BoxRec

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑16 Sep 2018, 12:53 I just wish Hagler was around to beat the living sh!t out of Álvarez

<3

Don't we all mate, don't we all.

Here is a video of the fight gloriously free of commentary--you will need your ad blocker on though! Canelo seems a clear winner to me, I really don't get the controversy. Those who haven't seen it can make their own mind up though.

Must commend Golovkin's chin. It's rare to find a puncher who can take what he dishes out.

The fight was a delight to watch, such a shame these two only don the gloves once or twice a year. I miss active champs!

Tuan_Jim wrote: ↑16 Sep 2018, 13:15 Here is a video of the fight gloriously free of commentary--you will need your ad blocker on though! Canelo seems a clear winner to me, I really don't get the controversy. Those who haven't seen it can make their own mind up though.

Must commend Golovkin's chin. It's rare to find a puncher who can take what he dishes out.

The fight was a delight to watch, such a shame these two only don the gloves once or twice a year. I miss active champs!

Perhaps the commentary added to the controversy. I watched it with 5 or 6 folk last night so couldn't really hear it. At some point after the 6th i heard Barry Jones say he had Golovkin in front and i thought what the F is he smoking.

Tuan_Jim wrote: ↑16 Sep 2018, 13:15 Here is a video of the fight gloriously free of commentary--you will need your ad blocker on though! Canelo seems a clear winner to me, I really don't get the controversy. Those who haven't seen it can make their own mind up though.

Must commend Golovkin's chin. It's rare to find a puncher who can take what he dishes out.

The fight was a delight to watch, such a shame these two only don the gloves once or twice a year. I miss active champs!

It's free of video footage too.

Tuan_Jim wrote: ↑16 Sep 2018, 13:15 Here is a video of the fight gloriously free of commentary--you will need your ad blocker on though! Canelo seems a clear winner to me, I really don't get the controversy. Those who haven't seen it can make their own mind up though.

Must commend Golovkin's chin. It's rare to find a puncher who can take what he dishes out.

The fight was a delight to watch, such a shame these two only don the gloves once or twice a year. I miss active champs!

Don't see controversy at all. Had it 116-112 to canelo

RKY wrote: ↑16 Sep 2018, 13:23

Tuan_Jim wrote: ↑16 Sep 2018, 13:15 Here is a video of the fight gloriously free of commentary--you will need your ad blocker on though! Canelo seems a clear winner to me, I really don't get the controversy. Those who haven't seen it can make their own mind up though.

Must commend Golovkin's chin. It's rare to find a puncher who can take what he dishes out.

The fight was a delight to watch, such a shame these two only don the gloves once or twice a year. I miss active champs!

Perhaps the commentary added to the controversy. I watched it with 5 or 6 folk last night so couldn't really hear it. At some point after the 6th i heard Barry Jones say he had Golovkin in front and i thought what the F is he smoking.

I heard one of them say after 5 rounds they GGG 4-1 up? I thought no way was he 4-1 up. It was a close fight and i thought GGG done enough to win,canelo did brilliant and took some heavy shots and kept walking forward,he opened up my eyes last night to how good he is and solid his chin is,but still think GGG won by 3 rounds

Alvarez is high level but he's so clearly juiced its silly.

Datsue wrote: ↑16 Sep 2018, 12:43

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑16 Sep 2018, 12:40 , as he didn't have to wear that horrific 'special' WBC belt.

Oh eff, I turned it off after the decision & didn't get to see that, so I've just stuck it into image search! Bleurgh!

Christ on a bike the WBC's design department must be run by an actual blind person.

Why are all their belts so fuckin' ugly?

To be fair.. they have made some decent looking belts too. The speciap belt for the first fight was nice.

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑16 Sep 2018, 16:35

To be fair.. they have made some decent looking belts too. The speciap belt for the first fight was nice.

This one?





Looks like one of those Afghan War Rugs where cultural signifiers get confused & distorted because they've been interpreted by people who don't understand the context, to me.

https://rugsofwar.wordpress.com/

Crossed with those patterns you get on the inside of your eyes during a fuckin' migraine, like.

They've lost the plot. Their green belt is the most recognised in boxing, no need to mess about with that instantly recognisable brand.

Datsue wrote: ↑16 Sep 2018, 16:47

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑16 Sep 2018, 16:35

To be fair.. they have made some decent looking belts too. The speciap belt for the first fight was nice.

This one?





Looks like one of those Afghan War Rugs where cultural signifiers get confused & distorted because they've been interpreted by people who don't understand the context, to me.

https://rugsofwar.wordpress.com/

Crossed with those patterns you get on the inside of your eyes during a fuckin' migraine, like.

Cant see the pic.

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑16 Sep 2018, 17:10

Datsue wrote: ↑16 Sep 2018, 16:47

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑16 Sep 2018, 16:35

To be fair.. they have made some decent looking belts too. The speciap belt for the first fight was nice.

This one?





Looks like one of those Afghan War Rugs where cultural signifiers get confused & distorted because they've been interpreted by people who don't understand the context, to me.

https://rugsofwar.wordpress.com/

Crossed with those patterns you get on the inside of your eyes during a fuckin' migraine, like.

Cant see the pic.

Count yourself lucky, it’s horrific.

I guess you could use it to teach your kids about different flags? Not good for nowt else.

I had GGG winning by 4 or 5 rounds. Great competitive fight throughout but for me GGG was consistently outlanding with the cleaner shots in the majority of the rounds. Plus he wobbled Canelo in a couple of them but with Canelo firing back. Both have great chins and are very well matched. A third fight is inevitable.

Didn't expect Golovkin to out-box him quite so comprehensively. But Alvarez didn't stop putting on the pressure and clearly wore Golovkin down. Alvarez really improved (likely new drugs) and Golovkin has declined.

Bad result for the sport. Alvarez will likely "marinate" any more big fights for a while.


I scored it 7-4-1. Some close rounds in there but I struggle to give Alvarez a draw.

Both guys put up a terrific effort and the fight was razor thin in action. I do think Golovkin nicked most of the close rounds though with his jab + heavy shots mixed in. I scored it 8-4.

I have to give massive credit to Alvarez, controlled centre of the ring for much longer than I expected he could, took some huge shots and landed some very nice shots himself. He had Glolovkin in a lot of bother, he seemed to be blowing out of his arse around mid way and started to lose his usually rock solid stance.

But you have to feel for Glolovkin. The effort he put up to take over the fight when he was beginning to look ragged was immense, and for that to be in vain due to the scoring must have been heartbreaking. Not sure he can go to the well like that again, and expect him to lose if they have a third fight.

I had it even, but so many close rounds. I felt Alvarez shots looked sharper, cleaner and more precise which had me disagree with Barry Jones on a lot of early rounds.

TheLeprechaun wrote: ↑16 Sep 2018, 11:48

Coco wrote: ↑16 Sep 2018, 10:24 So there will now be a guaranteed 3rd fight, a decision for GGG next time will guarantee a 4th fight.
For me despite being some debatable rounds, the last round was clear and 2 judges gave it to Canelo!
With this round in the bank for GGG it would have been another draw.

I don't see how anyone can give the last round to GGG. One of the clearest canelo rounds in the entire fight.

It was canelos most dominant round.

I had GGG wining by 115-113. Had 8 of the rounds as clear, 4 close with a 2-2 split in close rounds. GGG won both fights IMO, both guys are very good and it was a quality fight but for me they are a rung below the very best post war Middleweights.

I think boxing has a serious problem where scoring is concerned, it needs to be clarified exactly how rounds are scored.

Effective aggression is supposed to include clean punching, - but it seems landing a few flashy shots during a round, wins you that round.

I was told by an esteemed boxing judge of some standing Jerry Roth, that the clearest way he found to score rounds, was divide them up into 3 separate minutes, and judge them indepdently, and score a winner, and then use that

In far too many rounds, Canelo would only really dominate 1 minute of the round, but Golovkin would consistently land jabs and straight right hands throughout the full 3 minutes.

You are not supposed to give someone rounds for landing a handful of 'big' shots in a round, particularly when said shots have no discernible effect

I commend Canelo for standing his ground more in this fight, and even trying to bully GGG, but he was hit far too often in doing so, and wasn't able to put a dent in GGG at all.

Both men are great fighters, despite his poor record for cheating, Canelo is an excellent fighter, but for me, he was outboxed quite clearly in both fights, and particularly in the 2nd. He has one hell of a chin though, he took some monstrous shots from GGG and despite looking hurt in round 10(I think it was) recovered very quickly.

I just don't understand what judging criteria is being used, and how the judges are arriving at their decisions, are they simply going by instinct and what they remember as being the highlights of the round, because that is how it seems to me. You have to give credence to a guy who is consistently tagging his opponent because ultimately clean shots landed is the first and most important category. You shouldn't be rewarded for taking ring centre if you're coming off worst in the exchanges overall, because that isn't effective aggression. If someone fights off the back foot and controls the fight, they should also not be penalised for that.

Ultimately, I think the scoring criteria for boxing needs demystifying, and also we need a new scoring system that allows for 10-8 rounds to be scored for rounds where a fighter clearly dominates, and perhaps also reduce the importance of knockdowns.

And lastly - that eye - I have NEVER seen a gash that big, that didn't bleed, he had a fornicating muff on his eye, and not a single trickle of blood, by the end. Something very fishy about that, adrenalin doesn't stop bleeding like that, anyway, that's an aside.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: ↑17 Sep 2018, 08:14 And lastly - that eye - I have NEVER seen a gash that big, that didn't bleed, he had a effing muff on his eye, and not a single trickle of blood, by the end. Something very fishy about that, adrenalin doesn't stop bleeding like that, anyway, that's an aside.

Might have been cement.

Datsue wrote: ↑16 Sep 2018, 16:47

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑16 Sep 2018, 16:35

To be fair.. they have made some decent looking belts too. The speciap belt for the first fight was nice.

This one?





Looks like one of those Afghan War Rugs where cultural signifiers get confused & distorted because they've been interpreted by people who don't understand the context, to me.

https://rugsofwar.wordpress.com/

Crossed with those patterns you get on the inside of your eyes during a fuckin' migraine, like.

What a fascinating article, ill enjoy reading that.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: ↑17 Sep 2018, 08:14 I think boxing has a serious problem where scoring is concerned, it needs to be clarified exactly how rounds are scored.

Effective aggression is supposed to include clean punching, - but it seems landing a few flashy shots during a round, wins you that round.

I was told by an esteemed boxing judge of some standing Jerry Roth, that the clearest way he found to score rounds, was divide them up into 3 separate minutes, and judge them indepdently, and score a winner, and then use that

In far too many rounds, Canelo would only really dominate 1 minute of the round, but Golovkin would consistently land jabs and straight right hands throughout the full 3 minutes.

You are not supposed to give someone rounds for landing a handful of 'big' shots in a round, particularly when said shots have no discernible effect

I commend Canelo for standing his ground more in this fight, and even trying to bully GGG, but he was hit far too often in doing so, and wasn't able to put a dent in GGG at all.

Both men are great fighters, despite his poor record for cheating, Canelo is an excellent fighter, but for me, he was outboxed quite clearly in both fights, and particularly in the 2nd. He has one hell of a chin though, he took some monstrous shots from GGG and despite looking hurt in round 10(I think it was) recovered very quickly.

I just don't understand what judging criteria is being used, and how the judges are arriving at their decisions, are they simply going by instinct and what they remember as being the highlights of the round, because that is how it seems to me. You have to give credence to a guy who is consistently tagging his opponent because ultimately clean shots landed is the first and most important category. You shouldn't be rewarded for taking ring centre if you're coming off worst in the exchanges overall, because that isn't effective aggression. If someone fights off the back foot and controls the fight, they should also not be penalised for that.

Ultimately, I think the scoring criteria for boxing needs demystifying, and also we need a new scoring system that allows for 10-8 rounds to be scored for rounds where a fighter clearly dominates, and perhaps also reduce the importance of knockdowns.

And lastly - that eye - I have NEVER seen a gash that big, that didn't bleed, he had a effing muff on his eye, and not a single trickle of blood, by the end. Something very fishy about that, adrenalin doesn't stop bleeding like that, anyway, that's an aside.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: ↑17 Sep 2018, 08:14 I think boxing has a serious problem where scoring is concerned, it needs to be clarified exactly how rounds are scored.

Effective aggression is supposed to include clean punching, - but it seems landing a few flashy shots during a round, wins you that round.

I was told by an esteemed boxing judge of some standing Jerry Roth, that the clearest way he found to score rounds, was divide them up into 3 separate minutes, and judge them indepdently, and score a winner, and then use that

In far too many rounds, Canelo would only really dominate 1 minute of the round, but Golovkin would consistently land jabs and straight right hands throughout the full 3 minutes.

You are not supposed to give someone rounds for landing a handful of 'big' shots in a round, particularly when said shots have no discernible effect

I commend Canelo for standing his ground more in this fight, and even trying to bully GGG, but he was hit far too often in doing so, and wasn't able to put a dent in GGG at all.

Both men are great fighters, despite his poor record for cheating, Canelo is an excellent fighter, but for me, he was outboxed quite clearly in both fights, and particularly in the 2nd. He has one hell of a chin though, he took some monstrous shots from GGG and despite looking hurt in round 10(I think it was) recovered very quickly.

I just don't understand what judging criteria is being used, and how the judges are arriving at their decisions, are they simply going by instinct and what they remember as being the highlights of the round, because that is how it seems to me. You have to give credence to a guy who is consistently tagging his opponent because ultimately clean shots landed is the first and most important category. You shouldn't be rewarded for taking ring centre if you're coming off worst in the exchanges overall, because that isn't effective aggression. If someone fights off the back foot and controls the fight, they should also not be penalised for that.

Ultimately, I think the scoring criteria for boxing needs demystifying, and also we need a new scoring system that allows for 10-8 rounds to be scored for rounds where a fighter clearly dominates, and perhaps also reduce the importance of knockdowns.

And lastly - that eye - I have NEVER seen a gash that big, that didn't bleed, he had a effing muff on his eye, and not a single trickle of blood, by the end. Something very fishy about that, adrenalin doesn't stop bleeding like that, anyway, that's an aside.

Excellent post. I, like many others, thought GGG won fairly comfortably. I can only see the decisions in both fights as nothing more than bias towards Canelo because he is the Vegas cash cow. I think it is basically impossible for GGG to win a decision over Canelo in Vegas no matter how dominant he is because the judges will find some way of seeing what Canelo does as more effective than GGG regardless of reality.

In the first fight, GGG boxed almost totally off the front foot, being the constant aggressor, winning the battle of the jabs, outlanding Canelo and throwing more punches. In the second fight GGG boxed more off the back foot but again dominated with the jab, threw more punches and landed more punches. What is the guy actually supposed to do to win the fight other than throw more and land more especially where there are no knockdowns?

I think one of the problems is that GGG doesn't get enough credit for using that ramrod job effectively. Canelo's flurries (lots of which landed on the gloves and arms) should not be scored in favour of more than GGG jabs which seemed to get through at will.

I genuinely have no idea what fight the judges were watching in either bout but the whole thing has left a very bitter taste in my mouth and I have no real desire to see a third fight where the outcome would almost certainly be the same regardless of how the fight goes.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: ↑17 Sep 2018, 08:14 I was told by an esteemed boxing judge of some standing Jerry Roth, that the clearest way he found to score rounds, was divide them up into 3 separate minutes, and judge them indepdently, and score a winner, and then use that

I find it easier to divide each round into 180 separate seconds and judge the winner of each independently, then sum and use that. Simples.