Will anybody ever beat Canelo on the scorecards again

"We gotta be consistent the whole round"

I'll roll with that.

That's correct.

Golovkin won the round hands down except for the last 20 seconds. Anybody scoring a round that's been dominated except for 20 seconds to the guy that managed to rally for a mere 10% of a round deserves to become Adelaide Byrd's sex slave.

I rest my case.

 

"It would be hard-pressed to find someone this morning who will say this bout lacked anything but a high-level competition. You are sure to hear all boxing fans here in the United States and abroad also agree that Triple G was robbed. Not to take anything away from a fine performance from Alvarez but when a judge only gives the aggressive and more effective boxer two rounds, then it’s clear why boxing is losing fans to UFC. A rematch clause will certainly be honored but it won’t make people forget Saturday night when the wrong face of boxing was revealed."

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...in-fight-controversial-draw-article-1.3501112

 

I'm really glad you shared this article, thie writer of this article is clearly a Golovkin nuthugger. First of all, lets just take a look at some of these quotes from this writer, who refered to Golovkin as the iron man from Kazakhstan.

"Triple G carried it to Canelo with ruthless, relentless, pulverising venom."

And how about this gem : "The fight had its own hallmark round of incredible brutality towards the end. It came after referee Kenny Bayless had looked closely at stopping it in favour of Golovkin."

LOL This writer actually has the gall to claim that towards the end Golvokin was close to a stoppage victory? Kenny Bayless was looking closely at stopping it in favour of Golovkin? When exactly did that happen ? lmfao

This has to be the most delusional writer in boxing history. But that's just the appetizer. Wait till we get to the scoring.

He did admit that "Of course we all want to watch it again, because it was indeed the special fight we hoped it would be."

Now lets get to the scoring : "I gave Alvarez only two rounds but in terms of bravery under fire he was a perfect 10, just as Golovkin was near flawless with regard to his precision punching power and judgement of distance."

"This lady Byrd saw this epic fight in virtually direct contradiction of my 118-111 for Triple G."

He gave Golovkin round 1, Canelo round 2, and he gave Golovkin rounds 3-9, 7 rounds in a row, lol. Canelo round 10, Golovkin Round 11, and the 12th a draw.

So this is your source of criticism of the judging BCS8? Really? A writer that gave as many rounds to Canelo as Byrd gave to Golovkin? Thank you for this boxing comedian, I needed a good laugh.

 

I just can't stop loling at the comment that "Golovkin was near flawless with regard to his precision punching power and judgement of distance".

I guess Flawless distance judging to this clown involves getting hit with uppercut bombs round after round and having your opponent tee off on you in the championship rounds lmao.

 

"For 12 rounds, Golovkin and Alvarez entertained with many giving the edge to GGG as his motor seemed inexhaustible while taking Canelo’s best shots. At the close of the bout, the judges scored it 115-113 for Golovkin, 118-110 for Alvarez (seriously, what fight was this guy watching?), and 114-114, making the match a draw.


The reaction at ringside and online was swift, but none could capture the passion of legendary trainer and current analyst, Teddy Atlas, who pretty much captured the emotional response most felt in watching GGG not win a match where he was never dominated. The unspoken rule of boxing is that when you’re up against the champ, you have to dominate the belt holder significantly to win the match and while Canelo looked amazing, the final results remain questionable."

http://hiphopwired.com/553179/ggg-canelo-fight-draw-robbery/

 

"Ade Adedoyin, BBC World Service reporter in Las Vegas

Most ringside observers I have spoken to - broadcasters, writers, even some Mexican fans - believe Golovkin won. He was the aggressor throughout. Alvarez did have some moments but he didn't do enough - that's the general feeling.

I think the fact he was boxing in front of a pro-Mexican crowd on Mexico's Independence Day weekend and he was booed and heckled when he spoke in the ring afterwards speaks volumes."

http://www.bbc.com/sport/boxing/41292698

 

LOL so Golovkin now "dominated" everything but the final 20 seconds? Really? How do you figure?

Lets check the Compubox #'s shall we :

Total : Canelo 12/38 31.6%, Golovkin 16/58 27.6%
Jabs : Canelo 8/25 32%, Golovkin 9/34 26.5%
Power: Canelo 4/13 30.8%, Golovkin 7/24 29.2%.

Do these numbers suggest "dominance" to you? Golovkin only landed 1 more jab according to Compubox. That's dominance to you in the jab department? According to Compubox, Golovkin missed 8 more jabs than Canelo missed.

If Golovkin was dominating so thoroughly the first 2:40, then why would Sanchez be so worried about how Canelo finished the round? Sanchez's reaction to the round in the corner was that of stressing how critical the final 20 seconds were to who won the round.

Those last 20 seconds wouldn't be so critical if Golovkin was dominating the first 2:40 now would they?

Obviously you have a much different view of the round and how important those last 20 seconds were than Abel Sanchez did.

 

In this very article, I found a quote which is at odds with statements you made recently:

"Many believe the fight was close, like two of the scorecards show, but the 118-110 ruling, courtesy of Judge Adalaide Byrd, is what has people up in arms."

So anotherwords, it wasn't the draw that had people up in arms, it was the one-sidedness of Byrd's card that had people up in arms.

Brian Adams called it a fine performance by Alvarez, but yet is trying to argue that Byrd's card, specifically only giving the aggressive and "more effective" boxer two rounds, is why boxing is losing fans to UFC which is a real stretch. First on the idea that questionable judging is why people watch UFC is absurd, as there's plenty of questionable judging in UFC as well. It's a stretch because bad judging or bad officiating doesn't stop people from watching sports, sure it's annoying, but most fans don't watch fights to hear judges scores, fans watch boxing matches to see the action. Judging is a part of the spectacle of boxing and UFC but it's not part of the allure to what brings fans to watch fights. So saying Byrd's card is the reason boxing is losing fans to UFC (which I'm not even sure is true since many fans watch both MMA and boxing and plenty of boxing fans don't watch UFC) it's a stretch on its own.

But also the other part of that statement is a stretch in that Adams is trying to equate aggressiveness to effectiveness when the more effective power shots were coming from Alvarez on counter punches which used Golovkin's aggressiveness against him. Like with those uppers in round 6,7, and 8 and the big right hand in round 9, all those were when Golovkin was being too aggressive, coming forward without being careful and leaving his chin open as a result which Canelo took advantage of. The consensus argument for Golovkin winning is that Golovkin won on volume, with Canelo landing the more effective shots just not enough of them, which is in contrast to what Adams is saying in his efforts to over simplify and conflate the two distinct concepts of aggresiveness and effectiveness.

 

That is correct, the general feeling was that most ringside observes believe Golovkin, and him being the aggressor and coming forward had a lot to do with that. That's been well established, though I wouldn't say he was the aggressor throughout, in the early rounds Golovkin was measured in his approach, and there were a number of rounds where both fighters were circling each other and taking turns being the aggressor. It wasn't until the 4th and 5th that he really started upping his aggression throughout large portions of the round.

I think it does speak volumes how he was booed and heckled when he spoke in the ring afterwards, and notice how it didn't say he was being booed by his own fans like Golovkin fans often claim.

He was being booed and heckled by a small but vocal contingent of Golovkin supporters which is why you can tell that Max and Canelo were both looking at a very specific area of the arena where the noise was coming from. It speaks volumes at how rude and obnoxious Golovkin fans can be.

 

Yep. Golovkin landed more punches, drove Canelo around the ring and it was only in the dying gasps of the round that he manage to come back, somewhat. I stand by my case. Golovkin dominated the round up till then.

He was worried about how Golovkin finished the round. Judges can be swayed by how a round ends. Everybody knows this.

I see it exactly like Sanchez. Keep your foot on the gas all the way and don't let him back into the fight. That's why he stressed consistency throughout the rounds.

 

"Last month’s middleweight bout between the two boxers, billed as ‘Supremacy’, ended in controversy after the judges ruled it a draw.

Golovkin dominated his title defence but only one judge, Dave Moretti, agreed that the Kazakhstani had won, scoring the card 115-113. Don Trella scored the fight a “dubious” 114-114 draw, but Adalaide Byrd’s 118-110 card was in favour of Mexican Alvarez. The Times said Byrd’s card “defied all logic”. "

http://www.theweek.co.uk/boxing/883...wo-of-gennady-golovkin-vs-saul-canelo-alvarez

 

"Canelo was lucky to get a Draw, he almost got away with the win with a judge who scored the fight surprisingly 118-110 for him. I wonder what that judge Adalaide Byrd was watching? Maybe she was watching the UFC fight on the small TV instead of the fight in front of her in the boxing ring.

This is an outrage and another black eye for the sport, Golovkin clearly won that fight, he was the aggressor the entire night. It was a bigger robbery than the Manny Pacquiao vs. Jeff Horn fight in Australia, because at least you could see that was a close fight."

http://www.nowboxing.com/2017/09/canelo-vs-golovkin-a-bigger-robbery-than-pacquiao-vs-horn/36728/

 

"Canelo vs Golovkin LIVE reaction as judges produce controversial draw in middleweight super fight. GGG and Canelo battled it out in Las Vegas with the Kazakh seemingly robbed of a clear win"

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/boxing/canelo-golovkin-live-stream-latest-11184947

 

"As the promoter's client, Alvarez was the the "house fighter." On Saturday morning, I speculated in a column that Golovkin had damned well better score a knockout. On Mexican Independence weekend, facing a brilliant Mexican opponent who is Golden Boy Promotions' own Golden Child, he sure as hell wasn't gong to win a decision once it went to the scorecards.

Home Cooking is alive and disgustingly healthy in this business and on Saturday night a woman named Adelaide Byrd worked overtime in the kitchen. She took a fight that was dominated by Golovkin's jab and his power and brilliantly contested by the house fighter and turned it into a showcase for judging ineptitude."

http://www.nj.com/sports/index.ssf/2017/09/while_dominating_canelo_triple_g_took_it_on_the_ch.html

 

This is accurate. He did land more punches and he was driving Alvarez around the ring in this round. However, my question was did the punch stats in that round indicate dominance, and they clearly don't.

He definitely wasn't dominating start to finish. I just watched it back and it was really a very back and forth round. In the first minute Canelo was doing quite well, you look at the first 25-30 seconds, Canelo evaded a right hand at the beginning, then he threw a 3 punch combination, and then the two men were trading big punches. With about 2:10 left Canelo was along the ropes and threw another 3 punch combo, two jabs and a right hand that backed Golovkin up to center ring, and Golovkin shakes his head. Then that counter left hook by Canelo with 2:04 left, followed by a right uppercut that partly landed by Canelo. A minute into the round Golovkin is visibly getting frustrated. So the first minute of the round was definintely not dominated by Golovkin. If I had to score the first minute it would be 10-9 Canelo. Two separate 3 punch combos, jabs, the counter left hook, the glancing right uppercut, etc.

The middle minute was still pretty close, with Golovkin constantly coming forward but still getting hit with jabs and at one point a counter two punch combo by Canelo with about a minute left following a Golovkin jab with Canelo along the far ropes. Canelo was very active with the jab this round landing it with force off the backfoot, but Golovkin did land some of his hardest jabs. It was a fine jabbing duel these two were having in the 7th I think you'll agree. This was effective aggression from Golovkin here though, and in the final minute he actually landed a rare body shot as part of a combo early in the final minute of the round when he had Canelo against the ropes on the right side of the screen.

Like I said, Golovkin was on his way to winning the round with moments like that heading down the stretch, and I gave Golovkin the round despite the ending due to his work over the 2nd half of the round. It was probably Golovkin's best stretch of the fight from about the halfway point of the round until the final 20 seconds. When you take the first 2:40 in totality, there's no way you can say he was dominating the whole round start to finish. They were trading punches for most of the round, back and forth they went. The first minute Canelo was doing just fine and was starting to frustrate Golovkin 1 minute in, then after trading for much of the first half of the round, Golovkin started to assert himself about halfway through and by 2 minutes in he was starting to pull ahead with the sustained combo and some solid jabs he got in, he had Canelo reeling there a bit, but Canelo recovered and finished the round strong by landing that nice uppercut and several jabs near the end.

Precisely. And I still gave Golovkin the round despite the last 20 seconds. But the round was close enough (especially when you remember what happened in the first minute with all those punches landed by Canelo, not just what happened in the 2nd and first half of the 3rd minute where Golovkin was pulling ahead) for the ending to swing the round.

A lot of times judges can get swayed by what happens in the middle minute when deciding if a late rally is enough to swing a round, forgetting what happened in the first minute. What Canelo did in the first minute, plus keeping it close with jabs off the backfoot in the 2nd minute, plus the 2 punch counter 2 minutes in, is enough work for a late rally to swing it. Canelo started well enough and stayed active enough to keep that round close to steal the round with a late rally. That said, it wasn't enough for me to swing it, because I thought Golovkin still deserved to win the round with all that effective aggression in the form of landed jabs. So we agree on that, but watching the round again start to finish it was definitely not a dominant round for Golovkin. Again, don't take my word for it, just watch that first minute, you'll be reminded of how well Canelo started the round, and watch how many jabs Canelo landed off the back foot even during some of Golovkin's best moments, like in between Golovkin's punches to keep it close.

OK good, this is something we should be able to agree on. Sanchez observed that Golovkin let Canelo back into a round that he was winning, but was still close enough that Sanchez worried he'd lose due to that late rally.

So while we seem to agree on some points, you fly off the deep end when you try to argue that Golovkin dominated the round start to finish or that the round wasn't close enough for the final 20 seconds to be critical.

Just to be clear, if I had to divide the round into 1/3s, I'd give Canelo the first minute, Golovkin the 2nd minute, Golovkin the first part of the final minute and Canelo the end of the final minute. Golovkin however I thought was in fact "more dominant" in the middle minute + first half of the final minute than Canelo was in the first minute if that makes sense. So while I gave the round to Golovkin, in totality it was far from Golovkin dominant and close enough to be reasonably arguable for either fighter. You can't forget what happened in the first minute just because a fighter took control in the middle, and then after pulling ahead, proceeded to slip up and give away the last part of the round.

In conclusion, if you combine the first minute and the last 20 seconds, it was a Canelo round. If you take the rest (the middle portion of the round) it was a Golovkin round. The way Golovkin took control of the round though and pulled ahead especailly with so many clean hard jabs impressed me more so I gave it to Golovkin.