Boy, talk about some foreshadowing...http://nypost.com/2017/09/16/one-judge-could-tip-scale-toward-alvarez-in-bout-vs-golovkin/
GGG vs Canelo
- Thread starter Nole Lou
- Start date
Nice fight. I've got no problem with the draw, but Adelaide Byrd's card is, once again, indefensible.
I had it 7-5 for GGG. Gave 1-3 and 11-12 to Canelo. I think giving Canelo 10 as well, for a draw, is perfectly reasonable. I think you can make the case Canelo won the first three and last three.
It would also be reasonable to give GGG round 1 and 10 as well for an 8-4 victory.
I think I have a hard time seeing a way to a Canelo win though, let alone 118-112.
It's one of those fights where one guy won his rounds very close, and the other guy won his big. In boxing, you can win six rounds by a nostril hair, and get thoroughly dominated for six rounds, and congrats, you got a draw. Just the way it is and has been for ages.
I had it 7-5 for GGG. Gave 1-3 and 11-12 to Canelo. I think giving Canelo 10 as well, for a draw, is perfectly reasonable. I think you can make the case Canelo won the first three and last three.
It would also be reasonable to give GGG round 1 and 10 as well for an 8-4 victory.
I think I have a hard time seeing a way to a Canelo win though, let alone 118-112.
It's one of those fights where one guy won his rounds very close, and the other guy won his big. In boxing, you can win six rounds by a nostril hair, and get thoroughly dominated for six rounds, and congrats, you got a draw. Just the way it is and has been for ages.
I think the key to the fight was poor conditioning by Canelo. His offense was pretty good, but he could only go for about one minute a round, while GGG could go 3 minutes x 12. I think they made a miscalculation by taking Canelo up to 160 in pure muscle. I think Canelo performs better if he comes in at 157 or 158.
He just did not carry the 160 well. The Chavez fight turned out to be fools gold, because he literally didn't have to play defense at all, and he also couldn't miss Chavez with his punches. Defense and missing punches both sap a ton of energy.
He just did not carry the 160 well. The Chavez fight turned out to be fools gold, because he literally didn't have to play defense at all, and he also couldn't miss Chavez with his punches. Defense and missing punches both sap a ton of energy.
Most underrated part of this fight is just how great these guys are on defense. Extremely impressive head movement and blocking from both guys, especially for offensive minded fighters. I actually enjoyed the defense a lot. Held each other to 31-33% connect ratio, and they're both really accurate punchers normally.
Very good fight, the judge scoring will be the story that people remember about the fight though. Both fighters were evenly matched, could have gone another 3 rounds. GGG is pretty darn tough, took everything Canelo could dish out and didn't really seem phased. Canelo seemed to get rocked more by GGG than the other way around.
I was the same with regard to 7-5 or 8-4 to GGG. That said, it was very even overall. Both are very good fighters.
I'd gladly watch a rematch.
I was the same with regard to 7-5 or 8-4 to GGG. That said, it was very even overall. Both are very good fighters.
I'd gladly watch a rematch.
the major flaw being that it's a farce? If they are going to go down the $ route and go corrupt for a 2nd fight, might not want to make it so obvious with giving an 8rd win to Alvarez. Maybe just sneak by with 1 or 2....
Let's say the scoring was fixed. Did it take away from the quality of the fight? Would you not pay to see those two fight again even if there was a winner in the first fight? I don't get your sucker comment as it pertains to this particular fight.
On a lark, I googled the fight and found a live stream from TV Azteca (Mexican TV) from around the 5th round on. Did GGG dominate the first five rounds? Maybe it was the lo-res feed, but from what I saw it looked like Canelo was never in any kind of trouble and was landing the more effective shots. I think it was the 9th round where he staggered GGG pretty badly. GGG was definitely the aggressor and looked more fit, but Canelo seemed to be conserving his energy and picking his shots. I was surprised when reading twitter comments how practically everyone was shocked at the draw and felt GGG was robbed. I have no doubt he outscored Canelo on sheer number of punches, but for a guy known as a knockout puncher, and the bigger man, he never managed to connect squarely. Seemed like Canelo was able to roll away from him every time.
Canelo took first 2 rounds, came out really aggressive, GGG was more reserved.. By 5th round, they had swapped.
Scoring, so by default the fight. I'm not saying either boxer was in on something, although I'm sure someone in Alvarez's camp knew they had a judge in their back pocket. The only people that lose in a re-match are the fans, provided they actually care about the outcome or rather be entertained either way like WWE style. I find it a bit ironic the boxing elitists were banging about what a farce the Mcgregor/May fight was.
No, not even close and anyone that follows boxing would never make such a statement. I understand the statement from non boxing fans whose only view of the sport is from big events with controversial endings, but that is very small part of a great sport.
I readily admit I do not follow boxing.
I'm just amazed that so many fans of the sport complain about boxers avoiding match ups, complain about the cost of PPV, complain about the judging, complain that the fix was in, then try to convince everyone it's worth watching.
boxing fans dont complain they comment, these type of threads are littered with complaints with "event" fans who do not care what Diego De La Hoya did last night..
I am not trying to be obtuse , I understand what you are saying , just disagreeing over the usage of fan
The minute this fight went the distance, I knew GGG was going to get screwed.
I had GGG 116-112.
The one card was indefensible. The decision wasn't. A draw was not unreasonable.
People say "This is why boxing is a dying sport!" That really cracks me up.
What era of boxing did not feature dubious decisions? It's literally been part and parcel of the sport from the the days when there were no judges and the newspapers declared the winner. Not to mention decades where the mafia literally had actual contenders taking dives in exchange for cash or title shots.
People don't have to like this decision, any more than they liked the Chavez-Whitaker decision, or Leonard-Hagler, or Ali-Norton 1, or...
This is just part of what the sport is.
And this decision isn't even going to go down as a robbery.
It was a good fight, reasonable decision, well get to see it again.
People say "This is why boxing is a dying sport!" That really cracks me up.
What era of boxing did not feature dubious decisions? It's literally been part and parcel of the sport from the the days when there were no judges and the newspapers declared the winner. Not to mention decades where the mafia literally had actual contenders taking dives in exchange for cash or title shots.
People don't have to like this decision, any more than they liked the Chavez-Whitaker decision, or Leonard-Hagler, or Ali-Norton 1, or...
This is just part of what the sport is.
And this decision isn't even going to go down as a robbery.
It was a good fight, reasonable decision, well get to see it again.
You're not wrong. Canelo won at least 2 of the first 3, and could easily have won all three. Last three were close, but Canelo won at least 2 of the last 3. If you give Canelo all 3 of each, you've got the draw.
The middle six were all GGG, much of it dominant. If the fight was judged as a complete entity, GGG is the winner all day...But that's not how boxing is scored.
I always thought the easiest way to clear up at least half of the "controversial decisions" is to diversify the scoring for both MMA and boxing. A pitty pat round where neither fighter does anything besides some tentative jabs and the like that don't score should be scored 10-10. A round where one fighter was clearly better but did no substantial damage should be 10-9. A round where one fighter does substantial damage should be 10-8. And a round where one fighter completely dominates and the fight is almost stopped should be 10-7. Put in clear language about what separates the scoring and then you shouldn't have nearly as many controversial decisions especially in boxing where you can easily have 4 or 5 rounds that go by and nothing really happens.
(And yes I know the current rules allow what I described but judges almost never follow it and just give out 10-9s 99% of the time. I'm saying they should make my scoring system mandatory.)
That's when you get real controversy, when you have a 12 round match where 6 rounds absolutely nothing of consequence happens, three rounds fighter A wins but does no damage and in three rounds fighter A beats some butt and then because of the randomness of someone arbitrarily assigning 10-9s to those meaningless rounds fighter A pulls out a win even though by all real measure fighter B should have won. My mandatory scoring system would take that away because you'd have 6 rounds of 10-10s, 3 rounds of 10-9s and 3 rounds of 10-8s or even a 10-7 or two. And yes there would still be slight difference of opinions and scorecards would vary but not nearly as much as now when those meaningless rounds matter as much on the scorecard as real decisive rounds.
(And yes I know the current rules allow what I described but judges almost never follow it and just give out 10-9s 99% of the time. I'm saying they should make my scoring system mandatory.)
That's when you get real controversy, when you have a 12 round match where 6 rounds absolutely nothing of consequence happens, three rounds fighter A wins but does no damage and in three rounds fighter A beats some butt and then because of the randomness of someone arbitrarily assigning 10-9s to those meaningless rounds fighter A pulls out a win even though by all real measure fighter B should have won. My mandatory scoring system would take that away because you'd have 6 rounds of 10-10s, 3 rounds of 10-9s and 3 rounds of 10-8s or even a 10-7 or two. And yes there would still be slight difference of opinions and scorecards would vary but not nearly as much as now when those meaningless rounds matter as much on the scorecard as real decisive rounds.
Lou, 118-110 is a robbery of the highest order. I fought for 8 years in the 1980's, and to say GGG only won 2 rounds is CRIMINAL. Byrd should be dismissed AND investigated. Terrible for the sport.
Lol no chance that happens. This isn't her first fiasco by any means, but she has too many things going for her to lose her job in this day and age.
Agree with everything you said about Byrd. Here scorecard was abysmal. The final decision, however, isn't a robbery. If she'd had the fight dead even 114-114, the result would have been the same.
NY, I would be willing to bet that this is her last high profile fight. Frankly, I was amazed Golovkin's camp allowed her to judge this fight without a huge complaint. She is incompetent, and everyone knows it.
There is no way Alvarez won that fight. Ring generalship is a large part of judging fights, and GGG controlled the pace from the third round on.
I see where you're going with this. The problem is that the definition of "anything of consequence" would still be too suggestive. If fighter A boxed rings around his opponent, outlanded him, had wonderful defense, a judge could score it a 10-8 domination. Meanwhile another judge might say "yeah, but none of those landed punches did damage, they were pitty pat, so that's even." Whether people like it or not, while clean effective punching is the biggest factor in scoring a round, it's not the only factor. Boxing is still meant to reward defense, ring generalship, etc, and there is a place for a master boxer. It's not a tough man contest. I don't know enough about how MMA is supposed to be scored to know if it's a better fit there...if MMA scoring is supposed to weight more heavily toward damage or aggression or control or what.
All that said...you are definitely onto the crux of the issue. There is some school of thought that even rounds should be much more common. Culturally boxing judges tend to try to pick a winner of each round at all costs. If either by rule or by training, even rounds became more common, it would help, like you say.
I think in a well fought round, where both guys did some good work, but it's just legitimately a very close round, I think every effort should be made to score a winner of the round. However, there are rounds in fights, particularly at the beginning of many fights, where NEITHER guy does particularly anything. When guys circle each other, one lands 4 of 10 punches and the other guy lands 3 of 12 punches...those generously named "feeling out rounds"...I tend to think those should be scored even. Perhaps 9-9, to indicate neither guy did anything to win the round.
Many fights have several rounds in which neither fighter legitimately does anything meaningful. Not talking about damage, I mean virtually nothing meaningful in effective offense, ring generalship, defense, anything. It does muddy the waters considerably that a round 2 can be scored to a guy for landing a single sharp jab, while Round 8 can be an absolute master class of boxing and be worth the same.
Do a quick Google search on her and see how bad it's been,to the point we're camps have petitioned to not have her score fights. I hope you are right man!
NY, this is her worst yet. It was actually stunning to see the Director of the NSAC come out after the fight to address her scorecard. Unprecedented.
I have never seen any judge's decision immediately addressed after a fight like that.
She is finished in Las Vegas.
I've got to think so. This is CJ Ross all over again (scored Bradley over Pac and Mayweather-Canelo a draw). She had to step down. It's hard to imagine any party being willing to accept her as a judge. As impossible as it normally is to get Nevada to do anything, I don't think they can put her forward again. That card is insane.
After watching this fight again this afternoon, it could be the worst decision since Toney-Tiberi.
Whitaker-Chavez was terrible as well, but this was really terrible.
Ring generalship and clean, effective punching, Golovkin put on a clinic.
Terrible for the great sport of Boxing, and a huge reason it's popularity is declining.
I think they should just add a decimal point. A 100-99 round is different than a 100-90 round.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Baseball Live updates: Penn at FSU, game 2 (Saturday at 2 p.m.)
- Latest: Bob Ferrante
