Not a Robbery but 70% of All Post Fight Polls Say GGG Won....HUh?

[Ricky]

Can you repost your scorecard from Mayweather -Pacquaio where you had Manny winning please?

Lol at Floyd winning. It was a fight not the Tour De France.

Well that settles it. You don't know how to score fights.

I do, unlike you i understand the 4 criteria and obviously have a better eye for what lands and what doesn't.

The Pac Floyd fight has plenty of slow mo replays on youtube counting each punch thrown, missed and scored. The slower speed might help you out.

[gilgamesh]

Lol at Floyd winning. It was a fight not the Tour De France.

Well that settles it. You don't know how to score fights.

I do, unlike you i understand the 4 criteria and obviously have a better eye for what lands and what doesn't.

The Pac Floyd fight has plenty of slow mo replays on youtube counting each punch thrown, missed and scored. The slower speed might help you out.

You don't watch fights in Slow Mo Replay. You watch 'em in real time. Floyd won the fight handily. It wasn't hard to score.

[Ricky]

Well that settles it. You don't know how to score fights.

I do, unlike you i understand the 4 criteria and obviously have a better eye for what lands and what doesn't.

The Pac Floyd fight has plenty of slow mo replays on youtube counting each punch thrown, missed and scored. The slower speed might help you out.

You don't watch fights in Slow Mo Replay. You watch 'em in real time. Floyd won the fight handily. It wasn't hard to score.

The only thing more boring than Floyd vs Pac is discussing Floyd vs Pac. You're entitled to your scorecard but the phenomenon of Floyd winning rounds he does absolutely nothing in is something that seems exclusive to him.

[caldo2025]

Honestly, it's not even worth trying to make an argument for Canelo winning this fight because the judges were corrupt...plain and simple. Just like the honest and intelligent people have been predicting for months here. But still my mind tries to discover what an honest person scoring this fight may have seen from Canelo that would warrant handing him this victory.

The ONLY thing that I could see is that an honest person would give Canelo more credit for not running and coming forward the whole fight. THAT was surprising. THAT was almost shocking to a lot of people. But coming forward doesn't mean a lick if you don't score effective blows. GGG did a fantastic job withstanding the forward advance of Canelo. Take a look at the last 5 rounds and how masterfully GGG bobbed and weaved away from Canelo's periodic swings for the fences. He dodged them all. For a guy that has never been walked down for a whole fight, GGG's performance should be in the "How To Handle a Pressure Fighter" handbook for future fighters. It was clinical.

So yeah, Canelo came forward. Super. You need to do a lot more to defeat the champion and take his belts.

If that fight happened in your backyard Saturday Night, there's no way that you'd tell your friends the following day that Canelo won. No way.

[boxing_rocks]

Can you repost your scorecard from Mayweather -Pacquaio where you had Manny winning please?

Lol at Floyd winning. It was a fight not the Tour De France.

Well that settles it. You don't know how to score fights.

Severe visual impairment. Pac defeated May, and Canelo defeated Golovkin.

[boxing_rocks]

Great points from Paulie:

[dagilechia]

People who say it was 114-114 or 115-113 Canelo confirm that GGG should get the win in their first fight, the second fight was much closer than the first one.

[Ruthless-RKO]

People who say it was 114-114 or 115-113 Canelo confirm that GGG should get the win in their first fight, the second fight was much closer than the first one.

True. I don’t know why, when I watched it live, I felt the rematch was more of an obvious win for GGG than the first fight was.

[pound per pound]

96% of experts disagree.

Where are you getting 96% from?

Out of 50+ media members, only two gave a win to Canelo.

Then its a confirmed robbery.

[POTAF4AX]

Paulie Malignaggi said that if Canelo won the last round on his scorecards, which he said was perfectly feasible since it was close enough to have been awarded to either man, then the Mexican earned a draw, but if GGG wins the 12th then the Kazakh emerges victorious by a 7 to 5 margin.

Max Kellerman holds a slightly different opinion, as he felt that the judges should have awarded Golovkin the last round, as GGG deserved to earn the draw. Coincidentally, Dougie Fischer (The RING) and Dan Rafael (ESPN) shared the same opinion as the HBO pundit, since both journalists believed that the outcome of the fight should have been scored a draw and also had the same scores entering the final round. Even Abel Sanchez scored the bout as a draw.

The likes of Andre Ward, Errol Spence Jr., Jermall Charlo, Amir Khan, David Haye and Graham Houston (Boxing Monthly) all gave the nod to Canelo.

The vast majority of the media scorecards, even though most of them seem to favour GGG, scored the bout as either a draw or issue their verdict with two-point margins, where the outcome is decided upon based on their scoring of a single round.

If a fight is that close, why do people insist on using the word “robbery” to describe GGG’s loss against Canelo, especially considering that there were many close rounds?

If people scored the bout 115-113 in favour of GGG, then they can’t have a problem with a draw, especially considering the fact that four rounds were very tough to score, and nor should they be boldly proclaiming “robbery” either.

Are people embellishing their thoughts for GGG, since he was their “hero” fighting against a stereotypical pantomime “villain”, Canelo, because I don’t understand why extreme words, such as “robbery”, is warranted to describe the outcome of the Golovkin-Alvarez rematch?

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with people stating their belief that the victory could have been awarded to Canelo or Golovkin, but to claim that a “robbery” has taken place due to “corrupt” judges being “paid off”, well that just seems unreasonable.

Personally, I scored this a draw, I just wanted to say that I think many people perceive Canelo as the villain because of the Byrd scorecard in the first fight, it looks bad and corrupt. Also in the past the Lara and Mayweather scorecards against Canelo have a reason for this.
I simply do not believe G would get the decision in a close fight against Canelo. If he had won by a small margin, they would deem it a draw (first fight), if it were just close, Canelo win all the way. So it seems there's going to always be a disadvantage in decisions in boxing against cash cows such as Canelo.

[tiny_acres]

Paulie Malignaggi said that if Canelo won the last round on his scorecards, which he said was perfectly feasible since it was close enough to have been awarded to either man, then the Mexican earned a draw, but if GGG wins the 12th then the Kazakh emerges victorious by a 7 to 5 margin.

Max Kellerman holds a slightly different opinion, as he felt that the judges should have awarded Golovkin the last round, as GGG deserved to earn the draw. Coincidentally, Dougie Fischer (The RING) and Dan Rafael (ESPN) shared the same opinion as the HBO pundit, since both journalists believed that the outcome of the fight should have been scored a draw and also had the same scores entering the final round. Even Abel Sanchez scored the bout as a draw.

The likes of Andre Ward, Errol Spence Jr., Jermall Charlo, Amir Khan, David Haye and Graham Houston (Boxing Monthly) all gave the nod to Canelo.

The vast majority of the media scorecards, even though most of them seem to favour GGG, scored the bout as either a draw or issue their verdict with two-point margins, where the outcome is decided upon based on their scoring of a single round.

If a fight is that close, why do people insist on using the word “robbery” to describe GGG’s loss against Canelo, especially considering that there were many close rounds?

If people scored the bout 115-113 in favour of GGG, then they can’t have a problem with a draw, especially considering the fact that four rounds were very tough to score, and nor should they be boldly proclaiming “robbery” either.

Are people embellishing their thoughts for GGG, since he was their “hero” fighting against a stereotypical pantomime “villain”, Canelo, because I don’t understand why extreme words, such as “robbery”, is warranted to describe the outcome of the Golovkin-Alvarez rematch?

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with people stating their belief that the victory could have been awarded to Canelo or Golovkin, but to claim that a “robbery” has taken place due to “corrupt” judges being “paid off”, well that just seems unreasonable.

Personally, I scored this a draw, I just wanted to say that I think many people perceive Canelo as the villain because of the Byrd scorecard in the first fight, it looks bad and corrupt. Also in the past the Lara and Mayweather scorecards against Canelo have a reason for this.
I simply do not believe G would get the decision in a close fight against Canelo. If he had won by a small margin, they would deem it a draw (first fight), if it were just close, Canelo win all the way. So it seems there's going to always be a disadvantage in decisions in boxing against cash cows such as Canelo.

Cash cows = controversial decisions

[jamamb]

i think graham houston actually scored it to ggg he tweeted that when he went back and added up his card it was 7-5, but he was posting that it wasnt a robbery at all

[tiny_acres]

i think graham houston actually scored it to ggg he tweeted that when he went back and added up his card it was 7-5, but he was posting that it wasnt a robbery at all

I can't call a close fight a robbery. But I struggle to see how Canelo could of won

[Enlightened-One]

"Not a Robbery but 70% of All Post Fight Polls Say GGG Won....Huh?"

I'm not precisely sure what the actual global percentage of fight polls or the total amount of worldwide media scores favoured a Golovkin decision victory, as opposed to a Canelo win, but I am supremely confident that the Spanish speaking territories have been blatantly ignored by those boldly proclaiming "robbery".

Am I wrong? Because if I am, I'd like to see someone prove otherwise.

To be honest, I take no joy from a GGG defeat and nor did I jump for joy for the Canelo's victory either. But I'll probably be accused of being a "Golovkin hater" anyway, since I possess the sheer audacity to raise an important point that Gennady's followers would become frustrated with.

[boxing_rocks]

"Not a Robbery but 70% of All Post Fight Polls Say GGG Won....Huh?"

I am supremely confident that the Spanish speaking territories have been blatantly ignored by those boldly proclaiming "robbery".

So were Kazakh and Russian speaking territories. It is completely natural to exclude both sides' countrymen.

[samdance]

People are so silly! I had Canelo winning, I'm not corrupt. To state that this fight was a robbery is so idiotic, there were so many close rounds, it could have easily gone either way

[Enlightened-One]

"Not a Robbery but 70% of All Post Fight Polls Say GGG Won....Huh?"

I am supremely confident that the Spanish speaking territories have been blatantly ignored by those boldly proclaiming "robbery".

So were Kazakh and Russian speaking territories. It is completely natural to exclude both sides' countrymen.

Are you honestly saying that it's normal to misrepresent stats to strengthen your own argument?

Look, I'm not bothered about whom won the bout, since I found it hard to score and I don't favour one man above the other, but it does annoy me to read accusations of "robbery" by people citing stats that exclude the opinions of those from certain key territories.

Either include a caveat or accurately convey what those stats actually represent.

Is it unreasonable to assume that Spanish speaking people may believe that "their man" has earned the judges' verdict, for a bout that the vast majority believed was evenly-contested? So why exclude their opinions when quoting stats that supposedly represents mainstream opinions?

[dagilechia]

Not Spanish nor Russian speaking but i will post perspective from Polish experts:

Maciej Miszkiń (ex-boxer, commentator): 116-112 Canelo
Przemysław Garczarczyk (USA-based journalist): 116-112 Golovkin
Kamil Szeremeta (MW EBU Champion): 115-113 Canelo
Grzegorz Proksa (ex-boxer, commentator): 115-113 Golovkin
Artur Szpilka: 115-113 Golovkin
Andrzej Pastuszak (journalist): 114-114 draw
Andrzej Gmitruk (trainer): 114-114 draw
Tomasz Adamek: Canelo won
Sebastian Szczęsny (commentator): Golovkin won

Poll from Polish biggest boxing site:
Golovkin won: 83% (4824 votes)
Canelo won: 17% (1012 votes)

[boxing_rocks]

Not Spanish nor Russian speaking but i will post perspective from Polish experts:

Maciej Miszkiń (ex-boxer, commentator): 116-112 Canelo
Przemysław Garczarczyk (USA-based journalist): 116-112 Golovkin
Kamil Szeremeta (MW EBU Champion): 115-113 Canelo
Grzegorz Proksa (ex-boxer, commentator): 115-113 Golovkin
Artur Szpilka: 115-113 Golovkin
Andrzej Pastuszak (journalist): 114-114 draw
Andrzej Gmitruk (trainer): 114-114 draw
Tomasz Adamek: Canelo won
Sebastian Szczęsny (commentator): Golovkin won

Poll from Polish biggest boxing site:
Golovkin won: 83% (4824 votes)
Canelo won: 17% (1012 votes)

Now I understand why people are calling Poles dumb

[jamamb]

ya anyone who doesnt gobble gggs balls the same way br does must be dumb

[boxing_rocks]

I am supremely confident that the Spanish speaking territories have been blatantly ignored by those boldly proclaiming "robbery".

So were Kazakh and Russian speaking territories. It is completely natural to exclude both sides' countrymen.

Are you honestly saying that it's normal to misrepresent stats to strengthen your own argument?

How is it a misrepresentation if you only include neutral observers who vote with their heads vs their genes ? Of course pole results are very different in Mexico vs Kazakhstan/Russia, so including those would pollute objective picture.

[boxing_rocks]

ya anyone who doesnt gobble gggs balls the same way br does must be dumb

No, for example you are just a Nazi.

[Enlightened-One]

So were Kazakh and Russian speaking territories. It is completely natural to exclude both sides' countrymen.

Are you honestly saying that it's normal to misrepresent stats to strengthen your own argument?

How is it a misrepresentation if you only include neutral observers who vote with their heads vs their genes ? Of course pole results are very different in Mexico vs Kazakhstan/Russia, so including those would pollute objective picture.

Golovkin is fluent in English – Canelo speaks Spanish and only communicates with the English language media via an interpreter.

There will inevitably be a multitude of polls and media articles written in both languages, but people that frequent this forum are only considering the opinions of the English-language media.

No one can claim to be providing evidence to substantiate their beliefs if they’re only supplying a sample that specifically excludes all the opinions conveyed by the Spanish language media.

Can you honestly say that I’m being unreasonable to point out an obvious flaw in a lot of the percentage or numerical claims being made?

[boxing_rocks]

Are you honestly saying that it's normal to misrepresent stats to strengthen your own argument?

How is it a misrepresentation if you only include neutral observers who vote with their heads vs their genes ? Of course pole results are very different in Mexico vs Kazakhstan/Russia, so including those would pollute objective picture.

Golovkin is fluent in English

He is absolutely not. Not even close, which is why he switched to speaking Russian and using an interpreter.
Corrected below.

There will inevitably be a multitude of polls and media articles written in both languages, but people that frequent this forum are only considering the opinions of the English-language media.

No one can claim to be providing evidence to substantiate their beliefs if they’re only supplying a sample that specifically excludes all the opinions conveyed by the Spanish/Russian/Kazakh language media.

Can you honestly say that I’m being unreasonable to point out an obvious flaw in a lot of the percentage or numerical claims being made?

Yes, you are definitely being yourself in this post, i.e. unreasonable, hypocritical troll.

[boxing_rocks]

By the way, some data on Spanish speaking media in a country other than Mexico: