This is the crux of it for me. I don’t think any of Canelos close fights have been robberies in terms of him being comprehensively beaten and getting the decision. But if 50/50 fights keep going to the same guy, you have to question what is happening.I guess the issue is with terminology then. As I tried to clarify in my piece, I don't have a problem with anyone scoring the fight to Canelo or having it even. I have a problem with the fact that time and time again close fights like this are given to the guy we all know was gonna get the better of any decision at the start.
Canelo being 6-1 to get the decision at the end of the fight on live betting says it all really.Mmmm we got ourselves a debate here!
I guess the issue is with terminology then. As I tried to clarify in my piece, I don't have a problem with anyone scoring the fight to Canelo or having it even. I have a problem with the fact that time and time again close fights like this are given to the guy we all know was gonna get the better of any decision at the start.
For me, the term should be used more if anything and it actually annoys me when I see people like Steve Bunce quick to dismiss calls of corruption afterward when we all damn well know why Canelo "won" this one. I suppose it's opinion and I may well be in the minority of course.
FWIW on the Pacquiao/Marquez 3 thing. Watching it live I had it 114-114 but felt that if a decision was gonna go either way, I felt Pacquiao had pressed the fight more and just about deserved a win overall. I was really surprised when I saw everyone's reaction that Marquez had been completely jobbed. Eventually watching back I did change my mind and saw a lot more of what JMM was doing so well that I must have missed the first time round.
The fact that Canelo was given the 12th is pretty sad. But Canelo looking back won one of the last 4 in the dying moments with lead rights and it was scored for Golo. Id watch it again but what's done is done for me.I remember when people said DeGale Jack was a robbery and it's an all to often misused term. DeGale nicked his rounds, Jack clearly won his. But they were 10-9 rounds so nicking or clear rounds don't matter in the overall scoring unless they're 10-8s without a knockdown and they're rare.
GGG's rounds where more clear rounds. Canelo had a lot of rounds which he shaded (with the type of work you prefer also a factor) but they're still rounds he won for many and for the most important people the judges.
A fight can still be a robbery if you win 7 clear rounds to 5. But there cannot be close subjective rounds in there for the term to be used in my book.
GGG also came on in the second half of the fight as well so thats fresher in the memory when the scores are read. Like a football game when your team plays well in the first half but shite in the second, everyone comes off the game and says you played shite