GGG vs Canelo; media row bias.

[S7V7N]

I don't use media or popularity to develop my score, opinion, etc, but I think it does lend credence to the fact that people can see fights in different ways.
Those who want to act like GG got stomped and his fans are delusional are being ignorant. In fights like this, you have to be able to understand how people can arrive to different results, if you're going to claim to understand boxing.

Oh, I totally agree with you here. I actually scored the 9th & 12th for Canelo, however this was balanced out by me scoring the 3rd & 5th to GGG. These 4 rounds were extremely competitive & ended up decided the fight. I don't think I'm the best judge in the world either & certainly can see others scoring those rounds differently.

The problem is that 2 of the judges gave all 4 of those rounds to Canelo, that's when tendencies/favoritism is revealed.

[Eff Pandas]

Only 2 rounds went against the grain and they both went to Canelo. Which is all it took to give him a win that the majority don't think he deserved.

If only it was that simple. The most interesting thing to me when I see these stats is that while its 23-0-10 GGG in who people thought won, the consensus rbr facts have it a draw.

Most people thought Canelo won rds 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 8. And most people thought GGGG won rds 1, 4, 9, 10, 11 & 12. Thats 6-6 even. And then when you see that that 35% of people thought Canelo won the 9th round & that 49% of people thought GGG won the 3rd round that gets us to a 7-5 scorecard either way when you are breaking it down to what 3 people mighta thought of the fight rbr.

Which is what most of chill rational people, including myself, have been saying since Saturday night post-the decision. This fight was realllllllly close & eassssssssily coulda went either way. If these stats don't prove that now you just aren't paying attention. And variance is a mfer.

[Eff Pandas]

Oh, I agree that the judges "lined up pretty good", I also would have had no problem with a draw, the first fight was more clear for GGG. My point is only that the judges were leaning one way, as the media scorecards reveal. It was a super close fight & was very tough to score, why I thought some might appreciate looking a little deeper to help reveal where the tendencies really lie. Remember that prior to the fight many of these were picking Canelo to win, he also exceeded expectations by staying in the center of the ring, so you'd think the media would have been giving him more of the rounds subconsciously, but it didn't play out that way.

I mean sure there is a lean, there's always gonna be a lean cuz its statistically impossible for there to not to be when someone wins & the consensus rbr opinion is a draw.

I'll add there is a lean against GGG in the 3rd & 5th rounds as well where he should have gotten 1 judge going for him in both of those rds based on more than 33% of the media feeling he won those rds.

Round 3: 51/49 Canelo, Judges Canelo Canelo Canelo
Round 5: 54/46 Canelo, Judges Canelo Canelo Canelo

So there is a solid argument in the 36 judgments being made by the 3 judges in these 12 rounds 5 were incorrect if we are using the media consensus as a concrete take on how the judges shoulda scored the fight.

GGG shoulda had 1 judge for the 3rd & 5th when all judges went for Canelo instead. GGG shoulda had 1 more judge for the 9th when it was 2-1 Canelo. And he shoulda had 2 more judges for the 12th (although Canelo was just under 33% at 30% feeling he won the rd so thats pretty close obviously) when it was 2-1 Canelo.

Thing is there is still variance that would make this fight that was judged 86% correctly go either way. Thats just a reality. So basically if you really wanna prove there is a Canelo lean you need to do this type of info gathering for more than one fight.

And honestly with some of the Canelo cards out there I think you could actually find it if you choose to look for it, but one fight/36 judged rounds by 3 judges doesn't really prove anything cuz variance is a mfer with %'s.

Interesting info regardless of any opinions one takes away from this info or not & its much appreciated & much respected for taking the time to compile it.

[S7V7N]

I mean sure there is a lean, there's always gonna be a lean cuz its statistically impossible for there to not to be when someone wins & the consensus rbr opinion is a draw.

I'll add there is a lean against GGG in the 3rd & 5th rounds as well where he should have gotten 1 judge going for him in both of those rds based on more than 33% of the media feeling he won those rds.

Round 3: 51/49 Canelo, Judges Canelo Canelo Canelo
Round 5: 54/46 Canelo, Judges Canelo Canelo Canelo

So there is a solid argument in the 36 judgments being made by the 3 judges in these 12 rounds 5 were incorrect if we are using the media consensus as a concrete take on how the judges shoulda scored the fight.

GGG shoulda had 1 judge for the 3rd & 5th when all judges went for Canelo instead. GGG shoulda had 1 more judge for the 9th when it was 2-1 Canelo. And he shoulda had 2 more judges for the 12th (although Canelo was just under 33% at 30% feeling he won the rd so thats pretty close obviously) when it was 2-1 Canelo.

Thing is there is still variance that would make this fight that was judged 86% correctly go either way. Thats just a reality. So basically if you really wanna prove there is a Canelo lean you need to do this type of info gathering for more than one fight.

And honestly with some of the Canelo cards out there I think you could actually find it if you choose to look for it, but one fight/36 judged rounds by 3 judges doesn't really prove anything cuz variance is a mfer with %'s.

Interesting info regardless of any opinions one takes away from this info or not & its much appreciated & much respected for taking the time to compile it.

Great post & I'm honestly not arguing the decision at all. It simply seems to me that with so many close rounds the %'s should have meant the fight was a draw. I was simply interested in comparing why my card was different (& how it compared) to the media/judges. Didn't go in with pre-conceived notions, just laid out the facts & let the #'s determine where things went wrong for Golovkin.

I don't think this is necessarily bias or corruption, but perhaps exposes tendencies cause as you said; it's just odd that all 3 judges approved Canelo early in the 3rd & 5th when the media (& fans) were so split. I tend to feel this was because how Saul fought this time out, so he garnered more respect. Then the 12th as well, once he recovered from the 10th round beating & really showed his heart that final stanza. I know I was impressed. I just wasn't as convinced early in the fight & believe that's really all it took. Exceeding expectations has a big influence on human perception, just listen to the crowd.

[S7V7N]

Another great and detailed analysis S7V7N.

GGG needed to clearly win 8-9 rounds just to maybe get a draw.

S7V7N P.S. I think you added the wrong link st the end for the Reddit scorecards. It was for their first fight.

I think you meant this one:

http://mmadecisions.com/decision/935...nnady-Golovkin

Thanks for having my back Vlad! Updated to correct one.

[kafkod]

If only it was that simple. The most interesting thing to me when I see these stats is that while its 23-0-10 GGG in who people thought won, the consensus rbr facts have it a draw.

Most people thought Canelo won rds 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 8. And most people thought GGGG won rds 1, 4, 9, 10, 11 & 12. Thats 6-6 even. And then when you see that that 35% of people thought Canelo won the 9th round & that 49% of people thought GGG won the 3rd round that gets us to a 7-5 scorecard either way when you are breaking it down to what 3 people mighta thought of the fight rbr.

Which is what most of chill rational people, including myself, have been saying since Saturday night post-the decision. This fight was realllllllly close & eassssssssily coulda went either way. If these stats don't prove that now you just aren't paying attention. And variance is a mfer.

You can spin it any way you you like, but in a fight that could and probably should have been a draw, 2 rounds going against the grain of the consensus to the same guy was all it took to give that same guy another result of which the concensus feeling is .. he didn't really deserve it.

And could it have gone the other way ... really?

Did GGG really have the same chance as Canelo of winning a fight as close as that?

He should have. But many people - including me - don't believe he did, and that's what leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

[Jsmooth9876]

Round 9 getting 2 of the 3 judges cards was crazy.
Thought it was a clear GGG round and that round makes the difference in him losing the fight.

[Vlad_]

Thanks for having my back Vlad! Updated to correct one.

You made a great thread and put effort into it.

[Redd Foxx]

Since this has been a pretty thoughtful discussion I'll add another thing that influenced me in the last half of the fight. It was that Canelo just looked exhausted. The quality of his work declined greatly and it was clear that he would not have the speed or timing to finish Golovkin if he had to. Meanwhile, GG was still fairly crisp. Judges USUALLY don't reward work that is labored as much as the efficient, crisp stuff. I was looking at it with this eye and was really surprised that Canelo was given as many rounds as he was, given that he looked fatigued and sloppy.

[hugh grant]

The thing I've got problem with is even before the first fight with ggg, Nelo already had reputation for getting favourable decisions. Why didn't the judges try prove that theory wrong?
It seems as soon as someone takes Ggg the distance the knives were out to Rob Ggg instantly as you might not get chance again with Ggg mostly taking the decision out of your hands.
Nel o didn't take fight to Ggg in first fight. He threw less and landed less. Yet the judges still saw it fit to give a guy with rep for getting gift decisions a draw?

Nelo himself is su****ious as he never addresses these issues and idea that he gets gift decisions. Never discuss that most had him losing. What are his thoughts?