Just rewatched both ggg vs canelo fights

[blitted_master]

Left a bad taste in my mouth, ggg clearly won the first fight with output and consistent pressure. Canelos fought in bursts but not enough to warrant a draw. I had it 8 - 4 ggg.

Second fight alvarezs output increased but ggg still outlanding and more consistent i had it 7 - 5 ggg.

In before canelo nut huggers storm in, i admire alvarezs skill and change of tactics in the rematch but i feel he did not produce a dominant enough performance to take the belts.

I came up with the same scores that you did upon first viewing these fights. I haven't gone back to watch them since they first aired but we saw both of them the same way.

[Chrismart]

OP's 8-4 and 7-5 cards seem fair.

[Citizen Koba]

I'll lead or start something new.

I never once said Canelo beat GGG in the first fight. I have always said, more than anyone, that the DRAW was justified because it takes 3 judges. If Byrd had it any combination for Canelo winning or had it DRAW, the fight would still be a DRAW.

At the end of the day people would still debate over it. The FACT is both men were standing strong, and Canelo proved himself in the ring in the first fight. Another fact is that I enjoyed seeing Canelo switch it up with his own footwork I never seen before and his legacy defining rope'a'dope. Those sequences of defense are forever in the books, and as Canelo keeps on winning his throwback fights only get better since we trust Ring IQ being proven.

If GGG fans feel his amateur pedigree along with Olympic merit and pro ring experience was good enough for benefit of doubt with that Canelo 1 compubox then that's on them. I have higher standards.

Nice. So you reckon it was only 'Golovkin fans' that scored the first fight for Golovkin huh? You'll be telling me next you believe you ain't biased either Mr 'Higher Standards'... not that I'm gonna claim any particular degree of objectivity.

At the end of the day we each scored both fights as we saw em, as did everyone else. For a few that even tallied with the judges scoring, for many more it did not. It is what it is. Scoring's always gonna rely heavily on subjective judgements.

As I've said several times I still intend to go back and score both fights again - attempting to be as objective as I can - just for own satisfaction, but firstly I know full well I'm no less biased than anyone else and secondly I also know that it won't change a damn thing and arguing over the scoring of close fights is a fool's errand.

Agree or not Canelo got the D and the W and nothing's gonna change that, I just find the revisionism that has Canelo boxing a defensive masterclass in the first and dominating the second kinda strange, but fans will fan I guess. What's bizarre is that I saw GGG box a far more technically proficient backfoot fight in II than Canelo did in I, but maybe that's just me.

[moochi]

Yep GGG won both but that don't mean ****e when you are NOT the cash cow at home.

[Thuglife Nelo]

Nice. So you reckon it was only 'Golovkin fans' that scored the first fight for Golovkin huh?

I'll stop reading here. I usually ALWAYS say GGG ''diehards.''

[Thuglife Nelo]

Yep GGG won both but that don't mean ****e when you are NOT the cash cow at home.

when GGG lost the second fight, just like how many legends saw it and agreed, Gennadiy pulled his trunk out like the girl in your avatar and stormed out the ring.

[bojangles1987]

Noobs like Lou Dibella, Bud Crawford and Lennox Lewis..?

Simple fact is that despite the revisionism it was a very, very close fight... and a very good one too, full of nuance and subtle drama that'll probably be appreciated more in the future than it is now.

When it happened, people acknowledged it was an either way fight.

Over time, it has somehow turned into Alvarez obviously clearly winning. It's ****ing ******.

[bojangles1987]

A lot of guys like to say that one should look at the fighters' faces after a fight and ask which one they would rather be.

And then those same guys will turn around and say it doesn't matter when it doesn't apply to fighters they like.

Pacquiao looked worse than Clottey, doesn't mean **** about how the fight went down.

[AKAcronym]

If you still judge who won a fight by how faces look, you're a ****ing idiot.

[ShoulderRoll]

And then those same guys will turn around and say it doesn't matter when it doesn't apply to fighters they like.

Pacquiao looked worse than Clottey, doesn't mean **** about how the fight went down.

This applies only to the guys that like to judge who won a fight based on visual damage done to the face. They know who they are.