If He Dies, He Dies : GGG introduces Canelo to 160 - The Official Canelo Vs GGG Thread

[malbaker86]

Canelo $5 mil and GGG $3 mill

Good shyt

 

[GREENandYELLOW]

exactly...not ONE post from anyone who scored it for GGG mentioned anything about being influenced by HBO...some cats in here hate HBO so much they will blame them for EVERYTHING that's perceived wrong with whatever boxing airs on their network

fukk, during HBO broadcasts (all network broadcasts for that matter) I am always telling my girl, nah I disagree with that round, score, or that comment, or agree with that comment. Commentators are there for entertainment, but in the end it comes down to if you can think for yourself.

Now those comments are directly for hard core, intelligent followers like we have here. The argument is different for casuals. They look at CompuBox total fight punch stats and assume that somehow relates to 12 rounds being judged individually or count the bruises on a face and think that means shyt. They can be swayed by the way a fight is called...but there is a reason why we talk boxing in The Ring and not in the ESPN comment section.

 

[GREENandYELLOW]

Canelo $5 mil and GGG $3 mill

Good shyt

That is guaranteed purses that they have to file with the Nevada Athletic commission. Both dudes will be earning 8 figures on this fight...why a rematch was inevitable to many.

 

[bigbadbossup2012]

Canelo fukked ggg up. Hit him with some shyt many times. I can barely remember ggg landing good shyt on canelo. I remember the pressure, but canelo landed waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more telling shots. I barely remember ggg landing good shots on canelo and i think them punch stats are off as well. I'd rather myself or one of my brothers get hit with what canelo got hit with ,rather than what ggg got hit with,canelo landed some thurman on porter level thunder on that boy.
I think canelo will really hurt him next time and i think deep down,ggg knows he got lit up and is taking pride in the fact that he withstood it and kept coming ala porter thurman. nikka got hit with some Ring King,i-got-a-turbo-controller-YOU-DONT type of combos and caught some SUPER MACHO MAN/SODA POP INSKI haymakers. shyt was bad.

 

[HamAndEgger]

Watching the fight Live and the following morning, I still came back with a 116-112 card for GGG. I gave Canelo rounds 2, 3, 9, 12. GGG to me (as I initially thought) was the ring general the entire night, his jab was a big dictator, was a lot busier, didn't let Canelo get comfortable enough to really sit down on his punches. Both guys proved they have solid chins but I feel like GGG absorbed the shots better than Canelo in the championship rounds where Canelo was visibly fatiguing. Canelo to me just didn't do enough in the end to even get a Draw. A 7-5 or 8-4 for GGG to me is on the money.

 

[ChuckTaylor84]

I re watched the fight and I scored it 115-113 for GGG

I gave Canelo rounds 2, 5, 10, 11, 12

Canelo simply got out boxed and gassed out due to GGG's pressure

 

[ChocolateGiddyUp]

Lampley was bad...he was acting like Canelo was a bloody Cotto mess ready to take a knee off very little landing

He was ready to dust off his bang bang bang bang shyt

 

[reservoirdogs]

fukk, during HBO broadcasts (all network broadcasts for that matter) I am always telling my girl, nah I disagree with that round, score, or that comment, or agree with that comment. Commentators are there for entertainment, but in the end it comes down to if you can think for yourself.

Now those comments are directly for hard core, intelligent followers like we have here. The argument is different for casuals. They look at CompuBox total fight punch stats and assume that somehow relates to 12 rounds being judged individually or count the bruises on a face and think that means shyt. They can be swayed by the way a fight is called...but there is a reason why we talk boxing in The Ring and not in the ESPN comment section.

this is why I would take Compubox numbers AND unofficial scorings off of TV screens.
From my studies I know exactly how harmful stats can be if they are not reliable. It's just wrong to show them to so many easily impressionable casuals.

Reliability in statistics and psychometrics is the overall consistency of a measure.[1] A measure is said to have a high reliability if it produces similar results under consistent conditions. "It is the characteristic of a set of test scores that relates to the amount of random error from the measurement process that might be embedded in the scores. Scores that are highly reliable are accurate, reproducible, and consistent from one testing occasion to another. That is, if the testing process were repeated with a group of test takers, essentially the same results would be obtained. Various kinds of reliability coefficients, with values ranging between 0.00 (much error) and 1.00 (no error), are usually used to indicate the amount of error in the scores." [2] For example, measurements of people's height and weight are often extremely reliable.

Now, this doesn't happen in boxing, not at all. Stats in something like football - soccer - are more reliable and valid cause they measure more obviously identifiable action like when a player passes the ball to the other, or scores a goal, etc... quiet obvious so reliable.
In boxing these Compubox operators try to count the landed and connected punches in real time. Counting thrown punches is more reliable from obvious reasons but with landed punches stats you will never know whether they counted that last punch which landed half on the gloves or not, you will never know how many body punches on the inside they will count if they even count them...
In short different people have many different opinions about what landed and what not therefor it's not reliable.

Other than not being reliable these stats aren't that valid either, that's another important condition in the case of statistics.

Validity is the extent to which a concept,[1] conclusion or measurement is well-founded and corresponds accurately to the real world. The word "valid" is derived from the Latin validus, meaning strong. The validity of a measurement tool (for example, a test in education) is considered to be the degree to which the tool measures what it claims to measure; in this case, the validity is an equivalent to accuracy.

now again as opposed to sports like soccer where it's enough if they pick a type of action and measure it/count it in boxing the situation is a lot different. They can count thrown and landed punches but aside of putting a difference between jabs and power punches and body punches and head punches they can't actually measure the amount of damage a punch does. 10 landed jabs from Paulie Malignaggi are probably equal to a single, clear Keith Thurman straight right... So boxing stats don't and can't measure the efficiency the fighters working with they just reduced to unreliable punch counting so that also makes the whole thing invalid.

 

[GREENandYELLOW]

this is why I would take Compubox numbers AND unofficial scorings off of TV screens.
From my studies I know exactly how harmful stats can be if they are not reliable. It's just wrong to show them to so many easily impressionable casuals.



Now, this doesn't happen in boxing, not at all. Stats in something like football - soccer - are more reliable and valid cause they measure more obviously identifiable action like when a player passes the ball to the other, or scores a goal, etc... quiet obvious so reliable.
In boxing these Compubox operators try to count the landed and connected punches in real time. Counting thrown punches is more reliable from obvious reasons but with landed punches stats you will never know whether they counted that last punch which landed half on the gloves or not, you will never know how many body punches on the inside they will count if they even count them...
In short different people have many different opinions about what landed and what not therefor it's not reliable.

Other than not being reliable these stats aren't that valid either, that's another important condition in the case of statistics.



now again as opposed to sports like soccer where it's enough if they pick a type of action and measure it/count it in boxing the situation is a lot different. They can count thrown and landed punches but aside of putting a difference between jabs and power punches and body punches and head punches they can't actually measure the amount of damage a punch does. 10 landed jabs from Paulie Malignaggi are probably equal to a single, clear Keith Thurman straight right... So boxing stats don't and can't measure the efficiency the fighters working with they just reduced to unreliable punch counting so that also makes the whole thing invalid.

I get your point, but it never will happen. When it comes to stats, boxing is actually behind the times. Compared to the stats they have ready in football, basketball, baseball, hockey the amount of stats provided in boxing in down right rudimentary.
At the end of the day boxing is entertainment and having stats available helps bring in the casual. A die hard like us could judge a fight round by round without punch stats, but casuals won't. At the end of the day we have to suffer a bit because it is the casuals and mainstream that allow the fighters to make the money they deserve.

It is a good argument when judging the fight, just like watching the fight 3-4 times should be a caveat that people mention here when judging. These judges are seeing it for the first time, just like us. People need to remember that our scorecards can vary from the 1st time we watched a fight, to the 3rd or 4th time when we are dialed in watching it in retrospect.

Edit: It is part of what makes boxing great to me is because at the end of the day just about everything in boxing is subjective. We can discuss a fight from 10 years ago, rewatch it, and everyone can bring something different to the table. Can't really do that with a football game. shyt is more clear cut.

 

[Inferno]

Some dude on Youtube counted all of their punches round-by-round:



GGG landed a lot more cleaner punches then people are giving him credit for. Also notice that dumb bytch Byrd had her eyes on Canelo damn near the whole fight

 

[reservoirdogs]

I get your point, but it never will happen. When it comes to stats, boxing is actually behind the times. Compared to the stats they have ready in football, basketball, baseball, hockey the amount of stats provided in boxing in down right rudimentary.
At the end of the day boxing is entertainment and having stats available helps bring in the casual. A die hard like us could judge a fight round by round without punch stats, but casuals won't. At the end of the day we have to suffer a bit because it is the casuals and mainstream that allow the fighters to make the money they deserve.

It is a good argument when judging the fight, just like watching the fight 3-4 times should be a caveat that people mention here when judging. These judges are seeing it for the first time, just like us. People need to remember that our scorecards can vary from the 1st time we watched a fight, to the 3rd or 4th time when we are dialed in watching it in retrospect.

Edit: It is part of what makes boxing great to me is because at the end of the day just about everything in boxing is subjective. We can discuss a fight from 10 years ago, rewatch it, and everyone can bring something different to the table. Can't really do that with a football game. shyt is more clear cut.

I agree with all the bold part but are you sure that sowing unreliable, invalid stats is so essential to casuals? There would be less people watching it if it wasn't for the Compubox stats or Lederman's unofficial scorecards?

 

[GREENandYELLOW]

I agree with all the bold part but are you sure that sowing unreliable, invalid stats is so essential to casuals? There would be less people watching it if it wasn't for the Compubox stats or Lederman's unofficial scorecards?

I don't know if it would help or hurt ratings. I get the feeling it helps ratings because people like being spoon fed what to think. Every time I talk about a fight with a casual I get the punch stats/expert scorecard argument. It does prove the point that it definitely can shape (hurt) a fight, but just going off my gut impression I think casuals love it.

I literally have had conversations with people who say well he landed 20 more punches, so he won the fight. You say, well that is cumulative, still have to judge round by round and they give you the . Or you'll say 20 punches isn't even 2 punches difference a round and it is . But wait, Lederman had it...I don't care about Lederman, how did you score it?

Boxing is one of the hardest sports to talk to with complete casuals about. Someone may not know the nuances of football or basketball, but at least you have a box score 100% determined by the players (sometimes the refs ). Boxing is so subjective. It is what makes it so great and so painful.

 

[Inferno]

I don't know if it would help or hurt ratings. I get the feeling it helps ratings because people like being spoon fed what to think. Every time I talk about a fight with a casual I get the punch stats/expert scorecard argument. It does prove the point that it definitely can shape (hurt) a fight, but just going off my gut impression I think casuals love it.

I literally have had conversations with people who say well he landed 20 more punches, so he won the fight. You say, well that is cumulative, still have to judge round by round and they give you the . Or you'll say 20 punches isn't even 2 punches difference a round and it is . But wait, Lederman had it...I don't care about Lederman, how did you score it?

Boxing is one of the hardest sports to talk to with complete casuals about. Someone may not know the nuances of football or basketball, but at least you have a box score 100% determined by the players (sometimes the refs ). Boxing is so subjective. It is what makes it so great and so painful.

What do you think about having former boxers judge fights?

 

[GREENandYELLOW]

What do you think about having former boxers judge fights?

Personally I don't need the boxers scoring fights, because a lot of them aren't any better than the type of people that networks already have doing it. What networks need to do is make sure they have talented, articulate fighters/former fighters who get to do to break down the fights and give us insights. Roy Jones and Andre Ward are really good. Paulie is pretty good, although he can spazz out a bit. I would actually like to see guys like Lampley or Mauro step on their experts toes less and let them break stuff down more. Guys like RJJ, Ward, and Paulie can tell you exactly what is happening and usually give damn near perfect accuracy of what will happen. Those guys are hard to find. PBC tried some fighters as commentators and they never panned out, definitely didn't help the broadcast. ESPN was smart to get Ward. With HBO having such a limited amount of fights, I was hoping RJJ might get some ESPN time as well.

 

[Omar Little]

Because I ain't in here constantly dropping 50k post means im casual. We have two different opinions on the fight that's fine, neither of us are casual.

The Term Casual has jumped the shark.

People use it and throw it out there to disparage another and I dont see why. I've boxed and have watched boxing for 55+ years. Just cause I aint all the threads and pop up during fight nights doesnt mean I know less about boxing than you.