That compubox stuff you're going from doesn't do much for me. But I can tell you this, one really good, hard body shot is worth more than 15bglancing jabs to me. Canelo landed the majority of the really hard, clean blows. Whatever number you quote that's badly inflated by glancing and blocked blows won't change that fact. And that Canelo shook his head at one time in the fight (sometehing I think GGG did one time in the last one) doesn't factor in either here nor there in my scoring, which it seems to do for you.
I have seen the judges full cards. Then I match them vs. the punch stats. When I see Canelo winning 4 rounds where he was out landed, with all three judges being okay giving it to him, you can draw your own conclusion. When I see funny math in the finals rounds to make sure a fighter wins, that should also raise an eyebrow. Boxing really is not a high standard sport. You know it, and so do I. Its a bunch of independent contracts with 4 major governing bodies. Their power can strip champions when ever they choose, have an absolute joke for a rankings system, has too much politics, an iffy drug standard which can vary, and yes bad judging. The promoter should NEVER pick the judges. Its a complete conflict of interest. It would be like BBC picking their own judges for a futbol broadcast they have the rights for.
Yeah, a lot of that is true about the ABCs etc. But this is hysteria from you because your favourite lost. It's pretty clear you don't watch a lot of boxing if i'm honest. I watch maybe 2-10 fights every week. Really bad judging is pretty rare. If you spend one month watching say 4 fights a weekend, I bet you won't see one single robbery. I scored the first GGG-Canelo fight a draw. I scored the second for Canelo. The editor at the Sweet Science scored it for Canelo. Frank Lotierzo scored it for Canelo. David Avila was ringside and scored it for Canelo. I'm not sure if Frank was ringside. Anyway, for what little it's worth all the guys i'm associated with scored it for Canelo.
The first fight was too close to call it a robbery,but the score of Byrd Judge: Adalaide Byrd 110-118 Judge: Dave Moretti 115-113 Judge: Don Trella 114-114 That is either corruption or incompetency! I thought Golovkin won the second fight and more emphatically than their first fight which he also won imo .
It could have gone either way. A draw was not a robbery. As I recall, I actually scored it a draw and several of the rounds were really close.
Yep - not that Mrs. Byrd hasn't had trouble calling a fight before. However, it's not unusual for there to be a dissenting judge of the three, albeit not on that scale. The Moretti and Trella cards were closer to the mark and still Golovkin fans want to call the Draw a robbery. People generally look at the Hagler/Leonard fight as very close and many, to this day, dispute the decision. However, Jose Guerra's dissenting card of 118-110 does not make the result of that bout a robbery.
I think it was a robbery.The vast majority of fans and media scored for GGG or a draw.It is pretty obvious that the judges got this one wrong, again.
The second bout between GGG and Canelo was reasonably close, so the decision could have gone either way without any hint of a so-called robbery. - Chuck Johnston
I'm genuinely curious how you got to a draw the first time around. I think the first fight couldn't be more clear. Even this fabled "landed the hard blows" criteria... He wasn't landing enough of them to win rounds. He wasn't the aggressor, he was fighting off his back foot. So how do you get outlanded by a big margin, not pushing or making the fight, and you land a few solid blows each round. That wins rounds? Rounds enough to get to a draw? That makes zero sense to me.
Again though... In the first fight... Was Canelo pushing or making the fight - No, he was retreating most of the fight Did Canelo land more blows than GGG - No, he was outlanded by a significant margin if we count all punches and slaps, he still got outlanded if we're more strict with the counting of punches Did Canelo win Ring Generalship of the first fight - No, but this is at least closer than the two above. Again though, he didn't win this area. As McGrain says, the people at ringside weren't swayed by the compubox numbers of the fight. The were there and picked the winner they saw. Over 75% thought GGG won the first fight. That's a very big margin, yet they are all wrong, we're all wrong, and it's the "well, I thought Canelo landed the harder blows"... WTF... How do you reconcile that will the abundance of people who literally saw it vastly different. Are they all worse at judging than you? Were they unable to see the fight as well as you? How do you reconcile this?
You are in the extreme minority for both cards. Lotierzo is a huge Hopkins fan / philly guy and didn't want to see GGG passing him by the way, but an otherwise quality writer. I'm not familiar with Avila. I probably watch 100-200 boxing matches a year, robberies are rare, and I know one when I see one. It doesn't matter who I wanted to win, I call them as I see them and 79% of the cards agree with me, just 6% disagree.
Las Vegas is Canelo's home away from home, and the crowd was in his favor. To be honest a compubox judge is often better than a real judge. Its not biased. Canelo did not land the harder blows. He was the one who was hurt more and cut more.
I didn't think Alvarez was outlanded by a big margin. He matched or bettered Golovkin on the clean, hard punching front. Additionally, if one is seen as being the "aggressor", this does not mean they are necessarily winning the battle of 'effective' aggression. Likewise, fighting off the back foot does not mean one can't deliver on effective aggression. Canelo, also looked better defensively, overall, whilst ring generalship, in the main, went to Golovkin.