Canelo is the most overrated boxer ever

What what? Can you pls detail your claim? What makes Canelo resume the best? He's a proven drug cheat and not as if ppl don't know he is still juicing and doing last minute fights. I asked you a straightforward question. Name the active fighter in all of boxing who has a better résumé than Canelo. You couldn’t do it.

Please watch from round one. I’m not saying GGG pushed against the ropes for 9 rounds but Canelo was stalking him with intent and GGG fought of the back foot something he has never had to do for a sustained period in his entire career. That is what I saw . I was not a Canelo fan till I watched that fight I've never even seen anyone hold the center of the ring vs GGG, as Canelo did in that fight. But most of it was fought in the center of the ring. Not really a phone booth fight, more circling in the center. Canelo really impressed me there. He still got outlanded almost every round, and GGG's scoring punches are really strong generally, not pitty pat shots. If we are impressed with Canelo's ability to hold the ring in fight 2, I think it is fair to be impressed with GGG's ability to improvise as well and still outland Canelo in similar fashion to the first fight. I don't think the scoring in fights 1 and 2 were that different. Canelo isn't active enough, GGG too active for him. So far anyway.

GGG fought off the back foot one round...round 5...and it was one of his clearest rounds and should have been a clear round for him on any decent card. He outlanded Canelo by like 6 punches and landed the best shots of the round. Why do people just make up narratives like people didn't see the fight lol...Canelo fought well and held the ring very well, but there wasn't much backing up going on, by either guy. How many times was GGG fighting with his back on the ropes? Surely there are a number of those, if he was backed up for 9 rounds Please watch from round one. I’m not saying GGG pushed against the ropes for 9 rounds but Canelo was stalking him with intent and GGG fought of the back foot something he has never had to do for a sustained period in his entire career. That is what I saw . I was not a Canelo fan till I watched that fight

Nonsense..... I admit I had Canelo losing the first fight but he won the second and backed GGG up for 9 rounds and made him fight like Pernell Whittaker moving backwards when he was supposed to be this come forward machine GGG fought off the back foot one round...round 5...and it was one of his clearest rounds and should have been a clear round for him on any decent card. He outlanded Canelo by like 6 punches and landed the best shots of the round. Why do people just make up narratives like people didn't see the fight lol...Canelo fought well and held the ring very well, but there wasn't much backing up going on, by either guy. How many times was GGG fighting with his back on the ropes? Surely there are a number of those, if he was backed up for 9 rounds

You sure you watched the fight? Right...like wtf Perfect example of my posts on here 'defending' GGG. They are not so much a defense of him, as much as a response to crazy comments about him. I do the same thing anytime I see crazy comments about fighters, just so happens you get a ton of them, just like that, about GGG. Saying Canelo outjabbed him...what's next...that Canelo outworked him every round too...wtf

you're talking about alvarez in the second golovkin fight? he won the fight on 2 cards and one was a draw... are you confused? ive been watching this sport for longer than a lot of you have been alive and i can watch a fight once without sound and give a card that is spot on. golovkin looked old, got outjabbed and beaten to the body, and took his first beating. Literally jaw-dropping comment lol. Got outjabbed...really. Yeah I watch always without sound and score, that's how you have to do it. And anyone touting official cards in certain fights, Canelo fights for one, or other big fights/fights where a prospect is involved, I mean we see terrible, obviously corrupt cards all the time in boxing. He got outlanded in 8 of 11 rounds, got outlanded by 30 punches. I've yet to see myself when I've watched the fight, or hear from anyone, one clear round Canelo won in that fight (or fight 1 for that matter). Canelo is a good fighter. He fought well in both fights. He also got outworked pretty heavily in both fights. He was stronger in fight 2. Saying he legit won, or that he beat the sh.it out of GGG as you said, I mean again, what a tremendously low bar for beating the sh.it out of someone, or even for winning a fight lol. If you've watched fights as long as you say you have, you would definitely know that. 100%. If you decide for some reason not to score GGG's jab, then yeah you can give Canelo a win. But that's obviously a really dumb and incorrect way to score a fight. --- I see your profile pic btw - you do acknowledge that Ward lost fight 1 to Kov, right? Just want to see if you are on planet Earth with your scoring here and if a discussion now or at any time is worthwhile.

you're talking about alvarez in the second golovkin fight? he won the fight on 2 cards and one was a draw... are you confused? ive been watching this sport for longer than a lot of you have been alive and i can watch a fight once without sound and give a card that is spot on. golovkin looked old, got outjabbed and beaten to the body, and took his first beating. You sure you watched the fight?

It is very rare to see one guy being hyped so much based on two very close fights with old version of top rival. He also needed 2 robberies to get unbeaten from these fights. Canelo fanatics keep hyping Canelo like he stopped GGG twice or something. Like we all here are stupid and haven`t seen the fights. Nonsense..... I admit I had Canelo losing the first fight but he won the second and backed GGG up for 9 rounds and made him fight like Pernell Whittaker moving backwards when he was supposed to be this come forward machine

Man that's a really low bar for beating the sh.it out of someone. He didn't even come close to getting 6 rounds any decent card. Got outlanded almost every round, lol. you're talking about alvarez in the second golovkin fight? he won the fight on 2 cards and one was a draw... are you confused? ive been watching this sport for longer than a lot of you have been alive and i can watch a fight once without sound and give a card that is spot on. golovkin looked old, got outjabbed and beaten to the body, and took his first beating.

Your boy Weisfeld scored the 2nd fight for Canelo. Cant resist the sexy Cinnamon. Ca$hnelo stunted all over you So what? I'm not arguing that Weisfeld is a good judge, or more importantly, that he isn't able to be corrupted in big fights to give his handlers what they want. When you're a judge in certain fights - you aren't scoring the fights, you are putting down the score your handlers want.

Kovalev fight sure looked fixed

Read, study, learn. https://www.premierboxingchampions.com/news/veteran-boxing-judge-steve-weisfeld-offers-tips-how-score-fight "A lot of times fans hear that judges focus on four categories: clean punches, effective aggressiveness, defense and ring generalship," Weisfeld said. "But based upon my own experience, my conversations with other judges and seminars conducted by top judges, judges really focus on one category, and that's clean punches." Your boy Weisfeld scored the 2nd fight for Canelo. Cant resist the sexy Cinnamon. Ca$hnelo stunted all over you

If a guy doesn't like a boxer, fine But to spew complete nonsense is dumbfounding, unless the critic is a casual.

"A lot of times fans hear that judges focus on four categories: clean punches, effective aggressiveness, defense and ring generalship," Weisfeld said. "But based upon my own experience, my conversations with other judges and seminars conducted by top judges, judges really focus on one category, and that's clean punches." "Most judges that I have spoken to do not give credit for defense alone." He, a top judge in the sport, is telling you that he, and every other judge he knows in the sport, scores fights based on 1) what punches land and 2) how effective those punches are. That's it. He tells you right there what it is. To suggest he has only talked to a few judges about how they judge fights, is one of the dumbest things I've heard on here in a while. ---- He is telling you, what he and every other judge looks for in fights - they are scoring only clean punches and how effective they are, which should be obvious. You can know how to score a fight, and still be bad at it. Or you could be corrupt, at least sometimes. Knowing how to score a fight and being good at it are not one and the same. It's like knowing the rules as a referee, and also then being a good referee. To be a good ref, you need to know the rules well. But just because you know the rules well, doesn't mean you will be a good ref. Could be corrupt, stupid etc. How do you not understand the difference between "every judge" and "most judges I've talked to"?? And to suggest you can be a bad judge and know how to judge is ridiculous.. You are the one that seems to have his mind made up to defend his scores lol To each his own

You're making no sense, we should follow this guys scoring criteria but ignore his wack score cards? The problem is youre saying "every other judge". No he said some people hes talked to.. like I said it's not gospel, judges score fights differently. "A lot of times fans hear that judges focus on four categories: clean punches, effective aggressiveness, defense and ring generalship," Weisfeld said. "But based upon my own experience, my conversations with other judges and seminars conducted by top judges, judges really focus on one category, and that's clean punches." "Most judges that I have spoken to do not give credit for defense alone." He, a top judge in the sport, is telling you that he, and every other judge he knows in the sport, scores fights based on 1) what punches land and 2) how effective those punches are. That's it. He tells you right there what it is. To suggest he has only talked to a few judges about how they judge fights, is one of the dumbest things I've heard on here in a while. ---- He is telling you, what he and every other judge looks for in fights - they are scoring only clean punches and how effective they are, which should be obvious. You can know how to score a fight, and still be bad at it. Or you could be corrupt, at least sometimes. Knowing how to score a fight and being good at it are not one and the same. It's like knowing the rules as a referee, and also then being a good referee. To be a good ref, you need to know the rules well. But just because you know the rules well, doesn't mean you will be a good ref. Could be corrupt, stupid etc.

I'm not arguing for his acumen in scoring fights - what I'm showing you is what he, and every other judge he knows, is looking for. Reasonable people can differ as far as who wins a round or a fight even sometimes. I feel like 95% of fights have 1 winner but sometimes, Lara Hurd is maybe an example, there are fights that could go either way or it is a draw. All the judges look for is what lands, and then they grade how effective those punches are. Usually landing more is enough to win a round, but that's not always the case as we know. You're making no sense, we should follow this guys scoring criteria but ignore his wack score cards? The problem is youre saying "every other judge". No he said some people hes talked to.. like I said it's not gospel, judges score fights differently.

Dude this is the same guy that didnt score a single round for Algeri against provodnikov gtfoh I'm not arguing for his acumen in scoring fights - what I'm showing you is what he, and every other judge he knows, is looking for. Reasonable people can differ as far as who wins a round or a fight even sometimes. I feel like 95% of fights have 1 winner but sometimes, Lara Hurd is maybe an example, there are fights that could go either way or it is a draw. All the judges look for is what lands, and then they grade how effective those punches are. Usually landing more is enough to win a round, but that's not always the case as we know.

He said that he and every judge he knows, agree that scoring fights comes down to scoring clean punches that land, and then evaluating how effective those punches are that land. Dude this is the same guy that didnt score a single round for Algeri against provodnikov gtfoh

Prove his opinion? The funny thing about people these days is they take peoples personal opinions and say they are facts. Judges score fights differently based on their preferences, others feel the same some dont. He said he and some of his peers feel that way, this isnt gospel bro Just how you may give a dude missing wild a round and others may give the guy avoiding the punches the round. That's why theres 3 judges He said that he and every judge he knows, agree that scoring fights comes down to scoring clean punches that land, and then evaluating how effective those punches are that land.

he beat the **** out of golovkin in the second fight. Man that's a really low bar for beating the sh.it out of someone. He didn't even come close to getting 6 rounds any decent card. Got outlanded almost every round, lol.