The Logic Problems You Have If You Are A Golovkin Fan

[daggum]

Screw you man!

But, I did laugh...

lol thats all that matters!

[Madison Boxing]

It should be pretty obvious the difference in golovkin moving backwards occasionally to reset himself as opposed to canelo moving backwards literally all of the first fight. The 'he ran' stuff is nonsensical, think people are.just trying to get their own back for the first first and clutching at straws

[Johnny2x2x]

People who call close fights robberies are fools and end up proving it when they describe their round by round scores.

I’ve seen posters here today claim it was a total robbery and GGG clearly won the fight. Then they describe their 115-113 card and say things like, “round 9 was very close, but I felt GGG edged it.” Say what? If you had it 115-113 and you thought a round or rounds were very close then you yourself could have scored it 114-114 or 115-113 the other way.

Only ones claiming robbery are GGG fanboys. And they know now too that if a 3rd fight happens that Canelo is going to win more clearly.

[koolkc107]

I scored it for GGG 115-113, but I have zero problem with the other way around. I’ll watch it again when I get time and I’m sure I’ll see exactly what 115-113 for Canelo was on the scorecards of the two judges at ringside.

Canelo landed more power punches in 9 of 12 rounds. GGG landed more jabs in all 12 rounds. Power punches count for more than jabs.

Exactly.

Had GGG got the decision all I could say is that is was a good call that I happened to disagree with.

The better G fans are saying exactly that and have kept my respect.

[koolkc107]

Still can't find a G fan to explain why Canelo can't get the same credit for coming forward in the second fight that G got in the first fight.

Frankly, Saul was more effective coming forward than G was...

[Redd Foxx]

I don't think many here would consider me a Golovkin fan, but I had him winning, with respect that it was close, and not a flat out robbery.
If that means I have problems with logic then maybe my in laws have been right about me all along...

[Real King Kong]

Why draw a comparison to the first fight when it was nothing alike? I mean, if ggg spent half the fight back pedalling and laying on the ropes, then maybe it might make sense.

[koolkc107]

I don't think many here would consider me a Golovkin fan, but I had him winning, with respect that it was close, and not a flat out robbery.
If that means I have problems with logic then maybe my in laws have been right about me all along...

Why draw a comparison to the first fight when it was nothing alike? I mean, if ggg spent half the fight back pedalling and laying on the ropes, then maybe it might make sense.

I have no problem at all with anyone who scored it 115-113 Golovkin.

That's as legit a score as 115-113 Canelo or a draw.

The fight was close!

The logical flaws enter the picture when you include the fact that although G came forward, he missed almost 500 punches in the first fight, landing 110 power shots.

It was this performance that had Golovkin fans saying he won the first fight, mostly due to the fact he fought on the front foot.

By contrast, when Canelo came forward he was more accurate, and landed 143 power shots.

So, if part of your rationale for saying G won the first fight is him coming forward and landing, how can you say he won the second when Canelo came forward and landed more big punches than G did the first time?

Like I said, there's a huge flaw in folks logic going on...

[Real King Kong]

I have no problem at all with anyone who scored it 115-113 Golovkin.

That's as legit a score as 115-113 Canelo or a draw.

The fight was close!

The logical flaws enter the picture when you include the fact that although G came forward, he missed almost 500 punches in the first fight, landing 110 power shots.

It was this performance that had Golovkin fans saying he won the first fight, mostly due to the fact he fought on the front foot.

By contrast, when Canelo came forward he was more accurate, and landed 143 power shots.

So, if part of your rationale for saying G won the first fight is him coming forward and landing, how can you say he won the second when Canelo came forward and landed more big punches than G did the first time?

Like I said, there's a huge flaw in folks logic going on...

I think it was a combination of ggg coming forward and Canelo backpedalling, sitting on the ropes and only fighting for half the rounds tbh. Ggg didn't even press the fight that hard...it was more what Canelo didn't do than what ggg did imo. That's why the comparison to this fight doesn't work. While Canelo stood his ground and pressed the fight more, both guys fought 3 min of every round and most of the fight was toe to toe in the middle of the ring.