Boxing Golovkin vs Canelo Alvarez II - September 16 T-Mobile Arena Vegas

[Cattery]

The aim is to hit and not get hit, but the mechanics of decision-making are a bit more complicated than that. Most broadly, the contest is won by the fighter who wins the most rounds, not the fighter who lands the most punches. Sometimes they'll be one and the same, but not always. A fighter can put on a savage 3-4 rounds where they land 50 more punches than their opponent in each of those rounds, but if they've been slightly but clearly out-boxed in the other 8 rounds then they will (quite rightly) lose the fight, even if they've landed a greater number of punches across the 12 rounds. The trick is to win rounds, not to win the punch count.

Golovkin put together some very strong rounds towards the end of the fight, but it seems to me that he turned up to the fight too late. His strong rounds were brutally impressive, but it was too little and too late, although if he'd pressed his advantage harder in that final round then he would have won the fight.

Yep, realise that, but don't think that was the case here.
Apart from a couple of rounds that I thought Golovkin won quite clearly most of the others were very close, and (just my opinion of course) I thought he landed more scoring punches over those ten rounds, certainly enough to earn him the points.

Close call no doubt, closer then their first encounter where I thought he was robbed blind.

Not sure your last statement is correct, think you'll find that had he won the final round on all the judges cards the best he could have achieved was a draw, would still have been better then a loss though I guess.

 

[Chubberson]

Yeah I've rewatched it and you cant say it was a robbery which I never thought this fight was. The first was a robbery. I just felt bad for GGG getting stooged by Vegas, horrible way to lose your belts. I respect Canelo more now but detest GB and DLH. I think I'll give watching boxing away now it is just so corrupt, the IBF stripping him. They'll make Jacobs Canelo now, I don't think Canelo will ever leave vegas now or fight GGG again. I'm sure a 30 YO GGG would have put him away in the later rounds, he is showing his age now. The fighter that stopped Macklin would no doubt have stopped this version of Canelo.

 

[JB1975]

Yep, realise that, but don't think that was the case here.
Apart from a couple of rounds that I thought Golovkin won quite clearly most of the others were very close, and (just my opinion of course) I thought he landed more scoring punches over those ten rounds, certainly enough to earn him the points.

Close call no doubt, closer then their first encounter where I thought he was robbed blind.

Not sure your last statement is correct, think you'll find that had he won the final round on all the judges cards the best he could have achieved was a draw, would still have been better then a loss though I guess.

Yep, you're right about that last round, I just checked and if the other judges had scored it for GGG then we would have had another draw. I thought it was Canelo's round, but that means nothing except that the scoring of boxing is far from a science!

There are too many legitimate controversies in boxing (e.g. GGG v Canelo I), and I suppose I just think that it's unfortunate when the term 'robbery' gets thrown around for a fight which was just a very close contest, and a difficult fight to adjudicate.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yep, you're right about that last round, I just checked and if the other judges had scored it for GGG then we would have had another draw. I thought it was Canelo's round, but that means nothing except that the scoring of boxing is far from a science!

There are too many legitimate controversies in boxing (e.g. GGG v Canelo I), and I suppose I just think that it's unfortunate when the term 'robbery' gets thrown around for a fight which was just a very close contest, and a difficult fight to adjudicate.

The scoring criteria is 4 parts.
- Defense
- Effective aggression
- Cleaner punching
- Ring generalship

On the night I had the fight to GGG. But If I scored the fight according to the correct scoring criteria (as the judges do) I would have had it to Canelo. He won nearly all those scoring criterias so I am not remotely surprised he got the fight.

 

[Cattery]

The scoring criteria is 4 parts.
- Defense
- Effective aggression
- Cleaner punching
- Ring generalship

On the night I had the fight to GGG. But If I scored the fight according to the correct scoring criteria (as the judges do) I would have had it to Canelo. He won nearly all those scoring criterias so I am not remotely surprised he got the fight.

Why is that; checking around I found this .....................

"Effective Aggression – Being aggressive gives the impression of dominance, but unless the boxer is landing shots and not constantly getting countered, it’s not exactly “effective.” Judges look for effective aggression, where the aggressor consistently lands his punches and avoids those from his opponent.
Ring Generalship – The fighter who controls the action and enforces his will and style.
Defense – How well is a boxer slipping, parrying, and blocking punches? Good defense is important.
Hard and Clean Punches – To the untrained eye, it can appear as if a boxer is landing a lot of shots, when, in fact, most are being blocked or aren’t landing flush. A judge needs to look for hard shots that land clean."


Now unless I'm missing something isn't that just a rather round about way of saying "the fighter who lands the most effective punches in a majority of rounds" wins the fight?

Aggression, pointless unless, as it says, you're landing scoring punches.
Defence, again simply means you're getting hit less then the other bloke.
Hard and clean punches, you're landing more scoring punches then your opponent.
Ring Generalship, no idea how you score points for "enforcing your will and style" unless you're whacking the other bloke more then he's whacking you, which again comes back to landing more scoring punches.