Who did you have winning Canelo Alvarez vs. GGG 2?

Who did you have winning?

  • Total voters
    444
B0mbSquad said:
so?
Click to expand...

Add Mikey Garcia and the Mayweather Camp to fighters who had Canelo winning. Only journalists and Teddy Atlas had GGG winning. All the fighters who know what they are watching had Canelo.

 
B0mbSquad said:
Trainers talk. They are people just like you and I. And they say silly things all the time. What a trainer said, or another fighter, means little. After the McGregor/Mayweather fight, to cite a standout example, many professional analysts and fighters were split on whether Mayweather carried him or if Conor performed beyond expectation. It's jabber. Form your own conclusion with a reasoned, round by round explanation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so who cares what the person closest to GGG says about the fight. I guarantee you I can find more fighters in favor of Canelo than you can find for GGG. I’ll Venmo you money if you do.
 
Seano said:
I predicted a week ago that everyone would be posting press row scores because they can't defend the "robbery" themselves. Don't tell me how Kevin Iole scored the fight. Tell me why you scored it how you scored it.
Click to expand...

I already responded to a post of yours here, http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/144657007/. I don't have a problem with the scores for this fight in a vacuum, but I do have a problem with Canelo always edging close decisions, and getting at least one ridiculous scorecard.

My response here was simply pointing out the irony of discounting "mma media" while the boxing media had nearly identical scores.
 
B0mbSquad said:
Rounds 1-2 were extremely close. I gave them to Canelo.
Rd. 3 was a toss up at the time, but the stats indicate GGG landed more jabs and power punches.
Rds. 4-5 were clear for GGG.
Rds. 6-7 were Canelo's best of the fight and succinctly won. Here he looks like the better athlete and fighter, accurately tagging GGG when he'd try to open up his combinations and stalking him around the ring.
Rd. 8 saw Canelo own the first minute before being soundly outboxed for the remaining 2/3.
Rd. 9 is where Canelo started to show visible fatigue, lunging and winging. However, I gave him the round because he landed the better shots.
Rd. 10 GGG landed some of the fight's best shots. Outworked, outboxed and landed better shots on a weary Canelo.
Rd. 11 Canelo looks a shell of himself in terms of punch velocity. This is the first time either man is ever backed to the ropes, with GGG advancing on Canelo in the end of the first minute. Overall, GGG outworks him but the damage even after Canelo rallies in the last minute and a half.
Rd. 12 Alvarez fights valiently through his fatigue but it causes him to dip his head into three nasty uppercuts, the best shots of the round and among the best of the fight.

By my count, if you give Canelo round 3 or 11, it is a draw. I'd score each a 10-10 before I'd consider them as Canelo's. It's far more difficult to explain how he lost them than how he won them.
Click to expand...

You gave Canelo one of the rounds you claimed he got "beat down" in. Obviously the last 5 rounds weren't a beat down, even by your own scorecard. You were being hyperbolic, someone noticed, the end.

I disagree with your assessment in general, though and don't believe you're judging based on clean punching, effective aggressive, defense and ring generalship. We're not going to see eye to eye here. When fans don't score like judges do, fans shouldn't be surprised when their scores are wildly different than those of the professional judges.
 
JayE said:
You counted wrong. If you gave him those two rounds, you'd have Canelo with 7 rounds as you had Canelo winning, 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9. Giving him 3 and 11 makes it 115-113 Canelo on your card. Giving them 10-10 would have made it a 115-115 draw on your card.
Click to expand...

I said "or" not "and".

The point is to illustrate that you have to thoughtlessly give Canelo close rounds to have him winning the fight.
 
Dr. Shoemaker said:
You gave Canelo one of the rounds you claimed he got "beat down" in. Obviously the last 5 rounds weren't a beat down, even by your own scorecard. You were being hyperbolic, someone noticed, the end.

I disagree with your assessment in general, though and don't believe you're judging based on clean punching, effective aggressive, defense and ring generalship. We're not going to see eye to eye here. When fans don't score like judges do, fans shouldn't be surprised when their scores are wildly different than those of the professional judges.
Click to expand...

Judges vary wildly in their scoring of fights. Don't use them as a barometer to critique my analysis. Canelo stood in the middle of the ring but he didn't control it, and the credit being given for such after never backing his man to the ropes is effectively looking for ways to give him points. Paulie Malignaggi out of all people broke this phenomenon down perfectly. GGG landed more clean shots, was the more effectively aggressive fighter as illustrated by his punching volume and punches landed, and walked circles around Canelo with his footwork, never getting backed to the ropes. Canelo landed at a higher percentage and forced GGG to miss on a lot more attempts, he was more efficient throughout, just not more effective.

I spoke generally in my early posts and got swarmed, so I provided a more in depth analysis with my round by round judging. The most dominant portion of the fight was in the closing few rounds, in favor of GGG.
 
Last edited:
Area809 said:
Add Mikey Garcia and the Mayweather Camp to fighters who had Canelo winning. Only journalists and Teddy Atlas had GGG winning. All the fighters who know what they are watching had Canelo.

Click to expand...


Lenox Lewis and Paulie Malignaggi had GGG. Can play that game all day. Most people, by a long shot, had GGG winning.
 
Area809 said:
Yeah, so who cares what the person closest to GGG says about the fight. I guarantee you I can find more fighters in favor of Canelo than you can find for GGG. I’ll Venmo you money if you do.
Click to expand...

Listen to the difference between Tony Romo and Jason Witten in the booth calling a football game. Both very talented players, wildly different capacity to analyze what they are watching. You see great, smart players like Jason Kidd and Derek Fisher fail as coaches. Same is true for fighters, they are talented competitors, but their ability to dissect what's in front of them isn't inherently superior to anybody else experienced in analyzing the sport. It's getting desperate to try and pool that one demographic because the fans, analysts and media had it overwhelmingly for GGG.
 
Last edited:
B0mbSquad said:
Judges vary wildly in their scoring of fights. Don't use them as a barometer to critique my analysis. Canelo stood in the middle of the ring but he didn't control it
Click to expand...

I will absolutely use the official scoring criteria when evaluating scores. You can’t tell me what to do lol. What absurdity.

Canelo controlled the ring.
 
Dr. Shoemaker said:
I will absolutely use the official scoring criteria when evaluating scores. You can’t tell me what to do lol. What absurdity.

Canelo controlled the ring.
Click to expand...

No, you can't laud judges and their decision over me. They disagree all the time. It's why there are 3, and even then they frequently get it wrong.

Ring generalship is defined as follows:
"the ability of a boxer to dictate the pace, style and tactics of a bout vis-a-vis his opponent."

Canelo stayed in the center of the ring. He did not dictate the pace, style or tactics. GGG dictated the pace as illustrated by his volume. Canelo did not dictate the style, GGG fought at the same pace, with the same array of punches as the previous fight despite not walking Canelo down this time. The tactics were also similar to the first fight, with Canelo coming forward in bursts and looking to counter. I don't think you know the criteria you assert.
 
B0mbSquad said:
No, you can't laud judges and their decision over me.
Click to expand...

Good thing I'm not actually doing that, just holding you accountable to the codified scoring criteria. You said you knew all this stuff, I'm shocked you don't actually know. Never once have I used the judges scores to discredit anyone else, and I have no problem with a Golovkin scorecard. What I have a problem with is people coming up with crazy scorecards based on what they **feel** is happening and not what they're actually seeing.

This all started with you saying Golovkin "beat down" Canelo for the last 5 rounds, something you've now walked back. So I'm not entirely sure why you keep beating this dead horse.

Canelo was the ring general in that fight. Volume does not illustrate ring generalship, it illustrates volume. Canelo was initiating the action more often. Canelo held the center of the ring. Canelo was the ring general more often than not.
 
B0mbSquad said:
Listen to the difference between Tony Romo and Jason Witten in the booth calling a football game. Both very talented players, wildly different capacity to analyze what they are watching. You see great, smart players like Jason Kidd and Derek Fisher fail as coaches. Same is true for fighters, they are talented competitors, but their ability to dissect what's in front of them isn't inherently superior to anybody else experienced in analyzing the sport. It's getting desperate to try and pool that one demographic because the fans, analysts and media had it overwhelmingly for GGG.
Click to expand...

I trust the opinions of a Miguel Cotto or Mikey Garcia more than Max Kellerman or Dan Rafael. At the end of the day, GGG lost because the judges saw he same things the real experts, the fighters, saw.

You’re now trying to say fighters don’t know what they’re talking about. With all due respect, now you’re sounding a bit ridiculous.
 
Dr. Shoemaker said:
Good thing I'm not actually doing that, just holding you accountable to the codified scoring criteria. You said you knew all this stuff, I'm shocked you don't actually know. Never once have I used the judges scores to discredit anyone else, and I have no problem with a Golovkin scorecard. What I have a problem with is people coming up with crazy scorecards based on what they **feel** is happening and not what they're actually seeing.

This all started with you saying Golovkin "beat down" Canelo for the last 5 rounds, something you've now walked back. So I'm not entirely sure why you keep beating this dead horse.

Canelo was the ring general in that fight. Volume does not illustrate ring generalship, it illustrates volume. Canelo was initiating the action more often. Canelo held the center of the ring. Canelo was the ring general more often than not.
Click to expand...

"The ability of a boxer to dictate the pace, style and tactics of a bout vis-a-vis his opponent."

There's the definition of ring generalship. Find where it says "fighter who stands in the center".
 
Area809 said:
I bet you can’t. Name more. I’ve given at least 6.
Click to expand...

Instead of having a discussion over who won the fight, you'd prefer to have a competition over "who can find the most fighters on the internet who agree with me". Not only does is this data point totally idiosyncratic, it shows the reoccurring issue that fans are picking their winner and then figuring out the explanation as to why their guy won after the fact, instead of using the information available from the fight itself.
 
Area809 said:
I trust the opinions of a Miguel Cotto or Mikey Garcia more than Max Kellerman or Dan Rafael. At the end of the day, GGG lost because the judges saw he same things the real experts, the fighters, saw.

You’re now trying to say fighters don’t know what they’re talking about. With all due respect, now you’re sounding a bit ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Not all good fighters are good analysts. Most aren't. Across sports there are repeated examples of great competitors that aren't successful analysts, commentators, coaches, etc. Those that bring heightened understanding to the game are usually coaches/analysts first and foremost with some experience competing, not the other way around. Nearly every fighter has a fight on their record that they believe they won that outside observes agree they lost.

Does a fighter generally have technical expertise that surpasses the average viewer or analyst? Sure. I can tell you that I was a much better analyst of the sport after boxing than before. But there's fighters that will value a guy who takes the center of the ring and doesn't move because it's what a "fighter should do", and then there's fighters who appreciate the sport and technique of boxing and prioritize intelligent execution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,398
Messages
55,417,740
Members
174,763
Latest member
ThroughTheDakr

Share this page

Back
Top