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!

Over the rules? The link you gave was for something 12 years old, and I'm not so sure that the WBC, WBA, IBF etc are bound by those rules.

Atila wrote:Over the rules? The link you gave was for something 12 years old, and I'm not so sure that the WBC, WBA, IBF etc are bound by those rules.

There's a lot of things you're not sure about evidently. The scoring criteria is a fact I though most boxing fans knew.

If you're sure about those rules then good luck to you. I'm not.

Harold Lederman himself stated the scoring criteria before every fight.

Thought it was interesting about Harold Lederman saying how judging could be improved

"Oh yeah, you mention something I've been yelling about for years but no one ever listens to me. I think the judge should sit on a chair that's high enough so his view is between the first and second strand of rope. In other words, he should be in a chair a little bit higher than what he gets now. You very rarely see a judge seated high enough to be even with the bottom strand. I'm telling you, the judge's eyes hsould be between the first strand and the second strand. I say that based on years of judging.
When I'm at HBO, I do it behind a pole! So the judge should be higher between those strands of rope, because that's where you really see the fight the best. But you see, the promoter would have to go buy three higher chairs which would kill some of these guys, these big spenders we have promoting boxing these days. (Laughs)
Fees for judges are atrocious, they've always been horrible. Judges have never been paid what they're worth, i think they should get a lot more than they're getting these days. Even the HBO judge should maybe get more!"

"You know, I've been yelling and screaming about judging for a long time. I think the commissions are really at fault for controversial decisions bc you have to put your best judges in high profile fights on HBO or Showtime, the one's the whole world's watching. If it's in Nevada, you have to get the best 3 judges you can find, and the commissions are very lax in doing that. They get a high profile fight and they say, we have to use one of our own guys but their own guys might not be that good! I say take your best and put them in the high profile fights, and you build up the others in not so high profile fights. I think if the commissions would wise up and use the best judges available in the high profile fights, we wouldn't get so many crazy decisions.
Commissions are all the same, they basically want to use 1, 2 or 3 of their own judges. Nevada wants to use Nevada judges. If its Alvarez-Khan and the whole world's watching, get the best 3 judges no matter what country they come from. They've gotta get off this thinking that we've gotta use our own guys."

.... So that's it folks. Adelaide just needed a higher chair

I think it's more to do with obstruction of ringside seating than the cost of higher chairs.

and a rattle and a dummy milky, gonna need something to keep her busy as her scorecards already done :-)

http://www.abae.co.uk/aba/index.cfm/news/aiba-rules-the-scoring-system/

There's a good one for you Atila, i know it's AIBA but still a good read. Shows how ridiculous scoring is at the moment as I can't seem to find a definitive description from any of the big Pro bodies. Some might say (you may find a brighter day) they don't want us plebians to know this dark and mystic art :-)

Scottrf wrote:

Atila wrote:What difference should it make if you prefer 'defensive skills with sharper but fewer punches? ' Fights are scored on punches landed, not on how well a fighter can slip a punch. Defense helps you to prevent the other fighter from scoring. Don't know if it should help a fighter win a round especially if he's landed less punches than his opponent.

Nope.

25% effective aggression
25% defence
25% ring generalship
25% hard clean punches.

Scott. Your link just lists 4 criteria, it doesn't give %.

With no clear guidance on weighting of the criteria it's just one more variable for inconsistency.

I recall reading some judges guidelines for 'effective aggression' some time ago... it's something like coming forward and landing punches with not getting hit back.

I'm sure we'd all agree with that, but that surely incorporates landing clean punches, defence and ring generalship. These wonderful scoring criteria aren't mutually exclusive they're interdependent which is why you can't stick a % value on them... and why the concept of them is imo fundamentally flawed if you try and treat them as independent scoring criteria.

I think some in-depth scoring criteria exist. Be a fascinating read if anyone has a source!

milkyboy wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Atila wrote:What difference should it make if you prefer 'defensive skills with sharper but fewer punches? ' Fights are scored on punches landed, not on how well a fighter can slip a punch. Defense helps you to prevent the other fighter from scoring. Don't know if it should help a fighter win a round especially if he's landed less punches than his opponent.

Nope.

25% effective aggression
25% defence
25% ring generalship
25% hard clean punches.

Scott. Your link just lists 4 criteria, it doesn't give %.

With no clear guidance on weighting of the criteria it's just one more variable for inconsistency.

I recall reading some judges guidelines for 'effective aggression' some time ago... it's something like coming forward and landing punches with not getting hit back.

I'm sure we'd all agree with that, but that surely incorporates landing clean punches, defence and ring generalship. These wonderful scoring criteria aren't mutually exclusive they're interdependent which is why you can't stick a % value on them... and why the concept of them is imo fundamentally flawed if you try and treat them as independent scoring criteria.

I think some in-depth scoring criteria exist. Be a fascinating read if anyone has a source!

I've heard many times that they are supposed to be considered equal so I just put a percentage to signify that.

I honestly don't know why people need a source because you just hear this all the time if you watch fights. Maybe HBO or Showtime make more of a deal of it. The ABC govern it though so the link earlier is sufficient.

Putting aside what the guidelines actually are or aren't Scott, do you personally think they are realistic or practical if given equal weighting?

milkyboy wrote:Putting aside what the guidelines actually are or aren't Scott, do you personally think they are realistic or practical if given equal weighting?

Pretty much agree with what everyone says on them being complimentary. It's hard to have effective agression without clean punching and hard to have clean punching if your opponent has great defense. I see it as more of a guide of what to look for i.e. other than simply punches landed who is controlling the areas of the fight, and an indication that with equal or near equal punches landed, the guy who threw the least should win the round.

The WBC have ordered an immediate rematch between the 2 so at least there's that to look forward to, although not sure what they mean by immediate, hopefully somewhere not too far from the start of next year.

Derbymanc wrote:The WBC have ordered an immediate rematch between the 2 so at least there's that to look forward to, although not sure what they mean by immediate, hopefully somewhere not too far from the start of next year.

Canelo refuses to fight for the WBC of course...

Rematch will be in May

I've just seen the news bit on it and that was my thought then Haz, what would happen if Canelo says no (obviously the fans would turn massively on him (as seen at the end of the first fight) but will Golden Boy want to risk it?

Mays not too bad then, the bigger question is would we be talking about this if the dappy judge hadn't put such a ridiculous scorecard in and only had Canelo by 1 or 2? so maybe just maybe she's done us all a favour :-)

Derbymanc wrote:I've just seen the news bit on it and that was my thought then Haz, what would happen if Canelo says no (obviously the fans would turn massively on him (as seen at the end of the first fight) but will Golden Boy want to risk it?

Mays not too bad then, the bigger question is would we be talking about this if the dappy judge hadn't put such a ridiculous scorecard in and only had Canelo by 1 or 2? so maybe just maybe she's done us all a favour :-)

I think this will happen in May and Canelo won't accept the belt if he wins (saves on pointless fees).

GGG wants a fight before then but struggling to see who? Word around the camp fire is that BJS will fight Khan in December (dear God).

Doesn't leave much else (can't see him risking the rematch with someone like Charlo). Suppose he could take his mandatory (the Russian).

I think any scoring of the fight for Canelo would have been highly controversial and warranted a rematch. I thought 115-113 to Golovkin was a bit stingy. Anything less was just a bad score.

I think had Golovkin been awarded the fight by 2/3 rounds it would have fit with the broader concensus and maybe the rematch would not have been in as high demand. Letting Canelo escape with a draw or scoring the fight for him would rightly have raised eyebrows.