I personally thought the fight should have been a draw.
Anybody else thought Trout beat Canelo?
Collapse
-
Nah dood. I am by NO means any kind of fan that in any way shape or form might admire Calzaghe. But he won that fight. Much as I hate to admit it and give a lil' sugar to some of Calzaghe's more slobberingly moronic, jingoistic, babosote, fans.
Wish he had.Comment
-
Only difference is that ten years from now, nobody will be crying like children over the Canelo-Trout fight.
To this day you have butt-hurt, grown men throwing tantrums over Floyd v Castillo in 2001
Its pathetic.
That said, I didn't see the Canelo Trout fight. I'll watch it later.Comment
-
The fight was close because Canelo was toying with Trout.
I just hope Canelo comes differently in September.Comment
-
If Trout beat Canelo that night, surely, and without a shred of doubt, Castillo won the first go around with Floyd.Comment
-
We are hearing now from a lot of people that Floyd vs Canelo is "the fight of the century". Well, I see it like this: Canelo never fought a prime, top opponent until Trout, so Trout was the first BIG test for him; and on my scorecard Trout won this fight. Only by 1 point, but still he won.
So - Floyd vs Canelo can be sold by the media as such a big fight for only one reason: because both have a lot of PPV buyers.
Anybody wanting to tell me Canelo is a top 40 p4p fighter at this point has got to be joking.
I see it like this: Canelo is physically bigger than Floyd, actually he is the first natural light middleweight Floyd will be facing (Oscar and Cotto came from much lower weight classes when they fought Floyd at 154).
But as far as I am concerned, Canelo is a good fighter who never fought ANYBODY in his prime except Trout who he lost to.
But the fact that I had him winning by just 1 point means it was still close and all fights can go either way if its only a few points variance so to speak.Comment
Comment