I think he beat GGG as well, rewatched that recently. It's one of the things that's always pissed me off about boxing; everyone knows judges can be out to lunch, yet the way they rule a fight is still used in many cases to cement the verdict people wanted ahead of time. They gave it to GGG so everyone points to what he did well and looks for subtle things he may have had going in his favour, but I can't for the life of me find 6-7 rounds he won. If the judges had gone the other way and given it to Jacobs, would ANYONE have argued it was a bad decision? I doubt it, and it would have dramatically altered the way people talked about it afterward, without having a damn thing to do with what actually happened in the fight. Not saying for a second it wasn't close-ish and very competitive, I just think people who have watched enough boxing should know better