Boxing Off-Topic

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by N51_rob

I thought Canelo opened the 10th strong but agree that he faded int he last two minutes. I do agree that he probably won the last two rounds. Byrds card is another in a long line of disgraceful scores from her. All this does is buy more time for Canelo as GGG gets older. GGG will have to take the rematch because there is no other money fights out there for him so Canelo will probably win the second fight, but I won't be impressed if he does. IMO he fought a two years past his Prime GGG at a catchweight of his choosing and still lost. He's a fraud.

What was the catchweight? GGG is a 160 pounder and this fight was at 160.

Neither Canelo nor GGG really have other options. Jacobs is out there and so is Saunders but those arent big PPVs for either.

[pk500]

GGG beats Canelo in the rematch on Cinco de Mayo weekend 2018, and the fight doesn't go to the cards.

We saw everything available from Canelo last night. Boxing skill, footwork, head and body movement and counter punching.

OK, Canelo didn't show much power, but he doesn't have the power to hurt most middleweights. Canelo is built like a wrestler and was jacked for this fight, but muscle doesn't equal power in boxing. No fighter in the last 10 years had a more Adonis-like body than Tim Bradley, and he could barely break glass with his punches.

We didn't see the best of GGG last night because he showed far too much respect early for Canelo's supposed power, which doesn't really exist at 160. GGG never was hurt last night. He can be more aggressive next May from the opening bell.

Combine that with a return to a body attack, and GGG will stop Canelo late in the rematch in May. Too much pressure, too much power. Plus GGG cuts off the ring as well as anyone in boxing. There won't be an escape for Canelo.

[JayBee74]

Quote: Originally Posted by pk500

We didn't see the best of GGG last night because he showed far too much respect early for Canelo's supposed power, which doesn't really exist at 160. GGG never was hurt last night. He can be more aggressive next May from the opening bell.

Yeah, as I was watching the early rounds I thought that Canelo got a significant power uptick from his time at 154 and sub 160 catchweights. I think he did but not as much as it appeared given GGG's respect and the HBO crew amplifying Canelo's power.

Before the fight, I mentioned whether or not Canelo might glean something from the Jacobs fight pertaining to the lack of Golovkin body punching in that contest. Whether or not he did it was virtually absent from GGG's repertoire.

[Money99]

Had a bit more time to digest this fight and I'm still upset with that decision.
As JB and Rob said, I thought GGG deserved the 10th round.
In fact, I think a case could be made that he won the 12th as well.

Outside of the first 2 rounds, Alvarez spent the entire fight on his heels, with the odd 3s burst here or there.

Triple-G was the champ. He did everything in his power to win that fight from continuing to press and landing the heavier shots - especially to the head.

I've seen a lot of bad decisions in my day; Lewis-Holyfield I, DLH-Trinidad, DLH-Mosley and now this fight.

I still don't understand why the scoring is setup the way it is, or why certain changes aren't considered.
For example, once the fight is completed, why not have the referee submit a card which simply states who he felt won the fight.
The only time that factor is entered into the scoring equation is when there is a draw. He becomes the tie-breaker.

Also, I know that ringside judges have a different view. Perhaps they see things the television audience can't.
Saying that, 99% of the paying customers are watching from their homes.
So when they see a decision like this, they get ticked off, which can hurt future sales.
SO, why not try a system where there are 3 ringside judges and 2 TV judges.
They can be placed in soundless rooms, with no audio - only a TV showing the fight.

Something like this could be experimented with for 2018 in all championship fights.
The scores of the TV judges will only be used as a test-case for that year.
If they find the TV judges are far more impartial and accurate, they start using them for all fights.

What I don't understand is that in most cases of a 'WTH' decision is that most of press row, who also have seats close to the ring, agree with the general public.
Most websites I've gone to, and most boxing journalists had the fight either 116-112 or 115-113 for Golovkin.

And I know I've brought this up in the past, but I still don't understand the 10-point system. Not when they never use the 10 points.
Might as well have a binary system of 1's and 0's and then dock 1 point for knockdowns.
In an example I raised previously, in Round 1, Fighter A could slap Fighter B all over the ring, connecting 40 times to Fighter B's 2.
With no knockdowns, it's a 10-9 round in favour of Fighter A.
In Round 2, Fighter B does better and outscores Fighter A, 11-10 in punches and wins the round.
On the scorecards, the fight is now even, but if you look at the whole body of the fight, Fighter A should be winning.
Round 1 should have been a 10-8, if not 10-7 round.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there.

Looking at the fight again this morning, I saw a very tentative GGG in the first two rounds.
He then realized that Alvarez couldn't hurt him and started stalking him.
Alvarez spent 90% of that fight on his heels, trying to survive and catch his breath.
By Round 4, he looked visibly gassed and spent almost the entire middle of the fight trying to get his wind back.
He fought in spurts in the last 3 rounds, but I still think GGG earned at least 1 round in the last 3.
And considering he never tried to get on his bike to win a fight he was clearly winning, he deserves some credit for it.

Heck, even before the cards were announced, Alvarez looked like his dog go run over while Golovkin was all smiles. They both knew who won that fight.

But in the end, everyone who had their hand in manufacturing that bout won as they'll get super rich again in early 2018.

And I'm with you N51_rob, this version of Triple-G is definitely not his best. He's past his prime now.
If this fight happens last year, it ends with Yellow face down on the deck.

[pk500]

Quote: Originally Posted by Money99

And I'm with you N51_rob, this version of Triple-G is definitely not his best. He's past his prime now. If this fight happens last year, it ends with Yellow face down on the deck.

Excellent post. But I disagree with the above point.

GGG looked excellent from the third round to the closing bell last night. He looked just as good as he did in his reign of terror from 2011 until the Brook and Jacobs fights.

Difference is GGG's opposition is MUCH tougher. It's one thing to beat up Gregorz Proksa, Willie Monroe, Curtis Stevens and Matthew Macklin. It's another to beat up Kell Brook, Danny Jacobs and Saul Alvarez.

Brook was arguably the best active welterweight in the world when he stepped up to challenge Golovkin. Yes, he was fighting two classes above his normal weight. But his speed and power caused problems early for GGG until GGG figured him out. Remember, GGG won by knockout and BROKE BROOK'S FACE (orbital bone).

How is that slippage?

Danny Jacobs is the third-best middleweight in the world behind GGG and Canelo. Don't even mention Billy Joe Saunders, please.

GGG won that fight. It was tough. It was close. GGG had an off night. But again, he was facing the No. 3 middleweight on this planet, a guy who can really fight.

Again, how is that slippage?

If Alabama beats Bethune-Cookman, 59-0, and then only beats Florida by 10 and Auburn by 7, are the Crimson Tide accused of slipping?

[N51_rob]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

What was the catchweight? GGG is a 160 pounder and this fight was at 160. Neither Canelo nor GGG really have other options. Jacobs is out there and so is Saunders but those arent big PPVs for either.

I stand corrected I confused this with Chavez Jr, for some reason in my head. Thanks.

[pietasterp]

Quote: Originally Posted by pk500

Tonight was a fun, competitive fight. Anyone who called it boring doesn't know an effing thing about boxing. Both guys threw big shots. Few landed because both guys are far better boxers than most think. But shots were thrown, landed and traded. Other than huge blows landing and a guy on the canvas, there wasn't much more you could ask from that fight.

I dunno, I wouldn't go so far as to call it "boring", but both fighters seemed overly-conservative in the early rounds, and by the time GGG was trying to let go, Canelo had gone into his shell and was good for only about 30-seconds of actual fighting per round. So from my perspective, while the fight was good(ish), based on the expectations going in of 2 guys with explosive power going at each other, I think it was a bit disappointing. GGG spent too much time fearing Canelo's countering, and Canelo did just barely enough to keep GGG from going all-out. Hearns-Hagler this was not.

Quote: Originally Posted by pk500

The world's highest-paid athlete is a boxer. Anthony Joshua-Wladimir Klitschko drew 90,000 paid fans to Wembley for their bout earlier this year. ESPN just signed a four-year deal to broadcast Top Rank fights. The two highest-grossing PPV combat sport events in history were boxing matches. Yep, boxing is on life support, all right. Way to regurgitate that tired, false narrative foisted on you by every lazy media member in America.

I see this argument once in a while, and I think it's worth distinguishing between boxing being wildly profitable for an exceptionally small number of people involved with the sport, and the overall health of the sport. It's true that an incredible amount of wealth is concentrated in a few, highly visible hands, all of whom everyone who bothers to post in this thread knows all too well. However, I don't think it's true that the sport as a whole is all that healthy (however you want to define that) - at least, not in America.

I suppose boxing in this country is doing better than, say, 10 years ago, since at that time I'm not sure anyone outside of hardcore fight fans could name more than 1 boxer (and that boxer was likely Mike Tyson, who'd been effectively retired for 10 years by that point). But there's still very little casual knowledge of boxing among the general public, and other than Floyd Mayweather (who, if I had to guess, even most people that know his name have never actually seen him fight), I'm pretty sure no other fighter is in the public consciousness.

None of them - even Mayweather - have much cultural cache in the U.S., as evidenced by the fact that you never see fighters in commercials or on TV or in any other arena other than within the confines of boxing-related broadcasts. No fighters appear on any 'most popular athletes' lists, or any other similar-such dreck (that nevertheless gives you a sense of where the sport is in the national consciousness). The sport simply has very little national presence, short of isolated one-off stunts like the recent McGregor-May fight.

I think some strides are being taken with more network and basic cable broadcasting deals, but even most of those are highly-dubious marketing platforms for Al Haymon's stable of fighters, and cross-promotional bouts remain vanishingly rare. The bottom line is that boxing is a niche sport and will forever remain that way, because the one thing that can put it back on the national map - a credible, unified, centralized governing body (aka a "league") - will never happen.

The best we can hope for are that good fights between the best/most exciting fighters will happen frequently enough to provide us all with some entertainment. I suppose in the grand scheme of things, that wouldn't be half bad.

[JayBee74]

I like where boxing is, but I want more free fights like this.......

Deontay Wilder vs. Luis Ortiz Finalized For November 4, Showtime