Did your opinion change after watching the replay?

[dfflop]

GGG was more dominant than I remembered. He won 8-4.

[Fists_of_Fury]

I score for clean effective punching... pressuring with mostly jabs didn't cut it for me from a supposed "ATG" career middleweight ko artist boogie man fighting a career jmw making his 160lb. debut. 7-5 Canelo... GGG has been exposed since stepping up in level of competition as the hype job a lot of us said he is. He is a good 1 dimensional fighter and nowhere near great... saying he's an ATG is beyond ******ed and hilarious.

[Sifo]

is the whole problem that there was a 118-110 scorecard or is the problem that GGG didnt get the win

[Redd Foxx]

Nelo vs GGG II will be better Redd.

I believe it. I expect Canelo to stop ****ing around in the rematch and improve his output. And, for Golovkin to improve his punch variety. Really looking forward to it. Hope they don't make us wait too long.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Wasn't following the argument but you sound like a clown here, trying to pretend we don't know who Hearns was and how much that win meant.

Maybe it's you who is the REAL clown, since you self admittedly aren't even aware of the ORIGINAL point being discussed. The point about Thomas Hearns is a total red herring fallacy and is irrelevant. Perhaps follow the topic next time before you start calling others a 'clown', whilst exposing yourself as one.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Damn you're embarrassing yourself now. What has Canelo done at 160? What has Lemieux done? What has Kell Brook done? Hearns went on to beat Virgil hill at 175 another very good fighter and lost to Barkely again. Barkley shits all over Lemieux. You silly little fan boy.

We're sidetracking here! The initial point was, which pressure fighter at age 35 or beyond, beat an opponent of Canelo Alvarez's caliber whilst being 8 or more years older? Iran Barkley wasn't 35 years older or more when he beat Thomas Hearns. Nor was Iran Barkley 8 or more years older than Hearns when he beat him. So that doesn't fulfill the challenge I set, thus it's irrelevant.

[Redd Foxx]

is the whole problem that there was a 118-110 scorecard or is the problem that GGG didnt get the win

I think the Byrd score is what really fuels this "robbery" fire. Even though I didn't have Canelo winning, I could see people scoring it that way. No one can see 118-110 so many fans just dismiss the idea that Canelo may have drawn or won.

I think Canelo winning by 1 round would have been more believable to people than what happened because 118 was not possible.

[Robbie Barrett]

We're sidetracking here! The initial point was, which pressure fighter at age 35 or beyond, beat an opponent of Canelo Alvarez's caliber whilst being 8 or more years older? Iran Barkley wasn't 35 years older or more when he beat Thomas Hearns. Nor was Iran Barkley 8 or more years older than Hearns when he beat him. So that doesn't fulfill the challenge I set, thus it's irrelevant.

Oh now you don't want discuss it anymore because Golovkins best wins have done fuck all at 160 and their wins at other weights are irrelevant? (your words)

You took a big **** on Golovkins resume yourself.

[Redd Foxx]

Maybe it's you who is the REAL clown, since you self admittedly aren't even aware of the ORIGINAL point being discussed. The point about Thomas Hearns is a total red herring fallacy and is irrelevant. Perhaps follow the topic next time before you start calling others a 'clown', whilst exposing yourself as one.

Don't drop debate terms like "red herring" while you're pulling a strawman and trying to steer away from the point. Your devaluing Barkley's win over Hearns (the only topic I addressed) was noobish and made you look the clown. You got called out on it. Don't be such a fool next time if it enrages you to get called out on that stuff.

[Sifo]

I think the Byrd score is what really fuels this "robbery" fire. Even though I didn't have Canelo winning, I could see people scoring it that way. No one can see 118-110 so many fans just dismiss the idea that Canelo may have drawn or won.

I think Canelo winning by 1 round would have been more believable to people than what happened because 118 was not possible.

Yep that's what I thought. But then I see people talking about how GGG won "clearly" and it was huge robbery and if you had anything other than that you are blind or bias. I honestly can see a canelo win a ggg win or a draw.