Will MEXICAN and/or CANELO fans STAND UP FOR BOXING JUSTICE?

No sir, I'm not making Straw Man arguments from the claims you've made. Now, you're conveniently moving the goal posts in our debate. You're practically changing your arguments when I find holes in them. I simply stated Alvarez won. For whatever reason you can't accept that, and used things like racial bias, crowd influencing my opinion, and other stupid @ss remarks because I don't agree with you. First, you stated that Compubox support Canelo winning the bout, when in totality, it doesn't. You abandoned that argument. No, I simply stated that I was at the fight and scored the fight for Alvarez. How in the hell can I use compubox as a basis for my scoring, as If I can magically see that sh1t while I'm there at the actual event. Why you can't get that through your head is beyond me. Secondly, you said that since Canelo landed the harder shots, he's the clear winner. When I pointed out the issue with overemphasis on this factor alone, you've simply ignored it. Yes....that was one of the many reasons I felt Alvarez won. What's your point again? Thirdly, now you're trying to disguise your "Power Shots" argument with red herring factors to try to distract from its weakness. First, if you're willing to concede that Trout landed more shots based on your use of Compubox stats, then how could Canelo sensibly have "better" defense. He got hit more, right?? I never said Trout landed more based on compubox. I said he landed more because of what I saw in person. However those where pittypat shots and jabs that didn't do sh1t to Alvarez for the most part. On the flip side, Canelo landed huges shots constantly throughout the fight, and won several exchanges. His defense also made Trout look like a fool at times. Sure, Trout was more visibly hurt in exchanges, but, again, you can't just rely on power shots to score fights. Again, Canelo landed less, but the shots he did land were more powerful. This was the issue that I brought up in my hypothetical fight situation where Trout lands 100 to Canelo's 2. You still have ignored this rebuttal. Hypothetically? Trout didn't land 100 to Canelo's 2, so your arguement is complete sh1t. I mean what kind of ignorant @ss argument is that, as if that has anything to do with what I said.....especially when I specifically stated that for every 3 or so pittypat shots and jabs Trout landed, Alvarez landed a huge shot. Again I stated one big shot is better than 3 pitty-pat shots/jabs. Fourthly, how do you objectively quantify what a pittypat shot from Trout is? Do you have a telepathic connection to the fight in the ring? Have you sparred with Trout? There's just no reasonable basis to claim that Canelo won this based on supposed pittypat shots from Trout? It's really a weak argument... Telepathic connection to the fight in the ring? How about actually knowing and following the sport for my entire life (just about) and being able to discern a fighters reaction to punches in regards to whether the shot was effective or caused a certain amount of damage. Things like a fighters body language, legs, output, eyes and other small things to tell what shots are harder and causing more damage. To say "telepathic connection" just shows me you either a kid/ or someone who doesn't know sh1t about boxing. I'm done with you as you are a ignorant fool who is denial and is hell bent of thinking Trout won.

I am neither Mexican nor Black. Neither fighter dominated, so I am not sure about calling it a blatant robbery if we stick to what happened in the ring. What is suspicious and utterly wrong, in my opinion, is how the open scorecards influenced this fight. It is demoralizing to be in a close fight and see two judges give you nothing after the 4th, and clearly state you need a K.O. after the 8th. The 118-109 scorecard had no reason to exist, and can in no way be justified. Things might have been different if Trout wasn't aware to need a K.O. after the 8th, or to have lost the first 4 rounds.

you're using the wrong forum (I use that term in a general sense, you should probably hit up google voice or some other means of social interaction to get a logical debate going) for this, boxingscene is one of the worst places to actually discuss boxing, there are even other message boards more useful for this type of thing. this board is a joke, you should use it for comedy relief purposes only Thank you for this insightful response. I suppose that you're right about trying to bring civil discussion to this forum. However, I use to be like some of these dudes harassing me, but I matured and grew up. If I could, why can't they? As St. Paul said, "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me..." We all love Boxing, and yet, we can't talk in a civil and logical manner about it. Lol, I suppose I should take your advice and not expect too much from this forum... What other Boxing fan forums do you recommend??

Way to misconstrue my argument and avoid the issue altogether. Xenophobe? In what way, shape, or form was I being remotely prejudice against a race or culture? Nice ad hominem there buddy... How do you explain the ridiculous scores and the fact that those judges shockingly had Trout BEHIND after 4 rounds?? Trout knew he was being set up for a robbery, which made him deviate from his gameplan, which unjustly forced him to open up to Canelo's offense... you're using the wrong forum (I use that term in a general sense, you should probably hit up google voice or some other means of social interaction to get a logical debate going) for this, boxingscene is one of the worst places to actually discuss boxing, there are even other message boards more useful for this type of thing. this board is a joke, you should use it for comedy relief purposes only

Trout lost Canelo landed the meaningful punches the 1 thing you need to do if you want to box like that is not eat flush shots

Who said I was only looking at who landed the harder shots? There were several reasons I felt Alvarez won the fight. First you claim that I use compubox as a reason, now you are trying to put me in a box and say that I'm only using power shots. Alvarez had the better defense, was countering better, landed the better shots and actually hurt Trout. Now those are only a few reasons I felt he won and I could list more if you like. The only argument that I can see in Trout's favor is that he was the busier fighter and pressed the action, along with giving a false sense of having better ring generalship. However, for every moment trout would land glancing shots or pitty pat punches/jabs, Alvarez would erase them with huge shots. Now there were rounds in which he didn't and became lethargic, which is why I gave trout 4 rounds (5 if i'm being generous), but Alvarez clearly won the fight. No sir, I'm not making Straw Man arguments from the claims you've made. Now, you're conveniently moving the goal posts in our debate. You're practically changing your arguments when I find holes in them. First, you stated that Compubox support Canelo winning the bout, when in totality, it doesn't. You abandoned that argument. Secondly, you said that since Canelo landed the harder shots, he's the clear winner. When I pointed out the issue with overemphasis on this factor alone, you've simply ignored it. Thirdly, now you're trying to disguise your "Power Shots" argument with red herring factors to try to distract from its weakness. First, if you're willing to concede that Trout landed more shots based on your use of Compubox stats, then how could Canelo sensibly have "better" defense. He got hit more, right?? Sure, Trout was more visibly hurt in exchanges, but, again, you can't just rely on power shots to score fights. Again, Canelo landed less, but the shots he did land were more powerful. This was the issue that I brought up in my hypothetical fight situation where Trout lands 100 to Canelo's 2. You still have ignored this rebuttal. Fourthly, how do you objectively quantify what a pittypat shot from Trout is? Do you have a telepathic connection to the fight in the ring? Have you sparred with Trout? There's just no reasonable basis to claim that Canelo won this based on supposed pittypat shots from Trout? It's really a weak argument...

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if you were to ask TS if these fights were robberies and he said no. Matthysse vs Alexander Alexander vs Kotelnik Mayweather vs Castillo 1 Broner vs Ponce

The fight could have gone either way, but yeah, fuuuck Texas when it comes to boxing. The only upside to the open scoring was getting to see a clearly bought and paid for outcome unfold.

There was no score of 115-113. The score you're referring to was 115-112. You have to take into account all factors when scoring the fight. You can't just look at activity. You can't just look at hard shots. Going by your logic, let's assume that Trout got hit with ONLY 2 of the hardest shots that Canelo has every thrown in your estimation. But, Trout, in comparison, landed 100 total blows to those 2 hard shots. Based on your overemphasis on power alone, you would have Canelo winning with only landing a mere 2 shots in this HYPOTHETICAL situation. Does that seem sensible to you?? Who said I was only looking at who landed the harder shots? There were several reasons I felt Alvarez won the fight. First you claim that I use compubox as a reason, now you are trying to put me in a box and say that I'm only using power shots. Alvarez had the better defense, was countering better, landed the better shots and actually hurt Trout. Now those are only a few reasons I felt he won and I could list more if you like. The only argument that I can see in Trout's favor is that he was the busier fighter and pressed the action, along with giving a false sense of having better ring generalship. However, for every moment trout would land glancing shots or pitty pat punches/jabs, Alvarez would erase them with huge shots. Now there were rounds in which he didn't and became lethargic, which is why I gave trout 4 rounds (5 if i'm being generous), but Alvarez clearly won the fight.

Well, you bring up another point that's worth arguing on its own as well without the context of the Trout-Canelo bout. Public announcement of scorecards do take away from the intrigue as well as the in-fight adjustments that corners and fighters have to make... I have Trout winning. I still say it's a robbery... I don't think scoring it for Trout is inconceivable. I scored it for Canelo. Had trout got a decision, I would have thought it was wrong but not felt it was a robbery. My card was very close so I can respect that, if you give a couple of rounds where i saw big punches as decisive over small punch activity, Trout gets it. I'm not hating on Trout's performance. Just don't think he committed as he should have, But i think it was because Canelo threw him a nasty curve ball.

Wrong is Wrong, but my 115-112 card doesn't change the end result. I actually think the public announcement ruined our chance at a more dramatic end. Like I said, I truly admire Trout and don't rule out that he would have finished stronger, but those cards allowed Canelo to cruise at the end. Inversely, what if no cards meant Canelo felt a need to pressure Trout and finished him. We don't know. What we saw we know. And I scored that for Canelo. Well, you bring up another point that's worth arguing on its own as well without the context of the Trout-Canelo bout. Public announcement of scorecards do take away from the intrigue as well as the in-fight adjustments that corners and fighters have to make... I have Trout winning. I still say it's a robbery...

Using your logic based on Compubox stats, who landed more and threw more BASED ON TOTALITY? You can't just rely on hard punches, ALONE, to score a fight. You have to look at ALL factors... Like defense? Like Ring generalship? Canelo owned both. Trout actually landed 30 more jabs than Canelo, even though Canelo threw power jabs and Trout threw....I don't even know what to call those. I don't like using compubox stats, but this debate is so silly I can't take it seriously enough to not use it.

I had Trout winning this fight by a point. He controled most of the rounds and landed more punches. Canelo was taken breaks through most of the rounds while Trout kept busy.. Are we supposed to give canelo the round just because he landed 2 or 3 solid shots while Trout controled the entire round? Thank you for bringing this point up!

Thank you for agreeing. But based on this agreement, how can you sensibly agree to the scorecards put out there?? Wrong is WRONG. The judges were looking to commit a robbery. If anything, it was Trout outplaying Canelo at his own game. After the first public announcement of the scores, Trout changed his gameplan and became more aggressive and busier. Canelo, surprisingly, wasn't the better aggressor for a majority of the fight... Wrong is Wrong, but my 115-112 card doesn't change the end result. I actually think the public announcement ruined our chance at a more dramatic end. Like I said, I truly admire Trout and don't rule out that he would have finished stronger, but those cards allowed Canelo to cruise at the end. Inversely, what if no cards meant Canelo felt a need to pressure Trout and finished him. We don't know. What we saw we know. And I scored that for Canelo.

I had Trout winning this fight by a point. He controled most of the rounds and landed more punches. Canelo was taken breaks through most of the rounds while Trout kept busy.. Are we supposed to give canelo the round just because he landed 2 or 3 solid shots while Trout controled the entire round?

Canelo actually landed more power punches than Trout... Using your logic based on Compubox stats, who landed more and threw more BASED ON TOTALITY? You can't just rely on hard punches, ALONE, to score a fight. You have to look at ALL factors...

Trout landed more and threw more. You're insinuating that I'm racist. In what way, shape, or form was I being racist in this thread? Stop with the ad hominem attacks... Canelo actually landed more power punches than Trout...

No robbery happened at all tonight. Trout was outclassed and didn't even belong in the same ring as Canelo. Reported for race baiting too. Trout landed more and threw more. You're insinuating that I'm racist. In what way, shape, or form was I being racist in this thread? Stop with the ad hominem attacks...

118-109 was bull****. I say 115-113 was about as honest of a score a person could have for this fight. FWIW I can understand if you felt Trout won as I know more people prefer activity and is a prime decider in how they score fights. I like activity, but I prefer substance and who lands the more meaningful shots. There was no score of 115-113. The score you're referring to was 115-112. You have to take into account all factors when scoring the fight. You can't just look at activity. You can't just look at hard shots. Going by your logic, let's assume that Trout got hit with ONLY 2 of the hardest shots that Canelo has every thrown in your estimation. But, Trout, in comparison, landed 100 total blows to those 2 hard shots. Based on your overemphasis on power alone, you would have Canelo winning with only landing a mere 2 shots in this HYPOTHETICAL situation. Does that seem sensible to you??

No robbery happened at all tonight. Trout was outclassed and didn't even belong in the same ring as Canelo. Reported for race baiting too.