No Idea How Some Folks Score A Fight

Your problem is that you don't realize what you were looking at. True, it was partly from Golovkin's pressing that Canelo was moving back some time. But, movement was also part of Canelo gameplan. It wasn't survival mode, it was what he trained to do. Most of the time, Golovkin wasn't "forcing" Canelo back, Saul was moving back on his own accord seeking to lay traps and counter. Only Saul's low workrate made it look worse than it actually was. Saul went to the ropes often on purpose, to draw fire and make Golovkin miss, make him expend energy. And it worked. Your soccer analogy IS FLAWED. Scoring is THE ONLY CRITERIA for judging a soccer match so GTFOOH with that "main criteria" crap. Boxing has 4 criteria. Yes, the emphasis is on clean punching BUT THEY ALL COUNT ON A SCORECARD. And, the reason why all 4 works so well is often no one wins a certain criteria or both men do well. In this fight, NO ONE WON EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION. Canelo was not aggressive and G wasn't effective. Both men landed hard punches but Canelos were cleaner, more flush, and more often. If neither guy was seriously hurt then that HAS TO go to Canelo. The only reason they didn't in your opinion is because you equate G coming forward as some kind of indicator of how hard the punches he occasionally landed were. And that is a false premise in this case. Even in the rounds were everyone agrees Canelo lit G up (10, 11, 12) it was Golovkin coming forward. If boxing is about punching EFFECTIVELY without having the same happen to you, how could you score it for Golovkin? He landed very few truly effective shots. His jab was good at times but that was pretty much the only thing he was landing clean and with any kind of force (outside of the occasional bomb Canelo took very well). You still have to explain how mostly partially landed jabs and the occasional right hand trumps the clean counters upstairs and downstairs that Canelo was landing. As I've already stated, If Canelo is moving away from Golovkin, creating distance without throwing any punches or attacking, then it is called 'SURVIVAL MODE'. From Canelo's perspective, it's no longer boxing (hitting and not getting hit). Instead, it's not hitting and not getting hit, which isn't boxing. Furthermore, if Canelo is creating distance without attacking, then Golovkin has the right to do the same thing. If he does do it, then what would happen? Both guys would be out of punching range to attack. What would happen then? There wouldn't be any boxing match because boxing is about hitting and not getting hit and if both guys are out of punching range, then it would turn into not hit and not get hit, which is no longer boxing but 'SURVIVAL MODE' and the boxer who would be most responsible for such a thing happening would be CAenlo Alvarez because he would've initiated such a thing. Whereas GGG would've responded to Canelo's 'NON-BOXING' tactics with his own 'NON-BOXING' tactics. Thus, by default, the boxer who is making the 'boxing' match happen by attacking, would get more credit whilst the survivor who is trying to avoid a boxing bout by creating distance without attacking, would be given less credit by me. Also, Canelo making Golovkin miss isn't as impressive as someone who is throwing punches and not landing, compared to someone who isn't throwing punches and not landing. I'd rather a boxer throw punches and not land, over a boxer who doesn't throw punches and doesn't land since it would show that one boxer is actually trying to box (hit and not get hit) whilst the other is trying to survive (not hit and not get hit). If Canelo only makes Golovkin miss punches but doesn't land more punches than Golovkin in return, then I have no reason to give Canelo more credit. As far as judging criteria is concerned, boxing has ALWAYS been about who lands the more effective punches and who the more effective puncher is. I'm sorry, but why would I give any round to a boxer who shows better defense, or better ring generalship, or better effective aggression if he is out-landed the effective punching department? Effective punching is the least subjective of them all. How do we establish those other criteria with any degree of confidence, certainty or reliability? To me, an effective punch is any punch that 'effects' an opponent. So if a punch does the following: 1) Knocks an opponent out. 2) Knocks an opponent down. 3) Inflicts visible damage on the opponent. 4) Snaps the opponent's head back. 5) Forces the opponent to move backwards. Golovkin snapped Canelo's head back more frequently than vice versa. Plus, he forced Canelo on the back foot more frequently than vice versa. In all other aforementioned departments, they were both equal. Thus, Golovkin was the more effective puncher.

That's just my point. Canelo DID lay on the ropes, but he WASN'T eating much. And what he was getting hit with was NOT BETTER than what he landed. So yeah, you land the best punches of a round and land more of them, you win. Doesn't matter if it happens during 45 seconds of a round. If the other guy answers that by missing and a few jabs, he can't win that round.

good to know how u score the fight. I had it 7-5 GGG, clearly winning the fight. you cant win rounds being active 45 seconds of each round. then do nothing but to lay on rope to rope and eating jabs in the process

give it up. GGG clearly won

No, neither guy was truly hurt. However, the fact that Golovkin's punches was forcing Canello Alvarez backwards more than vice versa, plus snapping his head backwards more than vice versa, means that Golovkin's punches were more effective more frequently. So even if neither hurt the other significantly, it is still possible to determine who was the more 'EFFECTIVE' puncher. My soccer analogy isn't flawed. The point was, the MAIN CRITERIA for judging a soccer bout is quantity of goals whilst for boxing, it is the quantity + quality of effective punches landed. Defense is a secondary criteria in boxing for judging a bout. As in, it doesn't have precedence over effective punches landed. In other words, if one guy lands more of the effective punches, then who had the better defense becomes irrelevant. Better defense only matters when both guys were even in the effective punches landed department. Also, boxing is about punching opponent effectively without getting punched in return. As such, true defense is measured in the face of offense. This is to state that credit is given to a boxer who is defensively good whilst attacking. However, a boxer that simply seeks to avoid opponent's punches without attacking himself shouldn't get much credit because that isn't 'defensive boxing'. That is 'survival' mode where the boxer is seeking to not hit his opponent without getting hit, whilst boxing his hitting without getting hit. So any defense which comes at the expense of having one's own offense being limited /restricted isn't 'defensive boxing' that warrants credit or points. Also, if one boxer is in survival mode (creating distance without attacking) whilst making opponent miss punches without throwing or landing any punches of their own, whilst their opponent is attacking but failing to land their punches despite throwing, I'd automatically give more credit to the boxer who is attacking. I'd rather a boxer throw punches but miss, over a boxer who throws no punches and lands none. Golovkin threw and missed more punches. Canelo Alvarez threw less and landed less punches. Thus, Golovkin > Canelo. Your problem is that you don't realize what you were looking at. True, it was partly from Golovkin's pressing that Canelo was moving back some time. But, movement was also part of Canelo gameplan. It wasn't survival mode, it was what he trained to do. Most of the time, Golovkin wasn't "forcing" Canelo back, Saul was moving back on his own accord seeking to lay traps and counter. Only Saul's low workrate made it look worse than it actually was. Saul went to the ropes often on purpose, to draw fire and make Golovkin miss, make him expend energy. And it worked. Your soccer analogy IS FLAWED. Scoring is THE ONLY CRITERIA for judging a soccer match so GTFOOH with that "main criteria" crap. Boxing has 4 criteria. Yes, the emphasis is on clean punching BUT THEY ALL COUNT ON A SCORECARD. And, the reason why all 4 works so well is often no one wins a certain criteria or both men do well. In this fight, NO ONE WON EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION. Canelo was not aggressive and G wasn't effective. Both men landed hard punches but Canelos were cleaner, more flush, and more often. If neither guy was seriously hurt then that HAS TO go to Canelo. The only reason they didn't in your opinion is because you equate G coming forward as some kind of indicator of how hard the punches he occasionally landed were. And that is a false premise in this case. Even in the rounds were everyone agrees Canelo lit G up (10, 11, 12) it was Golovkin coming forward. If boxing is about punching EFFECTIVELY without having the same happen to you, how could you score it for Golovkin? He landed very few truly effective shots. His jab was good at times but that was pretty much the only thing he was landing clean and with any kind of force (outside of the occasional bomb Canelo took very well). You still have to explain how mostly partially landed jabs and the occasional right hand trumps the clean counters upstairs and downstairs that Canelo was landing.

When I went back to watch it again the second time I changed 2 rounds- the 4th and the 10th. So my card remained the same, 7-5 Canelo. I get a draw. I even get 7-5 Golovkin even if I can't see it. Anything else, and we are starting to stretch reality a bit. Because really people were seeing what wasn't there. The focus shifted to Canelo giving a boxing lesson to him being "gassed", thus in the minds of many that somehow = that he couldn't have been the winner. The problem with that logic is no one was REALLY seeing that even a gassed canelo was making golovkin miss more than he landed, add in the countershots, and you have swing rds, that really aren't. This was not a popular outcome to the masses for the simple reason that they don't know what they're looking at, or for. This is a subjective sport, and most any outcome is going to be unpopular to some, whether it's right or wrong.

Neither guy was seriously hurt during the fight. So how do you have the sporadic clean powershots Golovkin landed "affecting" Canelo more? Canelo's cleaner sharper and heavier blows landed with much more frequency; Golovkin landed almost as many powershots but the vast majority of them were not clean shots. And Canelo was moving away basically the entire fight, looking to set traps and counter. I didn't see that change much, so where was the "affecting" you are talking about? Your soccer analogy is flawed because in our sport we actually score for defense. Soccer does not award points to a team when the other team misses a shot on goal. But boxing judges certainly can award rounds if they think a fighter's defense is helping to win a fight. You make a guy miss 500 times, that's VERY noticeable and gets incorporated into the scorecards of good judges. As far as effective punches, I simply don't know what you were watching. It doesn't matter if Golovkin walked thru every shot. Canelo took all of Golovkin's powershots quite well too. YOU SCORE THE PUNCH FIRST, NOT HOW GOOD OR BAD A FIGHTER TAKES IT. If a fighter lands a pitty-pat punch one time then after lands a bomb, and neither punch affects his opponent, that doesn't mean you score the pitty-pat punch exactly the same as the hard crisp shot. That's why we usually give more weight to a well landed hook than we do a jab. One punch is usually harder and we score them that way. Of course, if one guy lands a hard shot to no effect, while another guy lands a hard shot that knocks a guy goofy you score the second shot more. But, that's not what happened. Both guys took each others shots well. But only one guy was landing hard clean power punches with any frequency. And it wasn't Golovkin. And while Gennady did land an occasional hard jab, that could not possibly be enough to offset the lumber Canelo was dropping most of the rounds. There ARE scoring criteria. While you are allowed to have personal preferences within the framework of that criteria, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED to make up your own or redefine them in a manner that advances your personal biases. No, neither guy was truly hurt. However, the fact that Golovkin's punches was forcing Canello Alvarez backwards more than vice versa, plus snapping his head backwards more than vice versa, means that Golovkin's punches were more effective more frequently. So even if neither hurt the other significantly, it is still possible to determine who was the more 'EFFECTIVE' puncher. My soccer analogy isn't flawed. The point was, the MAIN CRITERIA for judging a soccer bout is quantity of goals whilst for boxing, it is the quantity + quality of effective punches landed. Defense is a secondary criteria in boxing for judging a bout. As in, it doesn't have precedence over effective punches landed. In other words, if one guy lands more of the effective punches, then who had the better defense becomes irrelevant. Better defense only matters when both guys were even in the effective punches landed department. Also, boxing is about punching opponent effectively without getting punched in return. As such, true defense is measured in the face of offense. This is to state that credit is given to a boxer who is defensively good whilst attacking. However, a boxer that simply seeks to avoid opponent's punches without attacking himself shouldn't get much credit because that isn't 'defensive boxing'. That is 'survival' mode where the boxer is seeking to not hit his opponent without getting hit, whilst boxing his hitting without getting hit. So any defense which comes at the expense of having one's own offense being limited /restricted isn't 'defensive boxing' that warrants credit or points. Also, if one boxer is in survival mode (creating distance without attacking) whilst making opponent miss punches without throwing or landing any punches of their own, whilst their opponent is attacking but failing to land their punches despite throwing, I'd automatically give more credit to the boxer who is attacking. I'd rather a boxer throw punches but miss, over a boxer who throws no punches and lands none. Golovkin threw and missed more punches. Canelo Alvarez threw less and landed less punches. Thus, Golovkin > Canelo. It doesn't matter if Golovkin walked thru every shot. Yes, it does matter because if Canelo's punches don't 'effect' Golovkin much, then it can't be considered a punch that is too 'effective'. Canelo took all of Golovkin's powershots quite well too. Relative to whom? Relative to past opponents? Yes, absolutely! However, Golovkin took Canelo's best punches better than vice versa. This is evident by the fact that it was Canelo who was forced into the back foot from Golovkin's punches more often than vice versa. It was Canelo who had his head snapped back from Golovkin's punches more often than vice versa. If a fighter lands a pitty-pat punch one time then after lands a bomb, and neither punch affects his opponent, that doesn't mean you score the pitty-pat punch exactly the same as the hard crisp shot. Actually yes, I would, because the effect of both punches would be the same. Boxing has ALWAYS been about FIRST and FOREMOST, who lands the more effective punches and who is the more effective puncher. It doesn't matter whether a punch looks like a 'pitty-pat' or a 'bomb' SUBJECTIVELY, as long as both are legal punches, then the punch which has more of an effect on the opponent is the punch that gets more credit, irrespective of whether that punch was a 'pitty-pat' punch, or an Mexican punch, or a sexy punch, or a jab, or a power punch and so forth so on. Provided it's a legal punch, then the type of punch is totally irrelevant. What's relevant is PURELY which punch is more 'effective' (punch that effects the opponent more). But only one guy was landing hard clean power punches with any frequency. And it wasn't Golovkin. Only one guy was rarely backing up, mostly moving forward, forcing his opponent to move backward more frequently than vice versa and snapping his opponent's head back more frequently than vice versa and it wasn't Canelo Alvarez. The evidence is contrary to your claims. There ARE scoring criteria. While you are allowed to have personal preferences within the framework of that criteria, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED to make up your own or redefine them in a manner that advances your personal biases. Yes and the main criteria of boxing has always been about who the more effective puncher is and who lands the more effective punches. Those other criteria are secondary.

I agree with most of this. It was Canelo's fault he gassed, but golovkin imo didn't really cut the ring off well at all, he attempted to come in an throw the right hand or left hook and Canelo simply pivoted off to his left, leaving golovkin to miss all night. I literally felt like I was watching the same replay over and over again. Canelo's failing stamina is what got him a draw. Had that not been an issue, you'd have 118-110 across the board. I'll also add that while I'm not a big fan of making up what if scenieros, it is what it is...a draw. It's unfortunate that judges are not able to score a fight both live and then watching it again. When I went back to watch it again the second time I changed 2 rounds- the 4th and the 10th. So my card remained the same, 7-5 Canelo. I get a draw. I even get 7-5 Golovkin even if I can't see it. Anything else, and we are starting to stretch reality a bit.

It isn't rocket science, folks. 4 Criteria: Ring Generalship Effective Aggression Defense Hard Clean Punches I gave Golovkin Ring Generalship. He dictated the pace and how the fight was fought. But, it is the only one of the 4 criteria he won. Canelo was not aggressive, seeking to move and counter. But, while Golovkin did cut the ring off beautifully all night, there often was zero payoff when he trapped Canelo on the ropes. I think this was the biggest factor in the fight. Golovkin had mixed results at best when he got Canelo where he wanted him. When it comes to Defense, it isn't close. Saul constantly thwarted Golovkin when Gennady got close, blocking most of what Golovkin threw, and rolling most of what got thru. By contrast, it seemed that Canelo could flurry and throw in combination whenever he got ready- granted, there were rounds where he did not throw as much as he should have. Hard Clean Punches was won far and away by Canelo. The fact that Golovkin walked right thru most of them doesn't mean you do not score them. And while Golovkin did land some heavy shots of his own, they were not as clean as Saul's shots nor did they come as often as Canelos. Gennady did display an pretty effective jab at times, but it was also often superfluous as Canelo was moving away too much of the time for it to score as landed. I had it 7 rounds to 5 for Canelo. Saul won rounds 1 thru 4, round 6, and the championship rounds 11 and 12. I had Golovkin taking 5, and rounds 7 thru 10. 3 of the rounds I gave Golovkin (5,7, and 10) were close enough to have been scored the other way. Only one of the rounds I gave Canelo (4) might have gone for Golovkin. My guess is in the rematch, Canelo will win a clear and wide decision. One thing he can do is get in good enough shape to throw more punches more often- which I grant may be much harder than it sounds. The other thing he can do is look to flurry, then tie up Golovkin more often, keeping things in the middle of the ring more. P.S.- I can't help thinking that what Jacobs did to Golovkin is looking better all the time. P.S. II- I know folks are up in arms over Adelaide Byrd's scorecard. 118-110 is absurd. But, that doesn't mean you could not score the fight for Canelo. If she had turned in a card of 115-113 for Saul, we would have the same result. Let's not get so carried away by what is clearly a corrupt or inept judge that we lose sight of the fact that, of the many possible outcomes, a draw was quite within the realm of acceptability. I agree with most of this. It was Canelo's fault he gassed, but golovkin imo didn't really cut the ring off well at all, he attempted to come in an throw the right hand or left hook and Canelo simply pivoted off to his left, leaving golovkin to miss all night. I literally felt like I was watching the same replay over and over again. Canelo's failing stamina is what got him a draw. Had that not been an issue, you'd have 118-110 across the board. I'll also add that while I'm not a big fan of making up what if scenieros, it is what it is...a draw. It's unfortunate that judges are not able to score a fight both live and then watching it again.

LOL, you just spurt out a number then claim that it is a fact. Good try but that is retarded. Spurt out a number? Moi? Here's the punchstats, Einstein (yeah, I know Compubox is flawed, but it aint THAT flawed) http://photo.boxingscene.com/uploads/canelo-golovkin-compubox-punch-stats.jpg That's 253 Jabs missed That's 232 Powershots missed That's 485 total, 15 short of 500. Golovkin missed almost as many punches as Canelo threw total. That gets scored, unless Defense is no longer one of the 4 scoring criteria.

They were 'effective' because the punches that Golovkin did land, ACTUALLY 'effected' Canelo Alvarez more than vice versa (snapping Canelo's head back and forcing him to move his entire body backwards). Golovkin missed 'most of his punches', relative to the punches he threw in total. Which is to state that Golovkin missed more punches than he landed. However, he STILL landed MORE punches than Canelo Alvarez. Therefore, the number of punches he missed are irrelevant. It's like one football (soccer) team scoring more goals than their opponent but also missing more. If one team scores 3 goals in 50 attempts whilst missing 47 attempts, whereas the other team score one goal out of one attempt, who would be the winner? Obviously the team who scored the 3 goals because in the end, the PRIMARY CRITERIA is who scored more goals, not who missed less attempts. The same thing applies here. Who missed more punches is irrelevant because Golovkin landed more EFFECTIVE punches in total. As far Canelo landing the "the cleaner, sharper heavier punches practically EVERY round", I have a very strict standard for how I define 'EFFECTIVE' punches. I don't care how clean, sharp or heavy a landed punch looks, if it doesn't effect the opponent much, then it's not an 'EFFECTIVE' enough punch. For all of Canelo's 'sharpness','cleanness' and 'heaviness' in his punches, they very rarely forced Golovkin backwards. They very rarely deterred / discourage / dissuaded Golovkin from applying his offensive / aggressive pressure. They rarely snapped Golovkin's head back enough times. These are all the things Golovkin's punches did to Canelo Alvarez more frequently however. Thus, Golovkin was the more 'EFFECTIVE' punches. There's no doubt about that to me! Neither guy was seriously hurt during the fight. So how do you have the sporadic clean powershots Golovkin landed "affecting" Canelo more? Canelo's cleaner sharper and heavier blows landed with much more frequency; Golovkin landed almost as many powershots but the vast majority of them were not clean shots. And Canelo was moving away basically the entire fight, looking to set traps and counter. I didn't see that change much, so where was the "affecting" you are talking about? Your soccer analogy is flawed because in our sport we actually score for defense. Soccer does not award points to a team when the other team misses a shot on goal. But boxing judges certainly can award rounds if they think a fighter's defense is helping to win a fight. You make a guy miss 500 times, that's VERY noticeable and gets incorporated into the scorecards of good judges. As far as effective punches, I simply don't know what you were watching. It doesn't matter if Golovkin walked thru every shot. Canelo took all of Golovkin's powershots quite well too. YOU SCORE THE PUNCH FIRST, NOT HOW GOOD OR BAD A FIGHTER TAKES IT. If a fighter lands a pitty-pat punch one time then after lands a bomb, and neither punch affects his opponent, that doesn't mean you score the pitty-pat punch exactly the same as the hard crisp shot. That's why we usually give more weight to a well landed hook than we do a jab. One punch is usually harder and we score them that way. Of course, if one guy lands a hard shot to no effect, while another guy lands a hard shot that knocks a guy goofy you score the second shot more. But, that's not what happened. Both guys took each others shots well. But only one guy was landing hard clean power punches with any frequency. And it wasn't Golovkin. And while Gennady did land an occasional hard jab, that could not possibly be enough to offset the lumber Canelo was dropping most of the rounds. There ARE scoring criteria. While you are allowed to have personal preferences within the framework of that criteria, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED to make up your own or redefine them in a manner that advances your personal biases.

My scorecard https://i.imgur.com/7YuzMGP.jpg

That you were talking out of your azz when you said 3 powershots. Let's take round 1, there's not a single power shot landed by Canelo in the provided gifs.

How were they more effective when most of them missed and many others were blocked or partially blocked. You could make the case that Canelo landed the cleaner, sharper, heavier punches practically EVERY round. The only question was did he land enough of them in a particular round. And in at least 7 of the rounds, Canelo did. They were 'effective' because the punches that Golovkin did land, ACTUALLY 'effected' Canelo Alvarez more than vice versa (snapping Canelo's head back and forcing him to move his entire body backwards). Golovkin missed 'most of his punches', relative to the punches he threw in total. Which is to state that Golovkin missed more punches than he landed. However, he STILL landed MORE punches than Canelo Alvarez. Therefore, the number of punches he missed are irrelevant. It's like one football (soccer) team scoring more goals than their opponent but also missing more. If one team scores 3 goals in 50 attempts whilst missing 47 attempts, whereas the other team score one goal out of one attempt, who would be the winner? Obviously the team who scored the 3 goals because in the end, the PRIMARY CRITERIA is who scored more goals, not who missed less attempts. The same thing applies here. Who missed more punches is irrelevant because Golovkin landed more EFFECTIVE punches in total. As far Canelo landing the "the cleaner, sharper heavier punches practically EVERY round", I have a very strict standard for how I define 'EFFECTIVE' punches. I don't care how clean, sharp or heavy a landed punch looks, if it doesn't effect the opponent much, then it's not an 'EFFECTIVE' enough punch. For all of Canelo's 'sharpness','cleanness' and 'heaviness' in his punches, they very rarely forced Golovkin backwards. They very rarely deterred / discourage / dissuaded Golovkin from applying his offensive / aggressive pressure. They rarely snapped Golovkin's head back enough times. These are all the things Golovkin's punches did to Canelo Alvarez more frequently however. Thus, Golovkin was the more 'EFFECTIVE' punches. There's no doubt about that to me!

Nice try. Percentage wise is a cop out. Golovkin whiffed almost 500 times, jabs and powershots. That was Canelo making him miss, making him tally a career low connect rate. I will not argue this with you again. Defense was far and away Canelo's win. Wait, what? Numbers are numbers and they missed T almost the exact same rate per punch thrown. I'm not saying Canelo didn't look good on defense but let's not act like Canelo landed everything he threw. And are we really gonna go by historic averages? Fking Canelo probably landed 75% of his punches on the heavy bag Chavez Jr. and Angulo and 20% on Lara. Each fight is a different case, past fights don't mean squat

That happened in a lot of the rounds I scored for Gennady. It wasn't that he was all that effective, it was just that Canelo didn't do enough. But in 1-3, 6, and 10-12 Canelo did more than enough to win those rounds. I had it 2-1 throug 3. It scored most of 4-9 for GGG and at least 2 of last 3 for Canelo. So it was a close fight wither way

What is this supposed to show? That GGG has the better defense and jab? That you were talking out of your azz when you said 3 powershots.

Next time, watch the fight sober. These are courtesy of Bigdunny1. ...no slomo not edits no photography tricks, time stamps so you know shots are not being recycled and rounds they occurred Round 1: https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-1-1-58J7W8 ] What is this supposed to show? That GGG has the better defense and jab?

The primary criteria for judging any boxing bout FIRST and FOREMOST is who landed more EFFECTIVE PUNCHES. The other 3 criteria such as defense, ring generalship and effective aggression (the clean effective puncher is usually by default, the effective aggressor) are secondary criteria which should only be used when both boxers in a bout have landed equal number of 'effective punches'. When one boxer CLEARLY lands the more effective punches in a round, then those other criteria are irrelevant and needless. As such, Golovkin landed the more 'effective punches', more frequently without a doubt. Canelo Alvarez may have landed a few of them here and there, but Golovkin landed more. Thus, he won the bout by the primary criteria of boxing. How were they more effective when most of them missed and many others were blocked or partially blocked. You could make the case that Canelo landed the cleaner, sharper, heavier punches practically EVERY round. The only question was did he land enough of them in a particular round. And in at least 7 of the rounds, Canelo did.

Canelo landed 3 clean power shots through the entire fight. And 7 jabs. The rest of the time Canelo fled. Next time, watch the fight sober. These are courtesy of Bigdunny1. ...no slomo not edits no photography tricks, time stamps so you know shots are not being recycled and rounds they occurred Round 1: https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-1-1-58J7W8 https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-1-2-DRpq0K Round 2: https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-2-2-GZyRYL https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-2-3-Y6o7VM https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-2-4-pgrZ9p Round 3: https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-3-1-Z4q8mw https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-3-2-nZnRNW https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-3-3-pgrZXN https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-3-4-GZyRg8 Round 4: https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-4-1-Q1ZkvL https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-4-2a-oYpZmK https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-4-3-P1XjGn https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-4-3a-wjM05J Round 8: https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-8-1-g51p9Z https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-8-2-JZG899 https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-8-3-nZnRWY Round 9: https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-9-2-48E6rk https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-9-3-lOjRyV (hardest punch of fight) https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-9-4-DRpqO5 Round 12: https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-12-1-y8QwGR https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-12-2-y8QwN6 https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-12-3-X6mQKv (GGG chin) https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-12-5-qjwQ17 https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-12-6-Q1ZkMG Round 11: https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-11-1-k592kv https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-11-2-MjOZl1 https://gifs.com/gif/canelo-ggg-round-11-3-Z4q8Bg