Give me a FK'n break! GGG won clearly

I'm curious, when or for which fight have you seen these sections on the judges official scorecard? I have never seen them. Furthermore, if these sections were on a scorecard and then assigned a number, then you'd have to average each number according a particular weight to see who won the round. I wouldn't mind scoring according to this criteria as long as judges were doing this officially and i knew what weighted averages they were using. You're other statements are in agreement with mine. I only score the clean effective punches, which includes jabs. I also don't place much meaning on compubox and do not score on activity, especially all the ineffective activity from SD for this fight. Also I'm not sure about others but i thought the judges got it right in the rematch with GGG vs Canelo. In the first fight one judge had GGG losing 10 rounds. Such examples do merit comparison to other scores to demonstrate that they're too much of an outlier to be accepted as true actually suggest corruption like with Conlan in this case of AIBA. the judges score every round based on who they think won according to the official criteria

wtf ? :thinking: of course there is... they do not sit there counting jabs on their fingers, they evaluate the round based on the 4 official criteria and score accordingly sometimes they watch one fighter more than the other, what can I say * clean HARD punching which is why compubox is totally irrelevant the judges use a professional scoring system, and they only value/score effective punches... compubox is just a tally of activity that is often inaccurate activity is not official scoring criteria after the Golovkin/Canelo rematch: " but, all of the fans think... " after the Golovkin/Derevy fight: " fcuk the fans, the judges think... " it all sounds a bit convenient the fighters know... there is a reason why Golovkin said it was Sergiys night, not his night I'm curious, when or for which fight have you seen these sections on the judges official scorecard? I have never seen them. Furthermore, if these sections were on a scorecard and then assigned a number, then you'd have to average each number according a particular weight to see who won the round. I wouldn't mind scoring according to this criteria as long as judges were doing this officially and i knew what weighted averages they were using. You're other statements are in agreement with mine. I only score the clean effective punches, which includes jabs. I also don't place much meaning on compubox and do not score on activity, especially all the ineffective activity from SD for this fight. Also I'm not sure about others but i thought the judges got it right in the rematch with GGG vs Canelo. In the first fight one judge had GGG losing 10 rounds. Such examples do merit comparison to other scores to demonstrate that they're too much of an outlier to be accepted as true actually suggest corruption like with Conlan in this case of AIBA.

I thought SD was the better man...but I had it 6-6 to GGG on my card...tough fight to score and I feel SD was a bit unfortunate to not get a clear W...GGG landed a few big shots in a few rounds to give him a chance and make it close. I do agree that all-time GGG is clearly in the conversation as an ATG at MW...some of his candidacy is aided by the fact that he has fought his entire career (am and pro) at MW...but he certainly was very dominant for a while in his era...I think the comp. that he ran through was better than most, but in any event he has a lot of quality clear dominant wins...stacking up his wins vs past greats, they really aren't too dissimilar...his legacy fights (so far - and after that fight vs SD GGG's run may be over) were the Canelo fights and most greats only have 2 or 3 fights vs other greats...how you view GGG all-time hinges somewhat on how you viewed him, at the tail end of his career, against a prime Canelo, I think anyway. Not to mention that just looking at footage from most fighters from 40+ years ago, I think it is a bit silly to think they could compete in modern eras...athletes imo just get bigger/stronger/faster etc...it is fair though to say that those guys from the past would have better training regimens etc if they fought in more modern eras though. But yeah besides Hagler I don't really see all-time who is GGG's main competition for the MW GOAT crown tbh...and as great as Marvelous was, he was basically 1-1-1 in his 3 fights vs other greats...and had a couple losses to less than great fighters mixed in with some impressive wins over quality fighters...some would say Monzon or Hopkins are in the running for MW GOAT as well...but I've watched footage of Monzon and I don't see that one...B-Hop would certainly be in the convo I think. There are guys who fought at MW (McClellan comes to mind) who would have given even a prime GGG a great fight...but yeah all-time I don't really feasibly see 3 or so guys who would be put above him at MW...just my 2 cents.

Very close fight that could go either way. 6-6 or 7-5 SD. Nothing “clear” about it. Not sure why people can’t acknowledge it was a close fight and enjoy the fact it was a good fight. Very good even. Instead casuals gotta cry because they are too emotional about dudes they’ve never met.

Wrong, because, as i said, judges tend to score differently. There's no section on their scorecard for ring generalship agression and things like that. So it's very subjective and they don't particularly have to defend their scores either so at least you can hear why they gave the score they gave. But for the most part, their scores are generally consistent with mine as they were in the Jacobs fight and this fight. wtf ? :thinking: of course there is... they do not sit there counting jabs on their fingers, they evaluate the round based on the 4 official criteria and score accordingly sometimes they watch one fighter more than the other, what can I say * clean HARD punching which is why compubox is totally irrelevant the judges use a professional scoring system, and they only value/score effective punches... compubox is just a tally of activity that is often inaccurate activity is not official scoring criteria after the Golovkin/Canelo rematch: " but, all of the fans think... " after the Golovkin/Derevy fight: " fcuk the fans, the judges think... " it all sounds a bit convenient the fighters know... there is a reason why Golovkin said it was Sergiys night, not his night

then, your scorecard is irrelevant Wrong, because, as i said, judges tend to score differently. There's no section on their scorecard for ring generalship agression and things like that. So it's very subjective and they don't particularly have to defend their scores either so at least you can hear why they gave the score they gave. But for the most part, their scores are generally consistent with mine as they were in the Jacobs fight and this fight.

Not pitty pat jabs but actually jabs. 5 clean jabs to the face for example, does more damage than a flush power shot. So it depends, if there are a lot of jabs from one guy and a few power shots from the other, you must always task yourself with deciding who did more damage. You cannot simply give the round to the power shot guy because one power shot does more damage than one jab. That was the case with GGG vs Jacobs. GGG landed jabs all night and a few power shots. Canelo i thought won the rematch by one round, round 12 specifically. But SD was getting jabbed and hit with power shots in about half the fight and not landing much outside of the rounds he won. And to be fair my scoring system is different but i think each judge is a bit different in how they score. I have never cared about ring generalship for example. All that matters to me is who appears to have landed to better shots taking in to account both quantity and quality. Those other things only matter they both did equal damage, which is rare. then, your scorecard is irrelevant * clean HARD punching

so you guys ARE concentrating on furiously counting pitty-pat jabs again... like you all did after the Canelo rematch LMAO * clean hard punching * effective aggression * defence * ring generalship the judges are not even gonna look at some of that shlt you are tallying up bro Not pitty pat jabs but actually jabs. 5 clean jabs to the face for example, does more damage than a flush power shot. So it depends, if there are a lot of jabs from one guy and a few power shots from the other, you must always task yourself with deciding who did more damage. You cannot simply give the round to the power shot guy because one power shot does more damage than one jab. That was the case with GGG vs Jacobs. GGG landed jabs all night and a few power shots. Canelo i thought won the rematch by one round, round 12 specifically. But SD was getting jabbed and hit with power shots in about half the fight and not landing much outside of the rounds he won. And to be fair my scoring system is different but i think each judge is a bit different in how they score. I have never cared about ring generalship for example. All that matters to me is who appears to have landed to better shots taking in to account both quantity and quality. Those other things only matter they both did equal damage, which is rare.

Wrong, jabs add up in terms of damage, as we saw with Jacobs and Lemueix. Sure, one jab doesn't mean much but it will win you the round if all the other guy did was punch your shoulders and arms all round. When you combine the power punches and jabs for both fighters and ignore the ineffective aggressive mostly from SD and his pitty patt shots when clenching, GGG won most of the rounds pretty convincingly. Only two rounds close for me were 2 and 9 and that's because there was almost equal damage done. I ignored agression from both. so you guys ARE concentrating on furiously counting pitty-pat jabs again... like you all did after the Canelo rematch LMAO * clean hard punching * effective aggression * defence * ring generalship the judges are not even gonna look at some of that shlt you are tallying up bro

are you g-strings totally forgetting that was an actual fight... and concentrating on furiously counting pitty-pat jabs again... like you all did after the Canelo rematch? :lol1: Wrong, jabs add up in terms of damage, as we saw with Jacobs and Lemueix. Sure, one jab doesn't mean much but it will win you the round if all the other guy did was punch your shoulders and arms all round. When you combine the power punches and jabs for both fighters and ignore the ineffective aggressive mostly from SD and his pitty patt shots when clenching, GGG won most of the rounds pretty convincingly. Only two rounds close for me were 2 and 9 and that's because there was almost equal damage done. I ignored agression from both.

are you g-strings totally forgetting that was an actual fight... and concentrating on furiously counting pitty-pat jabs again... like you all did after the Canelo rematch? :lol1:

:lol1: ''Clearly''.... The little guy (a white version of stevens) bullied GGG all night while using one hand. He used one hand to wipe away the blood and the other to beat on GGG with. A flash knock down once again saved his ass. And even in that round, GGG wasn't dominant. :lol1::lol1:

Who the phuck are you? You’re a phucking noob that probably came here illegally from Kawktarzan. Phuck out of my website. Who the fuk are you. Learn a thing called Reading comprehension the bloke stated he had an account previously and set up this new one after the old was locked for whatever reason. Its not your site either it's CBS'S. Stupid cowboy of a man. Go lasso your neck and stfu.

I didn't have the luxury of watching the fight live so i had to wait until today to watch it. Then i hear all this talk about how bad GGG did and so i figured it was likely GGG's age or something like that as GGG was actually noticeably slower in his 2nd fight with Canelo compared to the first one. I even see people claiming it was a robbery by giving it to GGG, So i figured he got beat bad. So then i decided to watch the fight today and score round by round just to see who i really gave the fight to since i knew it'd be too close to go by the eye test. The verdict: GGG won quite clearly and comfortably. It wasn't anywhere near a robbery, to say so is just silly. And i love how one of the other articles actually asked people to post their round by round scorecard and those that did mostly favored Golovkin because it was obvious when you go round by round. The clearest rounds he won i think were 1, 7 or 8, 11 and 12. I can't believe some actually gave 12 to SD when he literally didn't land one clean punch the entire round and GGG landed several. SD did well in some of the earlier rounds but he faded in effectiveness toward the end. In round 12 he pretty much landed only pitty patt shots when breaking from a clench, which i didn't score. Same thing with Jacobs, people were scoring loud thudding punches to the arms and shoulders which i did not and were not scoring the quiet but constant jabs by GGG because they were subtle and not flashy. Same thing here, i didn't score ineffective pats to the arms or pitty patt punches to the body from clenching. I simply scored the clean punches. The only way you can give the fight to SD is if you scored those pitty patt punches and whole bunch of ineffective aggression. And the only rounds i had close were 2 and 9. The rest i thought were pretty obvious. What i will say is that GGG definitely did not look to be himself. His confidence was all messed up later in the fight and he seemed winded by round 3. And it wasn't just that, Banks seems to have messed up his rhythm. Instead of just doing, he spent way too much time thinking and became hesitant, never seen him like that. Maybe a little against Canelo but no where near this much. Canelo would have beat this version of Golovkin comfortably. But anyway watching this fight made me realize that judges don't always get it right but sometimes they do. Because it's a good thing it was left to them who actually were much better at scoring effectiveness than the masses who thought SD won, not with agression, but because of aggression and the actual damage you're doing to your opponent be damned. And before someone says GGG's face shows the damage, I'll say yea, which happened from the early middle rounds which SD won clearly along with rounds 9 and 10 which he landed good shots in. He did almost no damage at all in most of the other rounds. And please don't make me bring up Provodnikov vs Algeri for those going with the face and the end argument. rewatch it when youre sober The pro GGG crowd boo'd him. They know the truth.

When you watch a fight live it is very hard to be objective. Commentators, screaming crowd, the fact that Golovkin is backing up, etc. All these things influence your perception of the fight. I am a huge GGG fan and I thought he lost when I watched the fight live. Then I rewatched it with a sound being turned off and I saw a very very close fight won by Golovkin. I thought it was too close to call, maybe GGG edging it with the KD when I watched live but I'm seeing it clearer for Golovkin on subsequent viewings... problem is rationalisation has had a chance to set in by then so it ain't clear that watching again actually gives you a more objective take.

… Give me a FK'n break! GGG won clearly... Gate_Keeper, dear... Here on Boxing Scene it doesn't work like this! :) ... Gate_Keeper Amateur Join Date: Oct 2019 Posts: 7 Quoted: 3 Post(s) Rep Power: 0 Gate_Keeper is on a distinguished road Points: 1,447.40 Bank: 0.00 Total Points: 1,447.40 Donate

GGG looked horrible but he still did enough to win. His shots were visibly hurting Dereyanchenko, the problem was that he didnt throw many shots and he himself was getting hurt bad to the body. Still a win but GGG is very much looking on the down slope now

When you watch a fight live it is very hard to be objective. Commentators, screaming crowd, the fact that Golovkin is backing up, etc. All these things influence your perception of the fight. I am a huge GGG fan and I thought he lost when I watched the fight live. Then I rewatched it with a sound being turned off and I saw a very very close fight won by Golovkin.

the louder the anti ggg crowd the better you know that he is making history in boxing and they know it the only lose of ggg was the second fight against canelo when he was getting older. easily top 5 MW boxer of all time now its CANELO TIME! Why? Seen both those fights already. Decent fights and very competitive. G won the first. Canelo the second. It dont take a psychic to know G is going down and nelo is going up.

the louder the anti ggg crowd the better you know that he is making history in boxing and they know it the only lose of ggg was the second fight against canelo when he was getting older. easily top 5 MW boxer of all time now its CANELO TIME! Bad news skippy, ggg will NEVER under any circumstances EVER be remembered as a top 5 MW of all time.