-
-
you're asking me to go round by round in 2 fights and point out where punches were landed?? Foh. Convincing you is not that important to me. I'm content just making you look ****** by pointing out that ggg dominated ounch Stat totals as well as the vast majority of scorecards that were shared by the media and other boxers/ trainers. But by all means, Why don't you post the results of this alleged film study you did? I could use a good laugh.Comment
-
Monkey see monkey do.
The power of today’s slow motion cameras replayed in 4K TVs of a receiver touching his feet on the end zone while grabbing a 40 yard pass is a more concise acknowledgment for something finite and non refutable versus HBO’s contracted sources who tally compubox where dinks and sc****s of a jab brush off a fighter’s high guard.... because HBO knew beforehand that their boxing program was ending, what a better way to stir controversy to hopefully make more fights. When Lederman is giving off his scorecards you don’t think ringside observers are passing along tweets off bias?
We know this when more than 50 reputable boxers had Canelo beating GGG. There’s no other way to view this unless you’re a gullible individual that doesn’t understand chess moves in political moves when forces run for office. It’s called propaganda aka “fake news.” It exists. “Fake news” isn’t an exclusive punchline created by Trump. He uses that as a cop out because it’s easy to say, all when his ********** friends help with propaganda and fake news themselves.Comment
-
you're jumping in mid conversation so let me just make sure that you're clear. The other poster is saying that ggg lost to jacobs and to Canelo in the first fight. We're not discussing the rematch. So you're saying that ggg should've lost both of those fights? If so, please show me the 50 scorecards where other boxers had Canelo winning. Because I can post you a link that shows the contrary from not just media, but boxers and trainers.
Aside from that, your argument makes no sense that there was some sort of movement to stir up controversy by people scoring the fight for ggg. If anything, Canelo is the cash cow, the A side, the bigger name with the higher upside and is younger. The smart move would've been to make him look as dominant as possible to enhance his legacy. Not tarnish him by causing controversy and gifting him a draw that he didn't deserve. The gullible people are the ones who can't see that Canelo constantly receives overly favorable scoring in every big fight he's had. He has 5 of the worst scorecards in 5 different fights that you will find for any boxer in history. So if you just find that to be coincidental then perhaps you're one of the gullible ones.Last edited by Jab jab boom; 02-13-2019, 01:32 PM.Comment
-
“Ringside observers” was a catchphrase from the rematch. Industry didn’t disagree that the first fight was close, and the backlash came from Byrd that many became distracted with the actual fight itself. Boxing purists know that Canelo’s 1st bout sparring style was completely different than the rematch. It takes upper elite level strategy to have 2 completely different styles. It’s a bit like Ward Kovalev series. Ward became the more aggressive in the rematch.
If Byrd scored it 115-113 it’d still be a Draw. If she scored it 114-114 it’d still be a majority Draw.
As we stated before, Hagler to this day says he was robbed against SRL. Hagler was the aggressor the whole fight. That fight too had 118-110 scorecard. People don’t revisit styles and scoring. Many don’t know that Moretti saw all these fights. He himself scored bout 1 115-113, meaning close! Therefore, when many industry boxers say that they weren’t disappointed with the Draw proves that both Canelo and GGG gave entertaining styles to consider. Why would industry boxers favor Canelo or call it a Draw as a favor to the Mexican? Is GBP paying industry whom are randomly asked by various reporters?Comment
Tweet
Comment