Who else had Bradley (draw), Ward, and Canelo winning in "controversial" fights

I'm assuming Paulies being sarcastic.
9-3 is a horse shit scorecard for GGG

Lol, Do you think there's a chance that most people, including boxers and analysts, believe that throwing and landing more punches is the most important factor in winning a fight? It's a boxing match, not a style competition.

Moving backwards and laying on the ropes is not running or being scared, but it's also not automatically winning the fight just because you guys personally enjoy that style. It also does not mean you are controlling the ring. When you end up with your back against the ropes, that is not seen as controlling the ring at all. A lot of people saw a fight in which Canelo was outworked for much of the fight. You cannot remain somewhat inactive while your opponent throws almost twice as many punches as you and lands more as well. That is why you see so many cards for Golovkin.

There is no misunderstanding or bias there, that is a 100% fair way to score a fight. I think people are a little bit tired of certain fans pretending they are just the only smart ones who understand boxing lol.
 
Lol, Do you think there's a chance that most people, including boxers and analysts, believe that throwing and landing more punches is the most important factor in winning a fight? It's a boxing match, not a style competition.

Moving backwards and laying on the ropes is not running or being scared, but it's also not automatically winning the fight just because you guys personally enjoy that style. It also does not mean you are controlling the ring. When you end up with your back against the ropes, that is not seen as controlling the ring at all. A lot of people saw a fight in which Canelo was outworked for much of the fight. You cannot remain somewhat inactive while your opponent throws almost twice as many punches as you and lands more as well. That is why you see so many cards for Golovkin.

There is no misunderstanding or bias there, that is a 100% fair way to score a fight. I think people are a little bit tired of certain fans pretending they are just the only smart ones who understand boxing lol.


And this is the crux of the matter right here. ...

It wasn't like Canelo was pulling a pernell Whitaker and clowning his opponent by making them miss...putting on a show for the fans

Canelo was put under constant pressure...put on the defensive...

Then again I'm sure some here will say "derp derp compubox doesn't matter..."

The fact of the matter is this...

Those who picked canelo to win are standing by their shit cards and employing selective criteria in scoring this fight...

And it's funny how so many ardent canelo fans are positing the notion that they know more about scoring a fight than Andre ward, tarver, Lennox Lewis, etc.
 
And this is the crux of the matter right here. ...

It wasn't like Canelo was pulling a pernell Whitaker and clowning his opponent by making them miss...putting on a show for the fans

Canelo was put under constant pressure...put on the defensive...

Then again I'm sure some here will say "derp derp compubox doesn't matter..."

The fact of the matter is this...

Those who picked canelo to win are standing by their shit cards and employing selective criteria in scoring this fight...

And it's funny how so many ardent canelo fans are positing the notion that they know more about scoring a fight than Andre ward, tarver, Lennox Lewis, etc.

I think it's perfectly fair for people to have a strong disagreement on scores, based on their scoring style.

What is ridiculous to me is that the same group of guys constantly goes straight to this smug, condescending argument that they are just so much more attuned to the intricacies of boxing than the casual dolts who disagree with them. It's not only silly, it borders on delusional. Does anyone here on this board really think they understand what they are seeing more than Malignaggi and believe he just thought Golovkin won because he smiles and because Harold Lederman said so? Ridiculous.

These guys can make an argument for their scorecard without making these absurd statements about how other people just don't understand as well as they do.

CuYCTjc.gif
 
I think it's perfectly fair for people to have a strong disagreement on scores, based on their scoring style.

What is ridiculous to me is that the same group of guys constantly goes straight to this smug, condescending argument that they are just so much more attuned to the intricacies of boxing than the casual dolts who disagree with them. It's not only silly, it borders on delusional. Does anyone here on this board really think they understand what they are seeing more than Malignaggi and believe he just thought Golovkin won because he smiles and because Harold Lederman said so? Ridiculous.

These guys can make an argument for their scorecard without making these absurd statements about how other people just don't understand as well as they do.

CuYCTjc.gif


And I agree 100 percent...

I'll tell you right now, sometimes my score cards are off...and I don't see what many people see.

For example , I thought the guerrero vs Keith Thurman fight was very close...

Im definitely open to the possibility that I'm way off here
 
And I agree 100 percent...

I'll tell you right now, sometimes my score cards are off...and I don't see what many people see.

For example , I thought the guerrero vs Keith Thurman fight was very close...

Im definitely open to the possibility that I'm way off here
115/113 Bradley

e96bf9e9c2a0a9cae65fe9ad58db11ac.jpg
 
Most judges put too much emphasis on power. Thats basically why Pac won, because people perceived his punches to be harder. Thats fine, if you want to judge it that way. That always seemed like showing bias to the puncher to me.

You have to score the whole round. I don't necessarily see one or two "hard" punches negating 2 and 3/4 minutes of being outboxed. Some people do.

I was ok with any score for Pac/Bradley from 116/112 Pac (giving him most of the close rounds) to 115/113 Bradley (giving him the close rounds). Anything wider that that is ridiculous.

As long as he hits the more effective harder punches which I think he did, no point in hitting the harder ones without landing. I agree with the 116/112 score. I didn’t really think he was getting outboxed but I might have to rewatch (haven’t watched in a while)
 
As long as he hits the more effective harder punches which I think he did, no point in hitting the harder ones without landing. I agree with the 116/112 score. I didn’t really think he was getting outboxed but I might have to rewatch (haven’t watched in a while)
Pay special attention to how much time Pac took off in the mid/late rounds. That shit matters.

Stealing rounds works sometimes. It worked for Leonard. Worked somewhat for Canelo. It didn't work for Pac.
 
Pay special attention to how much time Pac took off in the mid/late rounds. That shit matters.

Stealing rounds works sometimes. It worked for Leonard. Worked somewhat for Canelo. It didn't work for Pac.
Also, Delahoya did exactly what he planned against tito and expected himself to win before and after the fight.
Lol, Do you think there's a chance that most people, including boxers and analysts, believe that throwing and landing more punches is the most important factor in winning a fight? It's a boxing match, not a style competition.

Moving backwards and laying on the ropes is not running or being scared, but it's also not automatically winning the fight just because you guys personally enjoy that style. It also does not mean you are controlling the ring. When you end up with your back against the ropes, that is not seen as controlling the ring at all. A lot of people saw a fight in which Canelo was outworked for much of the fight. You cannot remain somewhat inactive while your opponent throws almost twice as many punches as you and lands more as well. That is why you see so many cards for Golovkin.

There is no misunderstanding or bias there, that is a 100% fair way to score a fight. I think people are a little bit tired of certain fans pretending they are just the only smart ones who understand boxing lol.
i'd say if there aren't any knockdowns, I only go by punch count. Even just getting visually wobbled doesnt seem enough to me. That's why i gave GGG the win against jacobs, and the first kova against Ward.
Cause i did get bias how ggg could back canelo to the ropes, but in a convo someone answered me "mayweather fights most his later career on the ropes".
 
The fact of the matter is this...

Those who picked canelo to win are standing by their shit cards and employing selective criteria in scoring this fight...

And it's funny how so many ardent canelo fans are positing the notion that they know more about scoring a fight than Andre ward, tarver, Lennox Lewis, etc.

Pretty much.

Canelo spent half the fight backing up and on the ropes just trying to dodge punches. Sure he made GGG's right hand look like shit most of the time but you don't win fights by not fighting.

Anyone who scored this fight for Canelo should have scored Canelo versus Lara a total shutout for Lara but they didn't because they didn't want Lara to win so they didn't have to pull hilarious scoring criteria out of their asses.
 
lol @ Bradley winning. Ward/Kovalev 1 was a good decision. Great, close fight. I had GGG winning by a few rounds but I haven't sat down and closely rescored it yet so I'll hold off on taking a permanent stand there.

we have those 3 fights the same.

Pac smoked Bradley every time he fought him. (Look up biggest robberies and this one is near the top for a reason)
ward won a close decision against kov(harder to score than GGG vs Canelo, canelos inactivity lost him that fight)
GGG won a close decision
 
Bradley Pacquiao, Kovalev Ward were closer fights than GGG Canelo. Those fighters at least fought for all 3 minutes of the round.
 
Pay special attention to how much time Pac took off in the mid/late rounds. That shit matters.

Stealing rounds works sometimes. It worked for Leonard. Worked somewhat for Canelo. It didn't work for Pac.

I will, I’ll try to watch it and see if I score it the same way
 
Lol. I see @Seano is in this thread saying the vast majority of boxers, trainers, analysts, and fans are just not as good at judging as him. Or worse, just don't understand boxing the way he does.

Doesn't it tell you everything you need to know about him when he thought Bradley, Ward, and Canelo all won? Seriously, this guy comes on here and just posts contrarian scores to make it seem like he is the know-all of boxing. Then his cop-out is claiming because it's Pacquiao, the fans all rooted for him therefore the media cards are rubbish. The fans also rooted for him against Marquez but had no problem saying he should have lost fight #3. Canelo has a massive following and a history of sketchy scorecards, but you feel the need to side with the sketchy cards. Got it.

Once again, 125 media scores, 121 for Pacquiao. That is all I need to see. That fight was a travesty and anyone who scored it a draw or for Bradley should be institutionalized. Canelo-Golovkin has an avenue to be scored 6-6, anything for Canelo is extremely fishy to me. Golovkin should have won that fight but at least a draw is a reasonable score. Kovalev-Ward, ehhh, it was close but I thought Kovalev won that fight. Once again, there is an avenue to score it 114-113 Ward but I thought it was a bad decision.
 
Where did this idea come from that bradley was being busy in the first pac fight?
 
All this proves is boxing fandom is filled with hipster douches who think that disagreeing with the mainstream take on a fight makes them look smart.

Plenty of people who came up with those scores came up with them as the fights went on, and their scoring is criteria is consistent from fight to fight (with 99% of those scores never being called into question). You can even check the fight night threads for those fights. All it proves is people can score a big fight different than others sometimes, and that puts sand in the majorities collective panties.
 
Doesn't it tell you everything you need to know about him when he thought Bradley, Ward, and Canelo all won? Seriously, this guy comes on here and just posts contrarian scores to make it seem like he is the know-all of boxing. Then his cop-out is claiming because it's Pacquiao, the fans all rooted for him therefore the media cards are rubbish. The fans also rooted for him against Marquez but had no problem saying he should have lost fight #3. Canelo has a massive following and a history of sketchy scorecards, but you feel the need to side with the sketchy cards. Got it.

Once again, 125 media scores, 121 for Pacquiao. That is all I need to see. That fight was a travesty and anyone who scored it a draw or for Bradley should be institutionalized. Canelo-Golovkin has an avenue to be scored 6-6, anything for Canelo is extremely fishy to me. Golovkin should have won that fight but at least a draw is a reasonable score. Kovalev-Ward, ehhh, it was close but I thought Kovalev won that fight. Once again, there is an avenue to score it 114-113 Ward but I thought it was a bad decision.

I bet big on golovkin and could justify a draw if you only gave gennady the decisive rounds so not a robbery. I think most players bet the draw as well knowing that golovkin was not going to win unless he scored knockdown{s} or won as convincingly as Floyd which he did not
 
And yet each one caused ridiculous outrage.

Imagine the internet and all these fuckers were around when the Chavez-Taylor fight went down.....or Whittaker-Chavez....or a million other close fights

It was bad enough with Lewis-Vitali , and that wasn't even a fight that was controversial

The internet has given the idiots a voice, and boy are they making the most of it
 
Bradley Pacquiao, Kovalev Ward were closer fights than GGG Canelo. Those fighters at least fought for all 3 minutes of the round.

That's not how I recall it. The first two minutes of nearly ever round was uneventful, with Bradley using his jab and Pacquiao fending him off with defense. I think a legitimate criticism of Manny in that fight is that he didn't fight all 3 minutes of every round. He kicked Bradley's ass for about 45 seconds of every round, and the rest of the time he let Bradley look like the guy who was trying to make something happen.

I don't think Bradley won, but that's a horrible fight to use as an example of people fighting "for all 3 minutes".
 
That's not how I recall it. The first two minutes of nearly ever round was uneventful, with Bradley using his jab and Pacquiao fending him off with defense. I think a legitimate criticism of Manny in that fight is that he didn't fight all 3 minutes of every round. He kicked Bradley's ass for about 45 seconds of every round, and the rest of the time he let Bradley look like the guy who was trying to make something happen.

I don't think Bradley won, but that's a horrible fight to use as an example of people fighting "for all 3 minutes".

That pretty much sums it up. Pac took unnecessary risks and it backfired at him. People focused on the scoring and missed the point : this was the first time in ages Pac didn't look formidable. He had lost a step then, he lost another one when he fought Horn and people also focused on the scoring without acknowledging it.
 
I have a tough time seeing the logic in Ward winning the first Kovalev bout or Canelo winning even by a point in the GGG fight, myself.

Madness.

But at the same time, it's boxing and I'll roll with the punches---and I'm not necessarily right all the time, even though I am.
 
Back
Top