GGG vs Canelo

First topic message reminder :

Now that the sideshow is out of the way, we have a serious fight just around the corner.

I have been watching both guys in their workouts and they are looking insane!

I said I find it hard to pick a winner. I still do, but I am leaning to GGG. Canelo is looking like a beast, but he might be too fired up. GGG just looks much more at ease, at least when he is being interviewed. No matter what I have said about Gennady, he is a very hard fighter to beat and he is obviously very focused for the biggest fight of his career.

Both guys are brilliant boxers and both guys have serious power. I just think GGG's experience and aura at 160 will give him a slight edge. Canelo is very tough, but I expect GGG to come from behind on the scorecards and stop a tiring Canelo very late.

Can't wait for this now and no doubt by the time this fight comes round, I could be leaning to Canelo. It's a great fight!

I disagree. He misses too much and would be a tad weak at the weight.

Floyd in points.

AdamT wrote:I did it to counter your nonsense.

40 year old welter, that started at 130, should come back and fight a guy at 160? If Floyd wins, should he move up to face Degale?

Degale? I never said that. Besides, he is at 168. GGG is 160 and arguably beat a guy (Who Floyd beat at a 152 catchweight) that Floyd said would "win easily".

The Conor McGregor fight should never have been allowed to be used as a way to beat Marciano's record. I still can't believe it's been allowed on his leger.

Sugar Ray Robinson started at 147 and ended up fighting Maxim for the Light heavyweight world title. Floyd vs GGG would be in that territory and give him the chance to close his career out against a legit opponent. Do you really feel comfortable with McGregor as Floyd's 50th? Really?

LionsV2 wrote:I picked Golovkin because of his work rate.

Which means you thought there was a chance he could win without getting the KO, no? Which means you should'nt be disappointed that he did'nt KO Alvarez then.

I don't care about number 50. I don't even care about Floyd. I just counter the hate the man gets.

Love him, or hate him? He is going down as one the best ever.

I think GGG is a fantastic fighter. I just struggle to see greatness, like Jones, Whittaker, Manny etc.

The Mcgregor fight is no worse than the countless bums boxers fight at the beginning of their career, you're just sore because it's Mayweather.

The best guy on GGG's record is Canelo. Floyd toyed with Alveraz. The punch stats were ridiculously wide, unlike last night.

I am not a GGG hater. He has a good pressure style and works well off a jab. However I don't think he has ability like Ward, Rigondeaux, or Lomachenko.

Also I think Hopkins and Taylor would of beat GGG. Just my opinion.

LionsV2 wrote:The Mcgregor fight is no worse than the countless bums boxers fight at the beginning of their career, you're just sore because it's Mayweather.

Hmmm...the difference is that this 'bum' was fought not in Floyd's early career but in Floyd's 50th fight.

It makes zero difference to the overall record and ignores the sheer volume of rubbish in Marciano's 49-0.

AdamT wrote:I don't care about number 50. I don't even care about Floyd. I just counter the hate the man gets.

Love him, or hate him? He is going down as one the best ever.

You have to qualify hate though. A very significant section of supposed boxing fans routinely wished ill on Manny Pacquiao, in the build-up to a string of his fights going back to his move up from 130. Just because he was pulling off what they did'nt think he could. So much so that when he was knocked out cold, many posted videos literally screaming with laugher about it and crowing that he would never come back, memes mocking him lying face down for that whole year he was sidelined. I'd say that is what you call "hate" no? Even now he still gets it. The fact he is one of the few to have come back (though never quite the same) from that kind of KO and win further world titles gets overshadowed either by the Marquez KO or the usual "Pacroid" taunts. And the man has had nearly 70 fights, always fights on the road and is probably one of the hardest working servants of boxing during the last 20 years. But I just let those people spew it out if it helps them to sleep at night.

But if someone says that Pacquiao is overrated at 147 and provides reasons, is that hate? No, just an opinion. I just don't think challenging Floyd over the way he conducted his Vegas era career is the same, or even close to hate.

LionsV2 wrote:The Mcgregor fight is no worse than the countless bums boxers fight at the beginning of their career, you're just sore because it's Mayweather.

Man, you have no reasoning skills if you really think that is an accurate comparison.
You know fine well no other boxer at world level would be allowed to get away with fighting McGregor.

You hate him mate. Let it go. He's undefeated and the best fighter in his era.

Manny gets much more love than Floyd.

If McGregor had of wanted Canelo or Manny, it would of happened.

He was number 50 and it stands.

Good to see that a huge fight with a controversial result hasn't got in the way of a Floyd debate.

For what it's worth anyone picking a canelo ko last night was an optimist or not a student of the game.

Floyd v ggg at 154 5 years ago? Hard call because we've never seen ggg at 154...it's guesswork as to whether it drains him. If it doesnt I think he'd be too big and the relentless pressure would get to Floyd... I think he'd use his advantage in a manner Alvarez was unable to against Floyd with superior footwork and work rare.

But then Floyd was never even a fully fledged welter so at 154 it would have been no shame.... and hardly a fair fight.

Marlonz wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:The Mcgregor fight is no worse than the countless bums boxers fight at the beginning of their career, you're just sore because it's Mayweather.

Man, you have no reasoning skills if you really think that is an accurate comparison.
You know fine well no other boxer at world level would be allowed to get away with fighting McGregor.

Whether it's fight number one or fifty it makes no difference to an overall record, people only complain because they don't like him.

I'm not a fan but if a judge can score a fight like that then maybe one scorecard should be the compubox stats and the tale they tell of the fight. Who lands more, harder and cleaner just wins the round on that card. It's not perfect but it's more perfect than many of the judges cards.

DuransHorse wrote:I'm not a fan but if a judge can score a fight like that then maybe one scorecard should be the compubox stats and the tale they tell of the fight.  Who lands more, harder and cleaner just wins the round on that card.  It's not perfect but it's more perfect than many of the judges cards.

I've had the same thought myself. Another idea I've read about is having five judges instead of three. One judge for every side of the ring and the referee being the fifth judge. Then when they go to the scorecards, the three scorecards that are closest are used while the two most wide scorecards are thrown out.

Oscar said Mayweather is ruining the sport, with his farce vs McGregor.

He maybe right. However the constant corrupt judging for his boy is worse.

GGG was robbed of his biggest win and I don't like it. No matter who the fighter is, they don't deserve that.

It's definitely the sour side of the sport!

Nice idea but ppv costs would go up if promoters have to buy more judges.

It's about time that wrong decisions are changed retrospectively, not just contentious decisions but those that are possibly corrupt like Byrds scorecard yesterday.

milkyboy wrote:Nice idea but ppv costs would go up if promoters have to buy more judges.

Is this in response to my comment?

If it is, having 5 judges instead of 3 and throwing out the widest scorecards would have probably meant that the 118-110 scorecard would not have been used. Those 118-110 scorecards can be very problematic.

Seriously though, I wonder how much a judge gets paid for a big fight?

It was Atila. Didn't mean paying salaries for them... it was a joke comment meaning promoters would just buy more judges off! I say joke comment... it would probably happen.

Yes, I know it was a joke. If you could see me now with tears of laughter filling my eyes you would be laughing at me.

I dont like the refs judging fights as they need to be focused on reffing the contest.

Additional judges might work as preventative measures for bad judges or judges having an off night but the wider problem is inherent bias towards fighter whether subconciously or worse.

Adding more judges to a Canelo fight for example, I would get the imoression you will be merely increasing the number of bad cards rather than solving the problem.

With the amount of money involved and the lack of tranperancy or regulation in boxing, you would need wholesale investigation and would probably wind up with a scandal like FIFA with the findings.

Atila wrote:Yes, I know it was a joke. If you could see me now with tears of laughter filling my eyes you would be laughing at me.

... now I never claimed it was a funny joke. Let's call it a Michael McIntyre.

What do we think to wrong decisions being changed retrospectively? Where to start? Hagler Leonard?

milkyboy wrote:

Atila wrote:Yes, I know it was a joke. If you could see me now with tears of laughter filling my eyes you would be laughing at me.

... now I never claimed it was a funny joke. Let's call it a Michael McIntyre.

What do we think to wrong decisions being changed retrospectively? Where to start? Hagler Leonard?

Lou Filippos card was a disgrace

milkyboy wrote:

Atila wrote:Yes, I know it was a joke. If you could see me now with tears of laughter filling my eyes you would be laughing at me.

... now I never claimed it was a funny joke. Let's call it a Michael McIntyre.

What do we think to wrong decisions being changed retrospectively? Where to start? Hagler Leonard?

No, I don't think decisions should be changed retrospectively not even Hagler Leonard. If we start doing that everything will be appealed. I can understand people not liking compubox as just counting the number of punches landed doesn't consider the quality of punches landed. But the system we have right now is just like Figure Skating and Gymnastics, it's not definitive enough.

LionsV2 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Atila wrote:Yes, I know it was a joke. If you could see me now with tears of laughter filling my eyes you would be laughing at me.

... now I never claimed it was a funny joke. Let's call it a Michael McIntyre.

What do we think to wrong decisions being changed retrospectively? Where to start? Hagler Leonard?

Lou Filippos card was a disgrace

I was trying to set my old sparring partner Atila up for that one hammy. Never mind, he didn't bite anyway!

milkyboy wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Atila wrote:Yes, I know it was a joke. If you could see me now with tears of laughter filling my eyes you would be laughing at me.

... now I never claimed it was a funny joke. Let's call it a Michael McIntyre.

What do we think to wrong decisions being changed retrospectively? Where to start? Hagler Leonard?

Lou Filippos card was a disgrace

I was trying to set my old sparring partner Atila up for that one hammy. Never mind, he didn't bite anyway!

Too obvious that's why I didn't bite. Besides, I tried to set you up earlier when I said "Those 118-110 scorecards can be very problematic". But it was too subtle for you.

Even compubox will come back to subjectivity in the end. It sounds scientific but really its just guys watching the fight counting what is thrown, lands and misses (their interpretation). Its like the old amateur scoring except messier.

Until the prevailing attitude towards favouring home fighters, house fighters, big promoters and big earners is broken the almost any scoring system will continue to be exploited and manipulated in their favour.

catchweight wrote:Even compubox will come back to subjectivity in the end. It sounds scientific but really its just guys watching the fight counting what is thrown, lands and misses (their interpretation). Its like the old amateur scoring except messier.

Until the prevailing attitude towards favouring home fighters, house fighters, big promoters and big earners is broken the almost any scoring system will continue to be exploited and manipulated in their favour.

So we just continue with the system that we have?

As a serious answer I've long thought more liberal use of 10-8's and 10-7's would help. Close round 10-9, clear round 10-8, pasting 10-7. Extra points for knockdowns etc. On top of that

This would get the better man winning more often BUT it goes against the grain of tradition that boxing is 12 individual sessions and it's how many you win not how well you win them.

Macklin would beat sturm in that format . The drawn card last night would almost certainly go to ggg.  As truss said earlier it's the 'if you give one fighter all the close ones' argument. This would help imo, but some think it's open to even more abuse.
Other than that.
- 5 judges, remove top and bottom cards and then average the other 3.

- I like the idea that all judges have to score a round to a fighter for it to count... but sadly some fights would be no score draws such is the subjectivity of scoring.... and one bent judge means their fighter only had to win one round on the other judges cards!

They're all flawed... because the reality is it's not so much the system that's fcukd it's the incompetent/bent people using it.

Atila wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

Atila wrote:Yes, I know it was a joke. If you could see me now with tears of laughter filling my eyes you would be laughing at me.

... now I never claimed it was a funny joke. Let's call it a Michael McIntyre.

What do we think to wrong decisions being changed retrospectively? Where to start? Hagler Leonard?

Lou Filippos card was a disgrace

I was trying to set my old sparring partner Atila up for that one hammy. Never mind, he didn't bite anyway!

Too obvious that's why I didn't bite. Besides, I tried to set you up earlier when I said "Those 118-110 scorecards can be very problematic". But it was too subtle for you.

yep, wayyyy too subtle. I'm a simple soul... had that sailed any further over my head, it would be in orbit fella!

Atila wrote:

catchweight wrote:Even compubox will come back to subjectivity in the end. It sounds scientific but really its just guys watching the fight counting what is thrown, lands and misses (their interpretation). Its like the old amateur scoring except messier.

Until the prevailing attitude towards favouring home fighters, house fighters, big promoters and big earners is broken the almost any scoring system will continue to be exploited and manipulated in their favour.

So we just continue with the system that we have?

More robust efforts to tackle bad scoring and the reasons behind it would be my preference. Unless that happens I genuinely dont think changing the system will acheive much.

If crooks would f##k off we would be ok. Bad decisions happen, but 118-110 cards don't go to the 'loser'! Hell, even if that card was read for GGG, it would be disgraceful.

It's obviously corrupt, or what the fu.k was she scoring? Everytime Canelo breaths, he gets approval?

Atila wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:I'm not a fan but if a judge can score a fight like that then maybe one scorecard should be the compubox stats and the tale they tell of the fight.  Who lands more, harder and cleaner just wins the round on that card.  It's not perfect but it's more perfect than many of the judges cards.

I've had the same thought myself. Another idea I've read about is having five judges instead of three. One judge for every side of the ring and the referee being the fifth judge. Then when they go to the scorecards, the three scorecards that are closest are used while the two most wide scorecards are thrown out.

I have never really seen the point in judges being positioned on different sides of the ring, it just exaggerates the subjectivity of it all. Wouldn't it be better if they all watched from the same angle? That way you get their judgement from an equal footing, and none of them would be seeing things the other might be blindsided to.

AdamT wrote:If crooks would f##k off we would be ok. Bad decisions happen, but 118-110 cards don't go to the 'loser'! Hell, even if that card was read for GGG, it would be disgraceful.

It's obviously corrupt, or what the fu.k was she scoring? Everytime Canelo breaths, he gets approval?

Doesn't the wide scoring smack of incompetence rather than corruption? Wouldn't a dodgy judge try to be more subtle about things so as not to make it obvious?

SugarRayBray wrote:

Atila wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:I'm not a fan but if a judge can score a fight like that then maybe one scorecard should be the compubox stats and the tale they tell of the fight.  Who lands more, harder and cleaner just wins the round on that card.  It's not perfect but it's more perfect than many of the judges cards.

I've had the same thought myself. Another idea I've read about is having five judges instead of three. One judge for every side of the ring and the referee being the fifth judge. Then when they go to the scorecards, the three scorecards that are closest are used while the two most wide scorecards are thrown out.

I have never really seen the point in judges being positioned on different sides of the ring, it just exaggerates the subjectivity of it all. Wouldn't it be better if they all watched from the same angle? That way you get their judgement from an equal footing, and none of them would be seeing things the other might be blindsided to.

Like I said, it's an idea that I read about, but it might be worth a shot. Your idea might be worth a try too.

That scorecard has marred what should have been a great night and advertisement of boxing after the fun that was Maygregor. I had it closer than most as thought Canelo was defensively very good and threw cleaner shots but then i'm suffering from a bad case of man flu so may have been hallucinating :-).

Wouldn't have argued too much against the draw if that scorecard would have been a lot closer in all honesty, we'd still be arguing about it but not quite so controversly imo.

Actually though before the fight that draws should be awarded more after seeing on of our lads get beat in a very close decision (Danny Craven - although i think he won). Sadly boxing with it's away fighter crap and stupid idea of protecting fighters is going to continue as it is until we actually do get sick of it or someone successfully breaks away and comes up with some brand new ideas.

All of the reffing ideas are good, would like to see Judges removed formt he ring altogetehr so they can't be influenced by the crowd and think the compubox idea is a great one, you can have 2 judges (one who prefers aggression and one defence) and then compubox stats to ensure that the fighters have to sometimes force the issue.

Forget scorecards, and make knockouts / stoppages the only way to win a fight...

Canelo's real record reads 45-5-1. Oscar's chequebook keeps him relevant

So you think he lost against Lara, Trout and Cotto?

I think Lara beat him, but not the other two.

He'd be relevant anyway Nathaniel, Canelo's still a very good boxer and with any luck we won't have to wait too long for the rematch (hopefully not held in Vegas)

News said Byrd has been suspended

Why does she still get to judge fights? Wasn't she the judge for Lewis Holyfield I as well? She's clearly crooked and boxers not aligned to her promoters need to veto her inclusion as a judge.

Nope that was Eugenia Williams.

I really don't know how to stop bad judging. I don't think it's possible!

Some betting sites are giving the stakes back on GGG or Canelo to win so if anyone put anything down it's worth checking.

LionsV2 wrote:So you think he lost against Lara, Trout and Cotto?

Canelo most definitely lost to Lara and Trout. There could be the view the bout with Cotto was a draw.

So either 45-4-2 or 45-5-1

Anyone with a standout amateur pedigree has exposed canelo

Sorry but he most certainly didn't definitely lose to Trout, had him winning that comfortably as well as the Cotto fight, never understood the basis for him losing either fight.