Canelo Alvarez vacates WBA Middleweight Belt

[DrDuke]

I watched the fight live, in a drunken stupor

any individuals, like me, that perform research, by reviewing all the evidence, and independently drawing conclusions

What an interesting method of performing research, reviewing evidence and drawing conclusions.

[Enlightened-One]

I watched the fight live, in a drunken stupor

any individuals, like me, that perform research, by reviewing all the evidence, and independently drawing conclusions

What an interesting method of performing research, reviewing evidence and drawing conclusions.

You've taken two unrelated sentences and dishonestly misrepresented my thoughts.

You asked me a question and I answered it.

People portray me as a “hater”, but they can never prove that this is actually the case.

Yes, I did have a few beverages when I watched the fight live, but I’ve subsequently seen several replays and I see no reason to revise my opinion. So I stand by my original words.

And to be fair, I’ve discussed this topic at length numerous times, but to answer your question, I preferred to post my most “fresh” thoughts on the matter, which I conveyed around the date of the GGG-Canelo fight itself.

I've already explained the reason why I chose to do this.

All I can do is apologise if you’re offended by the likelihood that my opinion differs from yours.

Anyway, I’m looking forward to you insulting me again, because I’m guessing you’re a member of the herd, so you must follow the rules of the pack, by always attacking all “outsiders”.

Canelo won the rematch and if the Mexican does face GGG again, he’ll stop the Kazakh.

And that is an opinion shared by many, because Canelo has improved and GGG has declined. Even the most passionate die-hard Golovkin fans have expressed the same claim.

[DrDuke]

You've taken two unrelated sentences and dishonestly misrepresented my thoughts.

You've brought them, I've taken them.

Anyway, I’m looking forward to you insulting me again

And where was the first insult? Are you offended by something?

[Enlightened-One]

Anyway, I’m looking forward to you insulting me again

And where was the first insult? Are you offended by something?

It was a pre-emptive comment based on you taking my words out of context, which you’ve already admitted to doing, coupled with my belief that you’re a member of the herd.

If I’m wrong about this, then all I can do is apologise.

By the way, what is your actual opinion of my answer to your question about the GGG-Canelo fight?

[DrDuke]

Anyway, I’m looking forward to you insulting me again

And where was the first insult? Are you offended by something?

It was a pre-emptive comment based on you taking my words out of context, which you’ve already admitted to doing, coupled with my belief that you’re a member of the herd.

If I’m wrong about this, then all I can do is apologise.

By the way, what is your actual opinion of my answer to your question about the GGG-Canelo fight?

It wasn't a conclusive answer.

[Enlightened-One]

And where was the first insult? Are you offended by something?

It was a pre-emptive comment based on you taking my words out of context, which you’ve already admitted to doing, coupled with my belief that you’re a member of the herd.

If I’m wrong about this, then all I can do is apologise.

By the way, what is your actual opinion of my answer to your question about the GGG-Canelo fight?

It wasn't a conclusive answer.

What makes you say that? I didn’t sit on the fence.

[DrDuke]

It was a pre-emptive comment based on you taking my words out of context, which you’ve already admitted to doing, coupled with my belief that you’re a member of the herd.

If I’m wrong about this, then all I can do is apologise.

By the way, what is your actual opinion of my answer to your question about the GGG-Canelo fight?

It wasn't a conclusive answer.

What makes you say that? I didn’t sit on the fence.

Cause you were only talking about how this fight can be judged, not about whom particularly you would pick as a winner. The conclusive answer would look like: "I think, *a name of a fighter* won" or "I had it even", or "I don't know". Your evaluation looked like the last thing, with bringing possible opinions of some other observers.

[Enlightened-One]

It wasn't a conclusive answer.

What makes you say that? I didn’t sit on the fence.

Cause you were only talking about how this fight can be judged, not about whom particularly you would pick as a winner. The conclusive answer would look like: "I think, *a name of a fighter* won" or "I had it even", or "I don't know". Your evaluation looked like the last thing, with bringing possible opinions of some other observers.

You either didn’t read my response properly or you’re being dishonest again, by pretending I didn’t answer your question.

I suspect it’s the latter.

You’re probably trying to waste my time and wind me up.

At least I now know that I should never bother answering any of your questions.

[DrDuke]

What makes you say that? I didn’t sit on the fence.

Cause you were only talking about how this fight can be judged, not about whom particularly you would pick as a winner. The conclusive answer would look like: "I think, *a name of a fighter* won" or "I had it even", or "I don't know". Your evaluation looked like the last thing, with bringing possible opinions of some other observers.

You either didn’t read my response properly or you’re being dishonest again, by pretending I didn’t answer your question.

I suspect it’s the latter.

You’re probably trying to waste my time and wind me up.

At least I now know that I should never bother answering any of your questions.

In other words, you ran from an answer, what you now confimed and pointed out, that you gonna do the same in future.

Is it because you really don't have your own opinion and belong to some herd, which you trust instead of sorting things out yourself?

[Enlightened-One]

In other words, you ran from an answer, what you now confimed and pointed out, that you gonna do the same in future.

Is it because you really don't have your own opinion and belong to some herd, which you trust instead of sorting things out yourself?

You're either intellectually subnormal, totally illiterate or perhaps you simply trolling.

I'll quote my post again.

My gut instinct told me that Canelo did well during the early and late stages of the contest, with GGG gaining the winning momentum during the middle rounds.

... I had the bout very close, with perhaps Golovkin shading it by a small margin.

Some rounds were very hard to score, since it depended on personal stylistic preference, such as workrate and aggression versus a skilful defence and sporadic eye-catching punch combinations.

So it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few people that thought that Canelo deserved to win.

After all kiddo, it's not as if this quote isn't almost 3½ years old! FFS!

[DrDuke]

First he goes like:

At least I now know that I should never bother answering any of your questions.

Then he continues with:

In other words, you ran from an answer, what you now confimed and pointed out, that you gonna do the same in future.

Is it because you really don't have your own opinion and belong to some herd, which you trust instead of sorting things out yourself?

You're either intellectually subnormal, totally illiterate or perhaps you simply trolling.

I'll quote my post again.

So, EO lied again.

[Enlightened-One]

First he goes like:

At least I now know that I should never bother answering any of your questions.

Then he continues with:

In other words, you ran from an answer, what you now confimed and pointed out, that you gonna do the same in future.

Is it because you really don't have your own opinion and belong to some herd, which you trust instead of sorting things out yourself?

You're either intellectually subnormal, totally illiterate or perhaps you simply trolling.

I'll quote my post again.

So, EO lied again.

You’re being a troll.

All I did was answer one of your questions.

I think I’ll let you keep making stuff up about me.

After all, you’ve already admitted to intentionally misrepresenting my words.

And I can’t stop you from saying whatever you want, even if it is utter nonsense.

[DrDuke]

First he goes like:

At least I now know that I should never bother answering any of your questions.

Then he continues with:

You're either intellectually subnormal, totally illiterate or perhaps you simply trolling.

I'll quote my post again.

So, EO lied again.

You’re being a troll.

All I did was answer one of your questions.

I think I’ll let you keep making stuff up about me.

After all, you’ve already admitted to intentionally misrepresenting my words.

And I can’t stop you from saying whatever you want, even if it is utter nonsense.

You can't justify your acts of outrageous lying.

But you will continue to do it.

Because that's the only way for you to feel more comfortable and less miserable.

Now go and type a new portion of excuses.

No doubt you'll do it. I'll observe it with some popcorn.

[Ruthless-RKO]

It's not hard to say or write,

"I thought [insert name] won the fight."

[Enlightened-One]

It's not hard to say or write,

"I thought [insert name] won the fight."

I did.

[Ruthless-RKO]

Here's your post. Unedited.

I watched the fight live, in a drunken stupor with friends, so I didn't score each round and was briefly distracted at times.

My gut instinct told me that Canelo did well during the early and late stages of the contest, with GGG gaining the winning momentum during the middle rounds.

I didn't agree with the scoring of the Box-Nation commentators for at least two rounds, so I had the bout very close, with perhaps Golovkin shading it by a small margin.

Some rounds were very hard to score, since it depended on personal stylistic preference, such as workrate and aggression versus a skilful defence and sporadic eye-catching punch combinations.

It seemed impossible for me to award more than eight rounds to either fighter.

So it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few people that thought that Canelo deserved to win.

However, it didn't surprise me to read Chris Mannix published a tweet stating that the vast majority of the media scored the bout either as a draw or gave it to GGG by a two point margin.

You're adding words like 'perhaps' and 'shading'.

Are you saying you think Golovkin won the first fight? yes or no?

Did you score it? What was your score?

[Enlightened-One]

Here's your post. Unedited.

I watched the fight live, in a drunken stupor with friends, so I didn't score each round and was briefly distracted at times.

My gut instinct told me that Canelo did well during the early and late stages of the contest, with GGG gaining the winning momentum during the middle rounds.

I didn't agree with the scoring of the Box-Nation commentators for at least two rounds, so I had the bout very close, with perhaps Golovkin shading it by a small margin.

Some rounds were very hard to score, since it depended on personal stylistic preference, such as workrate and aggression versus a skilful defence and sporadic eye-catching punch combinations.

It seemed impossible for me to award more than eight rounds to either fighter.

So it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few people that thought that Canelo deserved to win.

However, it didn't surprise me to read Chris Mannix published a tweet stating that the vast majority of the media scored the bout either as a draw or gave it to GGG by a two point margin.

You're adding words like 'perhaps' and 'shading'.

Are you saying you think Golovkin won the first fight? yes or no?

Did you score it? What was your score?

My response you quoted was clear.

You're pretending it wasn't.

Read my other posts in this thread.

[Ruthless-RKO]

Here's your post. Unedited.

I watched the fight live, in a drunken stupor with friends, so I didn't score each round and was briefly distracted at times.

My gut instinct told me that Canelo did well during the early and late stages of the contest, with GGG gaining the winning momentum during the middle rounds.

I didn't agree with the scoring of the Box-Nation commentators for at least two rounds, so I had the bout very close, with perhaps Golovkin shading it by a small margin.

Some rounds were very hard to score, since it depended on personal stylistic preference, such as workrate and aggression versus a skilful defence and sporadic eye-catching punch combinations.

It seemed impossible for me to award more than eight rounds to either fighter.

So it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few people that thought that Canelo deserved to win.

However, it didn't surprise me to read Chris Mannix published a tweet stating that the vast majority of the media scored the bout either as a draw or gave it to GGG by a two point margin.

You're adding words like 'perhaps' and 'shading'.

Are you saying you think Golovkin won the first fight? yes or no?

Did you score it? What was your score?

My response you quoted was clear.

You're pretending it wasn't.

Read my other posts in this thread.

It’s not hard to type out again is it? Or is it?

[Enlightened-One]

Here's your post. Unedited.



You're adding words like 'perhaps' and 'shading'.

Are you saying you think Golovkin won the first fight? yes or no?

Did you score it? What was your score?

My response you quoted was clear.

You're pretending it wasn't.

Read my other posts in this thread.

It’s not hard to type out again is it? Or is it?

You’re asking me to repeat myself, without showing me the courtesy of expending any effort to read any of my previous comments on the matter.

Whenever you ask me to do something, do you really expect me to just do it, like an obedient dog?

I’ve already answered the questions you posed.

You’ve even quoted some of my answers.

[Thomastearns]

Unless we want to put it to the vote, the consensus seems to be that Golovkin won both bouts with the second one being considerably closer.

Many said they were happy with it being called a draw whilst some felt Canelo actually did enough to take the belts off the long time champion.

I thought GGG edged the second but I'd understand a draw verdict.

What I didn't understand is how Canelo got away with yet another robbery.

Ah but that was back then. Nowadays a clearer picture of how top level boxing operates leaves me now wondering how GGG escaped with a draw the first time.

No messing about in the second bout, none of your Adalaide Byrde hallucinations, seasoned 'pro judges' Dave Moretti and Steve Weisfeld, both scored the bout 115-113.

The third judge, Glenn Fieldman did his duty also by trying to introduce a veneer of respectability into this steal/business transaction by scoring it 114-114.

Not the smoothest of operations, but not bad.
Give yourselves a pat on the back NSAC/ Sin City - T Mobile/ WBC/ GB / various promotional and network bodies/ and the more modest unnamed enablers etc.

$120 million gross more than justified the outside the ring risk v reward gamble of the various participants.

A most splendid production. Congrats to all, Cameron Mackintosh himself would be impressed.

[Bard of Boxrec]

EO, do you ever wonder if so many people on Boxrec constantly taking exception to the things you say might reflect more on you than everyone else?

Or do you genuinely think it's everyone else that must be wrong?

Seems like a funny way to look at the world old boy! Some humility at times wouldn't go amiss. Might earn you a bit more respect, which you seem to crave

[oogiebe]

EO, do you ever wonder if so many people on Boxrec constantly taking exception to the things you say might reflect more on you than everyone else?

Or do you genuinely think it's everyone else that must be wrong?

Seems like a funny way to look at the world old boy! Some humility at times wouldn't go amiss. Might earn you a bit more respect, which you seem to crave

Nah, we're all dishonest and he's god.

[Enlightened-One]

EO, do you ever wonder if so many people on Boxrec constantly taking exception to the things you say might reflect more on you than everyone else?

Or do you genuinely think it's everyone else that must be wrong?

Admittedly, it’s partially my own fault, because I usually anticipate the resulting furore whenever I quote inconvenient and irrefutable truths that are likely to offend fiercely loyal die-hard fans.

I really enjoy discussing provocative and controversial subject matters. The only alternative is to become a Lemming, join the herd and exist in an echo chamber.

That said, I do try to tread carefully, by predominantly sticking to the facts instead of citing personal opinions, because it would only serve to weaken the point I’m trying to convey.

It’s obviously far easier to attack and discredit someone’s personal opinions about subjective matters, rather than objective truths of reality that cannot possibly be misinterpreted.

However, I do feel that people over-react and are far too sensitive, compelling them to resort to insults out of sheer frustration about the accuracy of my claims, which means I cannot shoulder the entire blame for any heated discussions.

After all, facts don’t care about feelings!

Seems like a funny way to look at the world old boy! Some humility at times wouldn't go amiss. Might earn you a bit more respect, which you seem to crave

To be fair, I’m one of the few people that frequents this forum that admits to being wrong on occasion. And I’ve regularly apologised. It’s also extremely rare for me to “throw the first stone”, because it’s usually others that resort to personal attacks.

The thing is though, people accuse me of being a GGG “hater”, but nobody can actually quote any of my posts that are either factually-inaccurate or particularly derogatory in nature.

There’s not a single human being alive today capable of providing any proof of my alleged "hatred" of GGG.

And to be fair, whilst we rarely see eye-to-eye, do you really expect me to apologise for something I haven’t actually done? How does the word “humility” apply to someone in that situation?

[Counter-puncher]

I watched the fight live, in a drunken stupor

any individuals, like me, that perform research, by reviewing all the evidence, and independently drawing conclusions

What an interesting method of performing research, reviewing evidence and drawing conclusions.

it's radical stuff, known only to a very select few

[Bard of Boxrec]

EO, do you ever wonder if so many people on Boxrec constantly taking exception to the things you say might reflect more on you than everyone else?

Or do you genuinely think it's everyone else that must be wrong?

Admittedly, it’s partially my own fault, because I usually anticipate the resulting furore whenever I quote inconvenient and irrefutable truths that are likely to offend fiercely loyal die-hard fans.

I really enjoy discussing provocative and controversial subject matters. The only alternative is to become a Lemming, join the herd and exist in an echo chamber.

That said, I do try to tread carefully, by predominantly sticking to the facts instead of citing personal opinions, because it would only serve to weaken the point I’m trying to convey.

It’s obviously far easier to attack and discredit someone’s personal opinions about subjective matters, rather than objective truths of reality that cannot possibly be misinterpreted.

However, I do feel that people over-react and are far too sensitive, compelling them to resort to insults out of sheer frustration about the accuracy of my claims, which means I cannot shoulder the entire blame for any heated discussions.

After all, facts don’t care about feelings!

Seems like a funny way to look at the world old boy! Some humility at times wouldn't go amiss. Might earn you a bit more respect, which you seem to crave

To be fair, I’m one of the few people that frequents this forum that admits to being wrong on occasion. And I’ve regularly apologised. It’s also extremely rare for me to “throw the first stone”, because it’s usually others that resort to personal attacks.

The thing is though, people accuse me of being a GGG “hater”, but nobody can actually quote any of my posts that are either factually-inaccurate or particularly derogatory in nature.

There’s not a single human being alive today capable of providing any proof of my alleged "hatred" of GGG.

And to be fair, whilst we rarely see eye-to-eye, do you really expect me to apologise for something I haven’t actually done? How does the word “humility” apply to someone in that situation?

Ok, so you believe it’s USUALLY everyone else who’s wrong and not you. Got it