist by you takes my observation of there being none in existence to a different level. The observation is valid. Yours is a speculation without anything concrete behind it. Very few are crying "robbery", in regards to this bout.

And, contrary to yours, I am not a Canelo fan. I've been watching boxing for many years too. I do not enjoy watching poor judging, but I am as equally dismayed by deserved credit being so casually taken away from a competitor, who quite possibly turned in a career-best performance. In this case, the negative feedback on Canelo is just as damaging, in my opinion.