Canelo vs GGG rematch close

[Sakuraba7]

So your position is the draw card was a gift paid for by Golden Boy Promotions? Yet you also saw a close fight?

I felt the judges should have given GGG the win on points.


A "draw" also isn't ever the desired outcome if we're talking backstage politics, its the last resort to save grace. A fighter would always take a Draw over a Loss.

 

[Shoemaker]

I felt the judges should have given GGG the win on points.

So...

Unless you're trying to ensure a preferred fighter doesn't get a LOSS on their record. The fight was close, but majority agree GGG edged it. A draw score effectively nullifies that outcome.

Whos ensuring, how is it being ensured? You brought it up, stand by it. You said it was a close fight - why did the draw card point towards the fight being “ensured?” I’ll give you a chance to say you were just talking out of your ass there and leave the conversation if you don’t actually want to sack up and say what you believe.

 

[Sakuraba7]

So...



Whos ensuring, how is it being ensured? You brought it up, stand by it. You said it was a close fight - why did the draw card point towards the fight being “ensured?” I’ll give you a chance to say you were just talking out of your ass there and leave the conversation if you don’t actually want to sack up and say what you believe.

The judges were judging in favor of the MONEY FIGHTER.

Golden Boy brings much revenue towards the state of Nevada. Millions of dollars in revenue, they will have priority over K2/GGG in judging. That's what the state cares about, not nationalism but taxes/fees/tourism.

 

[Shoemaker]

The judges were judging in favor of the MONEY FIGHTER.

Golden Boy brings much revenue towards the state of Nevada. Millions of dollars in revenue, they will have priority over K2/GGG in judging.

Why do judges care about how much money they make the state of Nevada? They don’t get a cut.

 

[Sakuraba7]

Why do judges care about how much money they make the state of Nevada? They don’t get a cut.

Why does the WBC collect sanctioning fees and fines, when they're a non-profit?

Why does the NFL want the state to build it millions of dollars of stadiums when its a non-profit?

Why do employees at certain shops care about sales if they don't work on commission?

Why does the President care about the economy, his salary is FIXED at 400k?

Why does the mayor or ANY bureaucrat care about anything, they don't get a cut, their salary is FIXED.


I'm being rhetorical here. Can you answer these questions, they follow the same logic as your question. Especially the last two. I'll respond in kind.

 

[Shoemaker]

Why does the WBC collect sanctioning fees and fines, when they're a non-profit?

Why does the NFL want the state to build it millions of dollars of stadiums when its a non-profit?

Why do employees at certain shops care about sales if they don't work on commission?

Why does the President care about the economy, his salary is FIXED at 400k?

Not a single one of those is actually an answer to my question. I just asked you where the monetary incentive was for judges to favor "money" fighters. And you can't answer because it doesn't actually exist.

 

[Sakuraba7]

Not a single one of those is actually an answer to my question. All of those have an answer: there's monetary incentive. I just asked you where the monetary incentive was for judges to favor "money" fighters. And you can answer because it doesn't actually exist.

The answer is simple.

You judge the way the state would like you to judge. If you work for the state of Nevada, and you have their interest (the government or athletic commission you work for) and you would like to KEEP working and keep getting those calls to judge fights, then you know what way of judging benefits said employer.

In this case, that would be keeping a major revenue creator–a promoter that stimulates the economy with its events and tourism that it brings–happy.

The opposite outcome is said promoter leaving for another state. Say Texas or California for their next big event.

 

[Shoemaker]

The answer is simple.

You judge the way the state would like you to judge. If you work for the state of Nevada, and you have their interest (the government or athletic commission you work for) and you would like to KEEP working and keep getting those calls to judge fights, then you know what way of judging benefits said employer.

In this case, that would be keeping a major revenue creator–a promoter that stimulates the economy with its events and tourism that it brings–happy.

So who at the state is telling you how to judge?

 

[Sakuraba7]

So who at the state is telling you how to judge?

Nobody, this is all speculation.

Corruption isn't something that is usually announced publicly.

My speculation is the same speculation behind ALL accusations of corruption in boxing. None of them are explicity proven, but they are all speculations that have been thrown around for decades. Unless you're saying they are all baseless because they haven't been proven? Or am i the special case?

 

[Shoemaker]

Nobody, this is all speculation.

FFs. Thanks. So basically "it was a clearly close fight, but I don't like the draw decision so corruption!" You have a pretty good case with Byrd, I'd be fine with an investigation into her financials even. But to make wild speculation on the part of a reasonable card (the draw) is ridiculous.

 

[Shoemaker]

It's a combination of there being no evidence, and a 114-114 card not being outside the acceptable boundaries. Most people agree that card isn't suspect. To claim corruption to explain it away is reaching.

 

[Sakuraba7]

FFs. Thanks. So basically "it was a clearly close fight, but I don't like the draw decision so corruption!" You have a pretty good case with Byrd, I'd be fine with an investigation into her financials even. But to make wild speculation on the part of a reasonable card (the draw) is ridiculous.

I have always maintained, that the state votes in favor of who brings it most revenue (in close fights). Which is why I was happy to say it out loud. I believe nationalist favoritism is rare, and direct BRIBES are extremely rare (unless we're talking the Amateurs), but the state has its interests to keep certain promoters happy.

 

[Sakuraba7]

Think about it

PBC holds a lot of fights in New York. They have developed a relationship with that State. Which means when their fighter is fighting in New York, and the fight is close: the judging will favor or protect the PBC fighter. Golden Boy has a similar relationship with Nevada.


Canelo HAS had questionable judging in the state of Nevada.

Canelo vs Khan. By all accounts Khan was outpointing Canelo in the first 4 rounds, but the scorecards showed Canelo winning.

Canelo vs Lara. Many thought Lara had won, but once again Canelo got the decision win.

THIS is a TREND. It proves my speculation to me. Canelo does have judges on his side. Nobody can say there isn't a trend with those 2 fights above.

 

[Shoemaker]

Think about it

PBC holds a lot of fights in New York. They have developed a relationship with that State. Which means when their fighter is fighting in New York, and the fight is close: the judging will favor or protect the PBC fighter. Golden Boy has a similar relationship with Nevada.


Canelo HAS had questionable judging in the state of Nevada.

Canelo vs Khan. By all accounts Khan was outpointing Canelo in the first 4 rounds, but the scorecards showed Canelo winning.

Canelo vs Lara. Many thought Lara had won, but once again Canelo got the decision win.

THIS is a TREND. It proves my speculation to me. Canelo does have judges on his side. Nobody can say there isn't a trend with those 2 fights above.

Which is why I'm glad we actually have a justice system that doesn't convict people based on circumstantial evidence and "obviously it's true" statements.

 

[Shoemaker]

I would just like to point at that after all this time, I still haven't seen a single explanation for why the draw card must have been corruption. Not a single attempt to address that directly. Just "look at all these other things! It's obvious!"

 

[Sakuraba7]

Which is why I'm glad we actually have a justice system that doesn't convict people based on circumstantial evidence and "obviously it's true" statements.

Non sequitur.


Furthermore, the justice system is FULL of collusion. Private prisons and prison guards unions, directly funding lawmakers? I can't believe you've never heard of that.

Marijuana legislation is funded by pharmaceutical companies to keep it criminalized.

Have you heard of the revolving door. You made that comment as if this is foreign to politics or lawmaking.

 

[Sakuraba7]

I would just like to point at that after all this time, I still haven't seen a single explanation for why the draw card must have been corruption. Not a single attempt to address that directly. Just "look at all these other things! It's obvious!"

I just told you its speculation.

You just said "pretty good case for Byrd"....well who on earth proved to you Byrd was corrupt? Maybe every bad decision is just fair and honest judging by idiots.

If you think Byrd was corrupt, but not the other judge, then that is equally baseless and without evidence.

We can ALL pick and choose who or what we think is corruption or incompetent, and at the end of that day that IS what we're doing here. Every single person on this forum and elsewhere.

 

[Shoemaker]

Non sequitur.


Furthermore, the justice system is FULL of collusion. Private prisons and prison guards unions, directly funding lawmakers? I can't believe you've never heard of that.

Marijuana legislation is funded by pharmaceutical companies to keep it criminalized.

Have you heard of the revolving door. You made that comment as if this is foreign to politics or lawmaking.

Prison guard unions don't affect the judgement given by a jury of peers who are independent of the justice system. But we digress, you understood the point and now you're being pedantic because all you have to discredit a perfectly fine scorecard is speculation.

 

[Shoemaker]

I just told you its speculation.

You just said "pretty good case for Byrd"....well who on earth proved to you Byrd was corrupt? Maybe every bad decision is just fair and honest judging by idiots.

If you think Byrd was corrupt, but not the other judge, then that is equally baseless and without evidence.

We can ALL pick and choose who or what we think is corruption or incompetent, and at the end of that day that IS what we're doing here. Every single person on this forum and elsewhere.

Except we can all have a consensus, and the consensus is that her's is out of line; that's not the case with the draw card. I also didn't say she was corrupt, I said I was open to investigation. Difference.

I'm also not trying to discredit any of the cards. That's you. Hence the onus is on you to provide proof.

 

[borntoloseNOT]

Be careful with what you mean by "keeps improving." I think I know what you mean, but Canelo just gets sharper at what he has already been good at. His deficiencies have not abated. I also don't think that anyone was saying that GGG requires a new dimension to his game. GGG's opportunity lies in his willingness to go back to that amateur background more than anything else. This may sound counter-intuitive but I am in no way mistaken here. GGG looked worse when he tried to brawl Canelo, but he was actualy out-boxing him for large stretches. His silver medal in the Olympics and hundreds of amateur fights get undervalued because he is willing to take a punch and is aggressive, but I encourage next time you re-watch the fight to see how cleanly they hit each other. GGG can get hit, but he doesn't often get hit as cleanly as people think. Just as Jake LaMotta, a man renowned for his chin, was not hit as cleanly and as often as people think. I am not saying that Golovkin is some savant slickster like Pernell Whitaker, but I am saying that just as some pure boxers get criticized for being a soft touch, so too, do some pressure fighters - like Golovkin - get unfairly reduced to being paleolithic brawlers.

The inverse trajectories are a matter of physical decline for Golovkin and improving experience for Canelo, but the approach in the ring allows for "improved performance." Just look at Leo Santa Cruz's rematch to Frampton. A close first fight, but then LSC made some adjustments. He didn't all of a sudden become someone else entirely, he just fought behind a jab and took a step back to remove himself as a target (if you watched the fight, Frampton would catch LSC on that first step in, so LSC took that away by making small steps).

Sorry for the rant. I'm on a roll today lol.

Quality reply, thanks for the write up. I admit I rant a little stongly about this fight as well, but I thought Canelo looked pretty good last time out, despite the conditioning which was frustrating to see. Maybe he was punching himself out trying to keep up more than conserving his energy on the ropes, but his defensive skills allowed for those breaks and they were long breaks if activity from Canelo at that.

My question for you is, If GGG couldn't really put it to Canelo when Canelo was practically taking power naps on the ropes for 2/3rds of rounds, what's he going to change up to get him this time? Yes, I suppose maybe if he returns to fundamentals and tries to eek out the dec outpointing Canelo like he did last time, but that's not "his fight", that's not what got him where he is. Canelo is gonna fight his own style fight all night and more naturally and GGG is gonna be the one that has to fight outside his normal tendencies. I still think going into this with what we know, GGG has the most adjustment to make.

I'm really looking forward to the fight, friend! Can't friggn wait!