Did your opinion change after watching the replay?

[Eddy Current]

I still thought it was really close. I think a draw or either guy winning by a point or two is reasonable.

[Lomasexual]

So a poll of who won the Canelo-Golovkin fight isn't a poll on what they believe?

A poll of 500k said Pacquiao is the second greatest fighter of all time. Are you going to argue against science and your own damn argument?

Yes, it is a poll on what people believe.

I said that most people believe GGG won. Polls support that. The statistical method allows us to extrapolate that more widely.

Ok, well done, you have trolled me good. I'll leave you to it. I'd ask why you bother trolling people, but I'll leave that up to your psychologist to answer.

[ironmt]

I had Golovkin winning the first round after watching it very thoroughly and repeatedly. There's no way I could score that for Canelo. The tenth round I haven't got around to studying and I can't remember how I scored it as the fight was happening but I'm going to be checking that round out eventually. I'll be going over the whole fight thoroughly. So far I've only watched the first 4 rounds with a judicious eye. I'm trying to see what all the Canelo fans were seeing, but it's really hard to give him as much credit as some people are giving him on these boards. He didn't do bad, but he just wasn't winning the rounds like a few people say he was. I just think GGG won more rounds.

I also had GGG winning the first round. He dominated the round with his jab. I don't think Canelo did much of anything until 1:30-2:00 minutes Into the round and even then all he had was a couple of flurries. The 10th I gave to Canelo and the 11th to GGG. I gave Canelo the following rounds 2,3,10,12.

[muslimer12]

Why do you keep repeating that nonsense? Most saw a close fight. By no means clear. You sound like you're trying to convince yourself.

most saw GGG win idiot

[Mr Objecitivity]

So, you don't know how sample sizes work. You only had to say so.

https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

To work out a valid representation of the opinions of 50 million people, with a confidence level of 95% +/- 2, you only need 2,400 people.

That's ok man. A lot of people don't know that.

I wouldn't even bother with that poster. That poster thinks GGG at age 35 is at his ABSOLUTE peak. Yet, when asked to find any past pressure fighter at age 35 who was better than what they were in their 20's, that poster fails to deliver. As in, no past pressure fighter at age 35 ever beat an opponent that is of the same / similar caliber as Canelo Alvarez.

In addition, that poster obviously can't seem to differentiate between like and unlike concepts when making comparisons. Being the 2nd greatest boxer in history isn't a well defined conclusion. However, winning a boxing bout is a well defined conclusion. As if those two concepts are even comparable.

[Robbie Barrett]

I wouldn't even bother with that poster. That poster thinks GGG at age 35 is at his ABSOLUTE peak. Yet, when asked to find any past pressure fighter at age 35 who was better than what they were in their 20's, that poster fails to deliver. As in, no past pressure fighter at age 35 ever beat an opponent that is of the same / similar caliber as Canelo Alvarez.

In addition, that poster obviously can't seem to differentiate between like and unlike concepts when making comparisons. Being the 2nd greatest boxer in history isn't a well defined conclusion. However, winning a boxing bout is a well defined conclusion. As if those two concepts are even comparable.

Golovkin is a better fighter now than he was in his twenties. Go watch the Ouma fight or earlier fights and tell me he isn't.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Golovkin is a better fighter now than he was in his twenties. Go watch the Ouma fight or earlier fights and tell me he isn't.

Yes, because one fight is enough of a sample size to base a conclusion on one's entire career? Am I correct? Or perhaps it's you who should GO and take some logic courses.

[Robbie Barrett]

Yes, because one fight is enough of a sample size to base a conclusion on one's entire career? Am I correct? Or perhaps it's you who should GO and take some logic courses.

Can't you read? "Ouma fight or earlier fights"

[Mr Objecitivity]

Can't you read? "Ouma fight or earlier fights"

Yes, I watched his earlier fights. So what?

[Shape up]

Barrett is like a spoilt child. Chucks a tantrum when things don't go his way