Is Canelo on a serious slide?

[mikeeod]

I feel like Canelo is still in his prime and hasn’t declined. I think the Kov win made people overestimate him (Kov was a light heavy and was really good at one point but was nowhere near his best) and the Bivol fight has people underestimating him. Bivol is a solid fighter, a true 175 pounder, and is in his prime- take away the Kov fight and Canelo is the underdog going in (as he should have been).

Canelo is a warrior and chases greatness, you have to love that, it he has had some serious luck to not have more losses on his record. Does anyone really think that if Ward, Froch, Calzaghe…etc., were still around that Canelo would be undisputed?!?

GGG has gone even up with Canelo twice now (I feel he won the first and tied the rematch) so the big question is whether GGG has slipped or not. Canelo didn’t take a horrific beating against Bivol, he was just thoroughly outboxed by a larger/ longer man with great skills and discipline. Canelo is young and has a few good years left thanks to his staying in shape year round and living clean.

[X]

There is nothing wrong with losing a few fights over a career. (Nearly) all of the greats had some losses ..... the mark of a great fighter - just like life in general - is how you respond from and learn from those losses.

There's no shame in losing to a top class operator like Bivol, as long as Alvarez shows he learnt something. If Nadal and Djokovic hadn't been around, Federer would probably have won about 30 Grand Slams by now, but competing with and losing to them made him a much better and rounded tennis player that he would have been without them, even with 30 Grand Slams.

Alvarez is definitely lucky he only has one loss, I think Trout beat him, I think Golovkin beat him, I cannot understand how judges gave him so many rounds against Mayweather and Bivol ..... I don't think that's his fault though.

[TitoFan]

I think Lara beat him as well. He should have at least 3 losses on his record.

[TitoFan]

There is nothing wrong with losing a few fights over a career. (Nearly) all of the greats had some losses ..... the mark of a great fighter - just like life in general - is how you respond from and learn from those losses.

There's no shame in losing to a top class operator like Bivol, as long as Alvarez shows he learnt something. If Nadal and Djokovic hadn't been around, Federer would probably have won about 30 Grand Slams by now, but competing with and losing to them made him a much better and rounded tennis player that he would have been without them, even with 30 Grand Slams.

Alvarez is definitely lucky he only has one loss, I think Trout beat him, I think Golovkin beat him, I cannot understand how judges gave him so many rounds against Mayweather and Bivol ..... I don't think that's his fault though.

I think Lara beat Canelo as well.

But now that you bring up the tennis analogy...

If Canelo had faced the "Nadals and Djokovics" of boxing, he'd be just another good fighter, with just another good record.

Case in point:

Another thread on here asks how great was Floyd. Love him or hate him, Floyd's resume stacks up well with any of the ATG's..... but is light-years ahead of Canelo's.

I won't list his opponents here, but anyone can look down the list of Floyd's opponents and see what I mean.

To be clear... I always rooted for Floyd to lose. But facts are facts.

In the '80s, it was Leonard, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Benitez... facing each other. Plus there was plenty of elite competition around them as well.




But back to the OP question... is Canelo on a serious slide? Hell no. Canelo's 32 years old. In the prime of his boxing career. He got his ass handed to him by Bivol, due to a serious miscalculation on Team Canelo's part.... which will very likely never happen again.

Is there anything wrong with Canelo having lost to Bivol? No, obviously not. What would've been not wrong, but TRAGIC, would've been yet another questionable decision in Canelo's favor. Thankfully the gap in the fight was so wide, the judges had no choice but to do the right thing and award the decision to Bivol.

[Master]

There is nothing wrong with losing a few fights over a career. (Nearly) all of the greats had some losses ..... the mark of a great fighter - just like life in general - is how you respond from and learn from those losses.

There's no shame in losing to a top class operator like Bivol, as long as Alvarez shows he learnt something. If Nadal and Djokovic hadn't been around, Federer would probably have won about 30 Grand Slams by now, but competing with and losing to them made him a much better and rounded tennis player that he would have been without them, even with 30 Grand Slams.

Alvarez is definitely lucky he only has one loss, I think Trout beat him, I think Golovkin beat him, I cannot understand how judges gave him so many rounds against Mayweather and Bivol ..... I don't think that's his fault though.

I think Lara beat Canelo as well.

But now that you bring up the tennis analogy...

If Canelo had faced the "Nadals and Djokovics" of boxing, he'd be just another good fighter, with just another good record.

Case in point:

Another thread on here asks how great was Floyd. Love him or hate him, Floyd's resume stacks up well with any of the ATG's..... but is light-years ahead of Canelo's.

I won't list his opponents here, but anyone can look down the list of Floyd's opponents and see what I mean.

To be clear... I always rooted for Floyd to lose. But facts are facts.

In the '80s, it was Leonard, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Benitez... facing each other. Plus there was plenty of elite competition around them as well.




But back to the OP question... is Canelo on a serious slide? Hell no. Canelo's 32 years old. In the prime of his boxing career. He got his ass handed to him by Bivol, due to a serious miscalculation on Team Canelo's part.... which will very likely never happen again.

Is there anything wrong with Canelo having lost to Bivol? No, obviously not. What would've been not wrong, but TRAGIC, would've been yet another questionable decision in Canelo's favor. Thankfully the gap in the fight was so wide, the judges had no choice but to do the right thing and award the decision to Bivol.

Insane or corrupt that the 3 judges had it identically 7-5 rounds when it was nearer 10-2.

[TitoFan]

There is nothing wrong with losing a few fights over a career. (Nearly) all of the greats had some losses ..... the mark of a great fighter - just like life in general - is how you respond from and learn from those losses.

There's no shame in losing to a top class operator like Bivol, as long as Alvarez shows he learnt something. If Nadal and Djokovic hadn't been around, Federer would probably have won about 30 Grand Slams by now, but competing with and losing to them made him a much better and rounded tennis player that he would have been without them, even with 30 Grand Slams.

Alvarez is definitely lucky he only has one loss, I think Trout beat him, I think Golovkin beat him, I cannot understand how judges gave him so many rounds against Mayweather and Bivol ..... I don't think that's his fault though.

I think Lara beat Canelo as well.

But now that you bring up the tennis analogy...

If Canelo had faced the "Nadals and Djokovics" of boxing, he'd be just another good fighter, with just another good record.

Case in point:

Another thread on here asks how great was Floyd. Love him or hate him, Floyd's resume stacks up well with any of the ATG's..... but is light-years ahead of Canelo's.

I won't list his opponents here, but anyone can look down the list of Floyd's opponents and see what I mean.

To be clear... I always rooted for Floyd to lose. But facts are facts.

In the '80s, it was Leonard, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Benitez... facing each other. Plus there was plenty of elite competition around them as well.




But back to the OP question... is Canelo on a serious slide? Hell no. Canelo's 32 years old. In the prime of his boxing career. He got his ass handed to him by Bivol, due to a serious miscalculation on Team Canelo's part.... which will very likely never happen again.

Is there anything wrong with Canelo having lost to Bivol? No, obviously not. What would've been not wrong, but TRAGIC, would've been yet another questionable decision in Canelo's favor. Thankfully the gap in the fight was so wide, the judges had no choice but to do the right thing and award the decision to Bivol.

Insane or corrupt that the 3 judges had it identically 7-5 rounds when it was nearer 10-2.

It was insane AND corrupt... but expected. Everyone knew going in that Bivol needed either a KO, or a complete domination to get the win. And even complete domination was no better than a 50/50 chance.

Ginger fans may have forgotten CJ Ross... but I haven't.

[J_Undisputed]

Kind of a double edged sword isn't it. A judge is supposed to have enough experience to measure all the factors that allow him/her to assess who's winning a fight. Of course, the longer a judge is around, the more the politics of boxing creeps into their heads and allows them to look for reasons to give points to a particular fighter who is uncharacteristically not having their way, based on what they have done in the sport rather than just in the fight.

[Master]

Kind of a double edged sword isn't it. A judge is supposed to have enough experience to measure all the factors that allow him/her to assess who's winning a fight. Of course, the longer a judge is around, the more the politics of boxing creeps into their heads and allows them to look for reasons to give points to a particular fighter who is uncharacteristically not having their way, based on what they have done in the sport rather than just in the fight.

I think they are "looked after" by the promoter, if they have been generous to their fighter they will be accepted for other fights.