Comments Thread For: Mayweather: Canelo-Cotto Scores “F***ing Ridiculous”

[The plunger man]

I don't think mayweather is the best example to talk....he lost the first maidana fight.....he got a lopsided victory over PACQUAIO when it was very close and the NSAC allowed floyd his banned IV while they stopped Pacquaio using his legal painkillers....that don't sound fair to me ....plus the Castillo fight......canelo won fair and square whether it was 3 rounds or 9 rounds......move on War golovkin

[Lunchbucket]

I don't think mayweather is the best example to talk....he lost the first maidana fight.....

Mayweather did not lose the Maidana fight, it was close but no way Maidana won.

Floyd's right about the Cotto-Canelo scoring, I had it the same 8-4.

[JrX]

Quiet Floyd they might not back u this time with u using a 750ml iv or your 50th.

[jvsnypes]

The fight could have went 7-5 rounds either way. The politics of boxing is getting worse. The HBO commentating was horrible. There had to be an agenda. I honestly think Cotto rubs people in the sport wrong, mainly the promoters and sanctioning bodies. Plus, he would never verbally commit to fighting GGG if he had won, so all the major players like GB and HBO were pulling for Canelo. The sport will make more money off of Canelo in the future and not Cotto. From the beginning, Cotto was going to have to knock Canelo out to win the fight. What I saw was a great and competitive fight that could have gone either way.

Canelo landed the harder shots, yes. But, wasn't he suppose to as the bigger and younger fighter??? Did he drop the aging smaller fighter??? NO! Did he even wobble the aging smaller fighter??? NO! So what difference does it make if he landed the harder shots? It was Cotto who put on a boxing expedition. His jab was excellent, his footwork was brilliant, and his defense was superb. That is what boxing is all about isn't it??? Or because now we have a huge Hispanic following, its suppose to be about who's more macho??? That's not boxing. I gave the close rounds to Cotto because from the beginning of the round to the end, it was him who put in the most work. Yes Canelo did land big shots at times, but was it enough to win a round when he ate jabs the entire time???

The sport that I love is becoming a disgrace with the scoring. And its all about the politics. Now, everyone will get what they want in Canelo vs GGG. But do you have to stick it to a great fighter like Cotto in doing so? Its a damn shame. I have no problem with Canelo winning, but by those scores??? ITS SICKNING!!!

[MisanthropicNY]

says the guy who had a 10-2 scorecard against Pacquiao

[Nightfall]

TBE telling it like it is. where i disagree with him is that i thought the fight was a draw or cotto won a very close split decision

[sunny31]

His thoughts and what he said pretty much mirror my own and the thread I created immediately after the fight. I am happy about that because the scorecards, HBO, compubox numbers, it all stinks of politics.

[IMDAZED]

The fight could have went 7-5 rounds either way. The politics of boxing is getting worse. The HBO commentating was horrible. There had to be an agenda. I honestly think Cotto rubs people in the sport wrong, mainly the promoters and sanctioning bodies. Plus, he would never verbally commit to fighting GGG if he had won, so all the major players like GB and HBO were pulling for Canelo. The sport will make more money off of Canelo in the future and not Cotto. From the beginning, Cotto was going to have to knock Canelo out to win the fight. What I saw was a great and competitive fight that could have gone either way.

Canelo landed the harder shots, yes. But, wasn't he suppose to as the bigger and younger fighter??? Did he drop the aging smaller fighter??? NO! Did he even wobble the aging smaller fighter??? NO! So what difference does it make if he landed the harder shots? It was Cotto who put on a boxing expedition. His jab was excellent, his footwork was brilliant, and his defense was superb. That is what boxing is all about isn't it??? Or because now we have a huge Hispanic following, its suppose to be about who's more macho??? That's not boxing. I gave the close rounds to Cotto because from the beginning of the round to the end, it was him who put in the most work. Yes Canelo did land big shots at times, but was it enough to win a round when he ate jabs the entire time???

The sport that I love is becoming a disgrace with the scoring. And its all about the politics. Now, everyone will get what they want in Canelo vs GGG. But do you have to stick it to a great fighter like Cotto in doing so? Its a damn shame. I have no problem with Canelo winning, but by those scores??? ITS SICKNING!!!

Although I think you're underselling Canelo a bit (I thought he won), I agree with pretty much everything else you wrote.

I couldn't have been the only one who felt some de ja vu after the cards were announced. I kept thinking about Canelo-Trout, a fight much closer than the announcers and crowd suggested but everyone was carrying on like it was some one-sided annihilation. Almost if the outcome had been preordained. HBO announcing has been absolutely abominable in terms of bias. When the scorecards follow suit, it should make boxing fans think.

[NEETzsche]

mayweather is right on the money here

[Spoon23]

I don't think mayweather is the best example to talk....he lost the first maidana fight.....he got a lopsided victory over PACQUAIO when it was very close and the NSAC allowed floyd his banned IV while they stopped Pacquaio using his legal painkillers....that don't sound fair to me ....plus the Castillo fight......canelo won fair and square whether it was 3 rounds or 9 rounds......move on War golovkin

You nailed it again Steve.