Did your opinion change after watching the replay?

[Willy Wanker]

I watched it twice last week and had it 115-113 for Golovkin both times.

This week I scored it again and had it 118-110 Golovkin.

[Idunnoshet]

Had it 7-5 Golovkin live .
Had it 7-5 Canelo after replay with no audio .
Careful Barrett the GGG squads jumping all over you on this one .

[soul_survivor]

Anyone who scores the fight for Canelo, meaning he won a minimum of 7 rounds has no clue about boxing.

[TonyGe]

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.

Robert Duran was more if a boxer than Golovkin but he was a pressure fighter. He beat Barkley at age 37. Barkley was a very good fighter. Not technically better than Canelo but a lot bigger stronger and had much better endurance.

[Jsmooth9876]

Same few guys crying for Canelo I see. Also, same guy who thinks he knows everything getting taken to school as usual.

Lmfao at the imbeciles who say that commentary makes you score a fight different than you should. Do you score with your eyes or ears? What a bunch of thick fks.

[Gate keeper]

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?

Lol...there's more that goes in to a poll than just the number of people. Demographics is also extremely important in determining the effective representation of a sample for a large group. For example if I ask 1000 Russian-Americans if they approve of Russia, the majority of the poll would likely be positive. Probably not an accurate representation of the country. But if I have the same percentage of Russian-Americans in the poll as there are in the country, the poll would probably be overwhelming negative. A proper poll must include an accurate percentage of all demographic groups it's supposed to represent. The poll you're referencing sounds like the equivalent of a fan boy poll. In other words, the number of Pacquiao fans in the poll outnumbered everyone else, same as the Russian example above. Which of course makes it inaccurate in representing the whole world.

And as far as the election. The Brexit polls were close and not overwhelmingly in favor of staying in the EU so I don't know how you can use that and say it proves polls don't work. And what was determined with the polls for Trump was that a lot of people did not wish to admit they were going to vote for Trump. Which makes sense given how divisive he is. And even if you don't believe that, citing one poll as an anomaly proves nothing. You'd have to take many election polls and show that they're consistently false compared to a majority to say there's no science in it. Which you can't do because they're not. This is why businesses and politicians pay millions in market research to determine what resonates with consumers and voters.

[koolkc107]

I switch a couple of rounds, giving Triple G the 4th while changing the 10th to a Canelo round.

Got the same score, 7-5 Canelo.

What's more, Golovkin looked EVEN MORE ineffective chasing Canelo than I'd remembered.

All these Gennady folks who have it 116-112 or more lopsided look a lot like Adelaide Byrd to me.

They clearly DKSAB...

[Mr Objecitivity]

Robert Duran was more if a boxer than Golovkin but he was a pressure fighter. He beat Barkley at age 37. Barkley was a very good fighter. Not technically better than Canelo but a lot bigger stronger and had much better endurance.

Barkley has 19 LOSSES. Let that sink in! 19 LOSSES out of 63 bouts. That's as close as one can get to being a 'BUM' without being one. In other words, David Lemieux is even a better boxer with a better record than Iran Barkley. So Barkley doesn't even qualify as someone who is anywhere near the quality of a boxer like Canelo Alvarez.

Yet, Duran had to go 12 rounds against Barkley who he failed to KO and had to settle for a split decision. Whereas Golovkin demolished and stopped a far better quality opponent in David Lemieux. So I doubt Duran was 'more of a boxer' than Golovkin.

[Shape up]

I switch a couple of rounds, giving Triple G the 4th while changing the 10th to a Canelo round.

Got the same score, 7-5 Canelo.

What's more, Golovkin looked EVEN MORE ineffective chasing Canelo than I'd remembered.

All these Gennady folks who have it 116-112 or more lopsided look a lot like Adelaide Byrd to me.

They clearly DKSAB...

Another crying little b1tch, I have always thought youDKSAB

[Robbie Barrett]

Lol...there's more that goes in to a poll than just the number of people. Demographics is also extremely important in determining the effective representation of a sample for a large group. For example if I ask 1000 Russian-Americans if they approve of Russia, the majority of the poll would likely be positive. Probably not an accurate representation of the country. But if I have the same percentage of Russian-Americans in the poll as there are in the country, the poll would probably be overwhelming negative. A proper poll must include an accurate percentage of all demographic groups it's supposed to represent. The poll you're referencing sounds like the equivalent of a fan boy poll. In other words, the number of Pacquiao fans in the poll outnumbered everyone else, same as the Russian example above. Which of course makes it inaccurate in representing the whole world.

And as far as the election. The Brexit polls were close and not overwhelmingly in favor of staying in the EU so I don't know how you can use that and say it proves polls don't work. And what was determined with the polls for Trump was that a lot of people did not wish to admit they were going to vote for Trump. Which makes sense given how divisive he is. And even if you don't believe that, citing one poll as an anomaly proves nothing. You'd have to take many election polls and show that they're consistently false compared to a majority to say there's no science in it. Which you can't do because they're not. This is why businesses and politicians pay millions in market research to determine what resonates with consumers and voters.

You mean a poll on a English language forum that mostly saw the American/English versions of the fight doesn't represent the opinion of the whole world?