Mayweather vs Alvarez card

[palooka]

That there is anyone that can make a case for Alvarez winning that bout or can be sympathetic toward the judge who scored a draw is really incredible, Mayweather won 10 of the rounds and didn't look to have even had to get out of second gear - Alvarez would not beat Mayweather if they boxed 100 times - he is too basic; and, without meaning to be inflamatory or disrespectful - I don't think that he showed a great deal of cojones, some of the Mexican legends must have watched that and willed him to at least engage and go for it; he didn't in a massive bout.

[JCS]

I gave 2, 4, and 12 to Canelo. There was another one I almost went Canelo.... maybe 5? 6? Can't remember.

[palooka]

I can see 4 rounds at most for Canelo. But you would really have to give him the benefit of the doubt on the close rounds. A draw is absurd. We don't need training to see that. Hell, even Canelo knew he blew the fight.

Canelo knew he was blowing the bout while it was happening; he didn't have the nerve to go for broke for fear of getting dropped, if he were hurting Floyd more than Floyd was hurting him then he'd have gone for a win instead of to survive and lose wide on points.

[JCS]

Judge of the year award: marcianofan
Runner-Up: CJ Ross

[Bobbyptsd]

Did Marciano really have Floyd winning two rounds?

God God almighty.

[palooka]

Did Marciano really have Floyd winning two rounds?

God God almighty.

Apparently he is going to be a boxing judge :(

[JCS]

Did Marciano really have Floyd winning two rounds?

God God almighty.

He had him winning 5, but he could see 2 being at the boundary of what is reasonable.

[Bobbyptsd]

Did Marciano really have Floyd winning two rounds?

God God almighty.

Apparently he is going to be a boxing judge :(

Get out of here, now I know you guys are pulling my leg, he's ridiculously biased.

I mean it's like comedy, if you told me he was getting his own sitcom, I'd be more likely to believe you.

[palooka]

Did Marciano really have Floyd winning two rounds?

God God almighty.

Apparently he is going to be a boxing judge :(

Get out of here, now I know you guys are pulling my leg, he's ridiculously biased.

I mean it's like comedy, if you told me he was getting his own sitcom, I'd be more likely to believe you.

Sorry Bobby, it's true, though he's still in training

[JCS]

Did Marciano really have Floyd winning two rounds?

God God almighty.

Apparently he is going to be a boxing judge :(

Get out of here, now I know you guys are pulling my leg, he's ridiculously biased.

I mean it's like comedy, if you told me he was getting his own sitcom, I'd be more likely to believe you.

His Adamek/Cunningham card was pretty atrocious if I recall.. Nevermind, it was just his philosophy that was rank.

[Bobbyptsd]

He doesn't need training, he needs fights to be broadcast in brail.

[palooka]

He needs to be shown a different sport

[sockdolager]

Seriously guys, watch the fight without the Showtime commentary before you call for her head on this one. I bet most of you have cards that are compatible with what I saw, but at least half the rounds were entirely open to debate based on subjective judging philosophy. It made it really easy to think the result was self-evident when the broadcasters basically assumed that Floyd won every round, though.

I did, saw the Brittish stream and they were all but rooting for Alvarez. Still saw it clearly for Floyd. I had it 117-111.

[ReggieDiggs]

Your "margin of error" is way off if you think Canelo won more rounds clearly than Floyd did.

[marcianofan]

His Adamek/Cunningham card was pretty atrocious if I recall.. Nevermind, it was just his philosophy that was rank.

116-112 Cunningham. And what didn't you like about my philosophy, pray tell?

[marcianofan]

Your "margin of error" is way off if you think Canelo won more rounds clearly than Floyd did.

I'll watch it again sometime today. I had scored two other entire cards before the PPV went on the air, so there's a chance my eyes were glazing over a bit by then...especially after the exhausting effort required to accurately score Smith-Molina. Trust me, if I was wrong I want to know it, but I'm also not going to say I'm wrong just because you all say so.

[marcianofan]

I really don't have a problem with the way you score fights, it's when you imply that you are the only one that knows what's REALLY going on that gets annoying.

I apologize. I'm sure I would find that annoying as well. I do have a lot of confidence in my scoring, and generally (as I've been criticized for in this case) I make notations in individual rounds when I thought it could go either way, so I tend to be tolerant of cards different from mine that I can understand. So when I see a card that I can't understand, I do get pretty disdainful of it.

I just realized that while I started this post intending to rationalize a way we could all get along, it occurred to me that I probably am as arrogant as you say, and it's probably not going to change. When I see a card that I think is defective, there's really no getting around saying so unless I just don't give my opinion at all, which kinda defeats the purpose of this board. And if you read the last few pages here, you'll find that nobody here is all that shy about even personally insulting me when they disagree with my card. I'd like to think that my approach is a little less offensive than that, at least. I don't know anything about anyone on here. I don't even memorize who I argue with about what, because for me it's about the opinions, and that gets obscured when you're beefing with individual posters. If I'm condescending when talking about scoring, it's nothing personal. It means I think you're clearly wrong, and you probably feel the same. Maybe you know better, but you're going to have to come with some credentials to convince me that I should credit your opinion more than my own eyes. If Musashi (a regular poster who is also a licensed judge) tells me I'm crazy, I will look seriously at that possibility. Just some random poster? Not so much. I've seen too many people that just kinda passively watch a round and then score based on their overall impression. Suuuuper prone to error and commentary bias. Now since it's like 15-1 in terms of people that think I'm crazy and people that don't on here on this one, it's worth a re-watch, but at the moment I still trust what I saw more than what 15 randoms saw. But that might change. If there's one thing I care about more than pride in my judging, it's truth.

[JCS]

His Adamek/Cunningham card was pretty atrocious if I recall.. Nevermind, it was just his philosophy that was rank.

116-112 Cunningham. And what didn't you like about my philosophy, pray tell?

See Detroit's reply, that pretty much sums it up. It wasn't your scorecard in that fight which was atrocious, I was wrong. It was your stance you took against those who disagreed with you, even slightly. We were 1 round apart on that fight, and you stated that anything closer than 116-112 was basically absurd. Though, given your homegrown standard deviation of sorts in this fight, I gather your philosophy did a total 180.

[gilgamesh]

I really don't have a problem with the way you score fights, it's when you imply that you are the only one that knows what's REALLY going on that gets annoying.

I apologize. I'm sure I would find that annoying as well. I do have a lot of confidence in my scoring, and generally (as I've been criticized for in this case) I make notations in individual rounds when I thought it could go either way, so I tend to be tolerant of cards different from mine that I can understand. So when I see a card that I can't understand, I do get pretty disdainful of it.

I just realized that while I started this post intending to rationalize a way we could all get along, it occurred to me that I probably am as arrogant as you say, and it's probably not going to change. When I see a card that I think is defective, there's really no getting around saying so unless I just don't give my opinion at all, which kinda defeats the purpose of this board. And if you read the last few pages here, you'll find that nobody here is all that shy about even personally insulting me when they disagree with my card. I'd like to think that my approach is a little less offensive than that, at least. I don't know anything about anyone on here. I don't even memorize who I argue with about what, because for me it's about the opinions, and that gets obscured when you're beefing with individual posters. If I'm condescending when talking about scoring, it's nothing personal. It means I think you're clearly wrong, and you probably feel the same. Maybe you know better, but you're going to have to come with some credentials to convince me that I should credit your opinion more than my own eyes. If Musashi (a regular poster who is also a licensed judge) tells me I'm crazy, I will look seriously at that possibility. Just some random poster? Not so much. I've seen too many people that just kinda passively watch a round and then score based on their overall impression. Suuuuper prone to error and commentary bias. Now since it's like 15-1 in terms of people that think I'm crazy and people that don't on here on this one, it's worth a re-watch, but at the moment I still trust what I saw more than what 15 randoms saw. But that might change. If there's one thing I care about more than pride in my judging, it's truth.

Well then truthfully, you need to learn how to judge better. That way you'd actually have something to be proud of.

[JCS]

I really don't have a problem with the way you score fights, it's when you imply that you are the only one that knows what's REALLY going on that gets annoying.

I apologize. I'm sure I would find that annoying as well. I do have a lot of confidence in my scoring, and generally (as I've been criticized for in this case) I make notations in individual rounds when I thought it could go either way, so I tend to be tolerant of cards different from mine that I can understand. So when I see a card that I can't understand, I do get pretty disdainful of it.

I just realized that while I started this post intending to rationalize a way we could all get along, it occurred to me that I probably am as arrogant as you say, and it's probably not going to change. When I see a card that I think is defective, there's really no getting around saying so unless I just don't give my opinion at all, which kinda defeats the purpose of this board. And if you read the last few pages here, you'll find that nobody here is all that shy about even personally insulting me when they disagree with my card. I'd like to think that my approach is a little less offensive than that, at least. I don't know anything about anyone on here. I don't even memorize who I argue with about what, because for me it's about the opinions, and that gets obscured when you're beefing with individual posters. If I'm condescending when talking about scoring, it's nothing personal. It means I think you're clearly wrong, and you probably feel the same. Maybe you know better, but you're going to have to come with some credentials to convince me that I should credit your opinion more than my own eyes. If Musashi (a regular poster who is also a licensed judge) tells me I'm crazy, I will look seriously at that possibility. Just some random poster? Not so much. I've seen too many people that just kinda passively watch a round and then score based on their overall impression. Suuuuper prone to error and commentary bias. Now since it's like 15-1 in terms of people that think I'm crazy and people that don't on here on this one, it's worth a re-watch, but at the moment I still trust what I saw more than what 15 randoms saw. But that might change. If there's one thing I care about more than pride in my judging, it's truth.

Well then truthfully, you need to learn how to judge better. That way you'd actually have something to be proud of.

We're just "randoms"... you are just wasting your time.

[marcianofan]

His Adamek/Cunningham card was pretty atrocious if I recall.. Nevermind, it was just his philosophy that was rank.

116-112 Cunningham. And what didn't you like about my philosophy, pray tell?

See Detroit's reply, that pretty much sums it up. It wasn't your scorecard in that fight which was atrocious, I was wrong. It was your stance you took against those who disagreed with you, even slightly. We were 1 round apart on that fight, and you stated that anything closer than 116-112 was basically absurd. Though, given your homegrown standard deviation of sorts in this fight, I gather your philosophy did a total 180.

Nah, same philosophy...I had just already given Adamek all the close rounds in reaching that score.

[marcianofan]

We're just "randoms"... you are just wasting your time.

Nothing inherently wrong with being a random. Maybe there's a Chuck Giampa and a John Poturaj among you. It's just that I have no reason to believe that, and thus no reason to believe I should trust you over my own eyes, even in numbers.

[Bobbyptsd]

I find, as a general rule of thumb, if a large majority of people see it opposite to the way I do, I probably missed something. I'd like to think that while not exceptionally smart, I'm smart enough to know that I can use other people's intelligence as a resource also.

I'd like to think that humility would be part of being a judge, not: "I'm right because I see the special truth which you can't". That leads to this weird exceptionalist way of looking at things, and one often cannot see the light for having their head......well...

[marcianofan]

I find, as a general rule of thumb, if a large majority of people see it opposite to the way I do, I probably missed something. I'd like to think that while not exceptionally smart, I'm smart enough to know that I can use other people's intelligence as a resource also.

I'd like to think that humility would be part of being a judge, not: "I'm right because I see the special truth which you can't". That leads to this weird exceptionalist way of looking at things, and one often cannot see the light for having their head......well...

My trust in my own eyes does only goes so far. I am going to watch it again, and will let you know if I'm moved by the experience.

[Evander]

Excellent performance from Floyd Mayweather.
Floyds positioning was outstanding, he's patient professional and looks for openings at every opportunity.
His jab was good, the left hook,straight right hands and bodyshots showed how versatile he is and just what he can do.
He never seemed to wilt at the pace or have a problem taking a shot, his conditioning is almost legendary.
Floyds defence and in particular his blocking was incredible, he really does have the boxing patent down.
Floyd looked prepared for a confrontation,times he would back off but then slip to the side to initiate a new rally, he was always around and couldn't be accused of running.
If to underline the dominance of Floyd Mayweather look no further than Canelo's right hand to the ropes and Mayweather's reaction toward the end of the 11th round.

There were a few rounds that Canelo may have taken but it's being very generous, a noteworthy effort but he was out boxed by a vastly superior fighter.
Canelo's bodyshots never played a significant role in his game plan because they were thrown from the outside, they are point scorers but do little damage in wearing down an opponent unless you get lucky with one shot.
As it approached the middle rounds Canelo was warned at least twice, one each for a low blow and shoulder jump as some frustration was beginning to boil, perhaps the realization of being out boxed was dawning on him.
The boxing match was done in 5 rounds and the points were done in 7, I had a feeling we were going through the motions.
Canelo didn't take too much punishment that will affect his career, it had been mentioned that this fight was a few years too early, if so the best or most exciting parts of Canelo Alvarez are yet to come.

Floyd is a made guy and has progressed to a point where he can be included in serious comparisons between greats of the past.
He has now put more than enough ground between himself and anyone else in the sport and has strengthened his P4P Number 1 position.

Floyd Mayweather was superb.