Printable View
So, finally got to see it. Personally I had Canelo winning it by 2 rounds. I have to say, I could watch it again tomorrow and see it very differently.
I didn’t want to see it that way, because I don’t like the advantages that Canelo and GBP get,so it was very much with gritted teeth that I gave it him. Let’s be honest, the cunt should still be banned really.
I still reckon that they had judges on the payroll as a belt and braces job, but imho the decision was right.
Fair play to you, even if you are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primo Carnera
For the record, and I’m not defending Kellerman, he did clarify the next day that when he was saying Canelo was winning the perception of the fight he didn’t mean he was actually winning the fight. He meant there is the perception, and the scoring, that they are separate. Like you could control how the fight is being fought but still lose. You still have to actually do the better work. I thought Canelo did control how it was being fought, he did force GGG to back up almost the whole fight. But I didn’t have Canelo win, so I get where he is coming from.Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfI agree. I had Canelo winning 2 early rounds and in the middle in the 7th too it looked as though the fight was tightening up somewhat. But GGG seemed to dig deep and separate them again down the stretch. Canelo obviously had his moments, but his output was lower and GGG was doing the damage then.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncherIf I remember correctly, I think that was the most clear round for Canelo for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
I cannot get over the bizarre argument that because GGG wanted Canelo to fight that somehow standing his ground eradicates who is doing most of the work. Andre Ward for instance makes that argument and I think it is a really dumb argument. You score a fight round by round and to say that fighter A did this and fighter B used his own plan B therefore he loses rounds is plainly ridiculous. I have heard Kellerman make the same argument. It's very poorly thought out thinking and unfortunately these people get to make the narrative.
I said. I didn’t have a problem with any of it except I can’t see giving GGG round 7. To me 2, 6, 7 were clear Canelo rounds. 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 were clear GGG rounds(possibly 5 as well, can’t recall how I had 5 but I feel like it was part of the middle portion where Canelo was really moving him, can’t be sure because as I said I don’t recall it well)Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterQuote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
What did you think of Lyle's card, Ron?
Bias? Hasn't got a clue how to score? You can understand how Canelo won just 2 rounds?
If I have it to anyone it would be GGG. I just think the notion it was a robbery is silly. There were swing rounds. And I think if someone says it wasn’t a robbery then says GGG needed a KO to win they’re being disingenuous. Even by the judges cards he only needed 2 rounds scored differently. That doesn’t seem like “he needed a knockout”, the judges had a close fight close. Did they get it wrong, by my card they did.
I’ve spoken with 5 professional fighters since the fight. 3 had Canelo, 1 had GGG and 1 said GGG was robbed. I only see one of them as truly wrong, the guy that says robbery.(technically he is not a fighter but I put a trainer in the professional category, I should have just said 4 fighters and a trainer)
Max Kellerman is right about perception, it's why it's impossible to score a fight without bias, even if you claim to be neutral.
For instance - the main argument for Canelo winning has been "he out GGG'd GGG," "Canelo came forward." Now because Canelo surprised us by fighting the fight he fought we give him credit for something which shouldn't be a factor in determining the winner of a round. Just because Canelo had "some" success doesn't mean he had "more" success than Golovkin.
A better example - The underdog is getting whupped by the champion 9 rounds to nil, he has a good 60 seconds, lands some eye catching punches, however, the other 2 minutes have followed the exact same pattern as the previous rounds, so what happens? We often give a sympathy round to the underdog as it's not going to affect the result. In effect we award him for not getting beat as bad, instead of actually winning.
Official BrocktonBlockbust Scorecard
Rd 1 Canelo
Rd 2 Canelo REALLY busting up GGG, ice pack straight on ggg right eye in corner
Rd 3 EVEN
Rd 4 GGG really dominated last 2 mins
Rd. 5. GGG by a hair
Rd. 6. Canelo teeing off, hard shots, more effective to the body, trumps GGG jabs
Rd 7. Canelo ***SHREDDING*** ggg, fuck!!!
After 7:
Canelo 68-66
Bedtime
Rd 8 Canelo strafed GGG with stinging shotsQuote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
Rd 9 Canelo by a hair
Rd 10. GGG
Rd 11. GGG
Rd 12. GGG
Canelo 115-114
Fair play to you taking the time out and sharing your score. You still know f@#k all about boxing.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbustRd 8 Canelo strafed GGG with stinging shotsQuote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
Rd 9 Canelo by a hair
Rd 10. GGG
Rd 11. GGG
Rd 12. GGG
Canelo 115-114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron SwansonFor the record, and I’m not defending Kellerman, he did clarify the next day that when he was saying Canelo was winning the perception of the fight he didn’t mean he was actually winning the fight. He meant there is the perception, and the scoring, that they are separate. Like you could control how the fight is being fought but still lose. You still have to actually do the better work. I thought Canelo did control how it was being fought, he did force GGG to back up almost the whole fight. But I didn’t have Canelo win, so I get where he is coming from.Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfI agree. I had Canelo winning 2 early rounds and in the middle in the 7th too it looked as though the fight was tightening up somewhat. But GGG seemed to dig deep and separate them again down the stretch. Canelo obviously had his moments, but his output was lower and GGG was doing the damage then.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncherIf I remember correctly, I think that was the most clear round for Canelo for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
I cannot get over the bizarre argument that because GGG wanted Canelo to fight that somehow standing his ground eradicates who is doing most of the work. Andre Ward for instance makes that argument and I think it is a really dumb argument. You score a fight round by round and to say that fighter A did this and fighter B used his own plan B therefore he loses rounds is plainly ridiculous. I have heard Kellerman make the same argument. It's very poorly thought out thinking and unfortunately these people get to make the narrative.
Commentators tend to flop all over themselves trying to be eloquent, and all they do is muddle up the waters. WTF is all the nonsense about "winning the perception" or "winning the story" of the fight. I'd say FFS just score the fight according to your own personal judgment and quit trying to be philosophical about it.
Winning the perception is a very relevant term Tito. it might not technically be part of the scoring but everything starts with our perception and Canelo shots were flashier and they made it louder kind of smacking sound and they were faster so therefore they were just more flashy and that is also why he won the perception.
So maybe we should have two sets of judges? One for the actual score and one for the perception score?
See what I mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
Flashier and punches making louder sounds and faster? WTF are you on about?
Score the fight, round by round and who does better in it.
Not who is chasing who, or what they said before the fight, but who won the round.
Total them up and you will get only one winner and that will be Triple G.
But master that is only in your slanted perception. I don't care what they said before the fight either. But Canelo was taking the fight to Triple G for 90% of their time in that ring and that counts as effective aggression. that also helped him win the fight. Think about it he ran for the whole first fight and still it was a draw. So in this fight he backed up the so-called power puncher who was a much bigger man in stature and he backed him up all night long and landed stinging overhand rights and scores of wicked and I mean Wicked body shots some of those body shots were really hurting Triple G but he did not show it. I think canelo's body shots clearly 1 him to fight those were really hard shots and they were really hurting Triple G
Just because Canelo was going forward does not make him the winner.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
Golovkin was jabbing and scoring throughout the fight to win the rounds.
OH That irked the shit out of me..."Canelo is winning the story of the fight".....what the what?!?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
In the ring it doesn't matter who is going forward or going backward, it's about landing punches and not having punches land on you. Canelo was dedicated to landing to the body....not all of those punches landed clean, flush, or pierced the guard. Max Kellerman was all "Sometimes judges don't score body punches the same as headshots" well I'd say sometimes if you block body punches you don't get credit for them not landing.
Going forward or backward on it's own doesn't mean winning a fight or losing a fight. Fights can be won or lost both ways.
Kellerman is just a joke...his shit on ESPN is just God awful and his boxing commentary is awful now as well.