Comments Thread For: Ryder Trusts The Judges in Canelo Fight: It Will Be Judged Fairly

[Jab jab boom]

No I just know your an idiot that can't be reasoned with when you go FULL Rtard!!!

Calls someone an idiot while using the wrong version of your vs you’re. You can’t make this shyt up. Lmaoooo

[eco1]

If Canelo reincarnates he is going to be a paid judge in his next 5 lives.

[ShoulderRoll]

No this is what wreaks of crooked judging:
1. A judge giving Canelo 10 rounds vs Trout in an obviously close fight.
2. A judge giving him 9 rounds vs Lara in a fight many had him losing.
3. A judge giving him a draw vs mayweather in a fight where he barely won a round.
4. A judge giving him 11 rounds vs Cotto in an obviously close fight.
5. A judge giving him 10 rounds vs Ggg in their first fight in a fight he clearly lost.
6. The judges finding a way to give him the win in a rematch vs ggg when only 2 of 50 press row scorecards had Canelo winning.
7. The judges giving him a close loss (7 rounds to 5) vs Bivol in a fight he barely won any rounds in.

Any time that anyone has clearly beaten Canelo they have gotten the win over him. Floyd did it and Bivol did it.

That’s what matters when it comes to crooked judging, not an outlier scorecard here or there. Or disagreeing with the results of close fights.

[_Rexy_]

Any time that anyone has clearly beaten Canelo they have gotten the win over him. Floyd did it and Bivol did it.

That’s what matters when it comes to crooked judging, not an outlier scorecard here or there. Or disagreeing with the results of close fights.

And if the Bivol fight had ended In a draw? Three judges watched an 11-1 fight and scored it 7-5. You’re saying it’s fine because you can shut him out and win a close decision.

[ShoulderRoll]

And if the Bivol fight had ended In a draw? Three judges watched an 11-1 fight and scored it 7-5. You’re saying it’s fine because you can shut him out and win a close decision.

It didn’t end in a draw, though.

Canelo can beaten on the cards. As long as you actually beat him. Being involved in a close fight with him then crying about it doesn’t count.

[_Rexy_]

It didn’t end in a draw, though.

Canelo can beaten on the cards. As long as you actually beat him. Being involved in a close fight with him then crying about it doesn’t count.

The first Golovkin fight wasn’t close. He’s lost to two fighters, and he’s won one round of 24.

you shouldn’t need a shutout to “eek out a win”

[Jab jab boom]

Any time that anyone has clearly beaten Canelo they have gotten the win over him. Floyd did it and Bivol did it.

That’s what matters when it comes to crooked judging, not an outlier scorecard here or there. Or disagreeing with the results of close fights.

That may be the only time you think he was clearly beaten, but most think he’s lost clearly before. Especially the first ggg fight. But again, you’re deflecting from the point. He consistently has at least 1 judge that is so biased in his favor, it can’t just be coincidental. Having an outlier more than any other individual boxer in the history of the sport might be something you want to dismiss because it’s favoring a fighter you love, but that still doesn’t mean it doesn’t wreak of corruption. So unless you can defend those scorecards above, your stance is pointless.

[ShoulderRoll]

The first Golovkin fight wasn’t close. He’s lost to two fighters, and he’s won one round of 24.

you shouldn’t need a shutout to “eek out a win”

I’ll go ahead and give you the first Golovkin fight. But that’s it, that’s the only “robbery” that people can point to when they say you can’t beat Canelo by decision?

Much ado over just one occurrence. Which is an arguable one.

Austin Trout getting knocked down and Erislandy Lara stinking out the joint…both in close fights…don’t qualify as robberies. And occasional bad scorecards that don’t affect the end result are no big deal.

[ShoulderRoll]

That may be the only time you think he was clearly beaten, but most think he’s lost clearly before. Especially the first ggg fight. But again, you’re deflecting from the point. He consistently has at least 1 judge that is so biased in his favor, it can’t just be coincidental. Having an outlier more than any other individual boxer in the history of the sport might be something you want to dismiss because it’s favoring a fighter you love, but that still doesn’t mean it doesn’t wreak of corruption. So unless you can defend those scorecards above, your stance is pointless.

More than any other individual in the history of the sport? You’re just exaggerating now and being over dramatic.

As long as bad scorecards don’t affect the rightful winner from getting the victory they are essentially meaningless. So what this all boils down to is that you don’t like Canelo and want to crucify him over just one single fight. Golovkin 1.

[Tatabanya]

While I believe Canelo should win by a wide margin, I have a feeling the gorilla won't lay down.

It also depends on how the injury affects Canelo's ferocity, needless to say.