Canelo vs Trout- Score It

alvarez won the fight.ill glad trout agreed.he was just being honest.i was suprized alvarez was so small.i thought he was 5 foot 10.the judges and the open scoring has to go.so does the texas commish..I was also surprised by the patience and intelligence by alvarez as well as his much improved defence which outshined trouts ineffective aggression.also a suprize that alvarez did not make trout pay after missing 80 percent of his punches.there were tons of opportunities.alvarez very low punch count was a suprize also.
the fact that alvarez seemed to tire 3 or 4 times dispite a non brutal pace raised a red flag on conditioning.if as one poster suggested he wont be long at 154 then he has problems.martinez will pick him apart glovikin will ko him and the developing kid chocalote will beat him.at middle he wil be in the middle of the pack....the fight last night showed me 154 is wide open.minus Floyd trout and alvarez are the tops there but not a dominate top.
alvarez has improved and he will learn from this fight and make guys pay after missing.he was too patient and let trout off the hook.
overall alvarez should silence some of his critics with that win over a slick fighter.my advise to him is make a ton of cash the next 2 or 3 years and get out of the game.

official judges were shit. To have the fight over after 8 rounds is a travesty (as 2 of them did).

5-3 for canelo and up by 3 pts was the maximum that could have ever been justified. But somehow 2 judges thought canelo was up by 5 or more pts. Get the fuck out of here. Of all the scores of writers and fans (at home or who were there), I wasn't finding anyone that had Canelo winning 6 of the first 8 rounds (as 2 of the judges did).

How in the fuck can the only 2 people on the planet who have put forth scores that have canelo winning 6 of 8 rounds- are the judges???? Corruption, bias, call it whatever you will. Sick of this shit.


The one thing I detest about boxing is: If the cash cow is an activity fighter-judges give credit for throwing more punches (even if not effective). If the cash cow is being soundly outworked (like last night)-judges will then give credit only for clean punches.

Lets be honest- you can't win a decision against the bigger name (or hometown or both) fighter. You almost never can. You have to knock him out.

Trout isn't a power puncher. Even if you erase the knockdown, and have trout a little more effective, he still wasn't going to get a decision.

That fight was never going to end in anything but a canelo win, barring an absolute shutout performance by trout. Even then, I feel like he would have been hoping for a draw at best.

dmar5143 wrote:alvarez won the fight.ill glad trout agreed.he was just being honest.i was suprized alvarez was so small.i thought he was 5 foot 10.the judges and the open scoring has to go.so does the texas commish..I was also surprised by the patience and intelligence by alvarez as well as his much improved defence which outshined trouts ineffective aggression.also a suprize that alvarez did not make trout pay after missing 80 percent of his punches.there were tons of opportunities.alvarez very low punch count was a suprize also.
the fact that alvarez seemed to tire 3 or 4 times dispite a non brutal pace raised a red flag on conditioning.if as one poster suggested he wont be long at 154 then he has problems.martinez will pick him apart glovikin will ko him and the developing kid chocalote will beat him.at middle he wil be in the middle of the pack....the fight last night showed me 154 is wide open.minus Floyd trout and alvarez are the tops there but not a dominate top.
alvarez has improved and he will learn from this fight and make guys pay after missing.he was too patient and let trout off the hook.
overall alvarez should silence some of his critics with that win over a slick fighter.my advise to him is make a ton of cash the next 2 or 3 years and get out of the game.

i feel like canelo is the skill level where i thought he was at. trout dictated the pace of the fight while canelo landed some cleaner and harder shots. i thought that trout won the fight but as i said before, i dont think that its a terrible decision having canelo win. just terrible judges with too wide of margins.

trout is about what i thought he was too. he is a slick boxer who really isnt that great. like you said, the division is wide open. neither one of these guys are that great. they are both for sure beatable. and i agree that if he goes up to middleweight, its going to be a tough road for him if he fights the top guys there.

this was the type of fight where if you ask 100 different people to score it, you would get 100 different cards. neither fighter dominated, I had canelo winning by a point or 2, the knockdown was big in this one. trout did dictate the pace of the fight with his jab, but at the same time those pawwing jabs he was throwing (most of which i wouldnt even count as punches but compubox does) were doing absolutely nothing. he wasnt even trying to land a lot of them, they were more just to try and keep a distance, i dont usually award points for stuff like that. My personal way of scoring is more based on effective punches landed, and in that scenario canelo won the fight. you dont have to be a hard hitter to win, but landing good clean shots. so many of trouts shots were basically love taps or glancing blows. its not that he doesnt have power, its that he wasnt commiting to his punches, he could have hit canelo harder, but he was more concerned with just keeping a good distance to allow for his reach advantage rather than actually hitting his opponent. the compubox was in trouts favor volumewise, canelos efficiencywise, but from the "eye test" canelo won hands down IMO. this kid may not be the most talented fighter ever, but he is still VERY YOUNG and just knocked off an undefeated top ranked fighter in his prime. one that no one said he would face nevermind beat, he deserves props for taking and winning this fight, no ifs ands or buts about it. great fight by both fighters, outstanding night for canelo. im a big fan of his and hope for bigger and better fights down the line

good post.i agree with most of it except it was a great fight.it was far from it.i had alvarez by 2 points also.that was more then giving trout the benefit of doubt.what you said about compubox and scoring a fight is correct.
guys can bitch and moan about you cant beat a so called cash cow or bigger name in his territory.realy.ask cotto that with his fight with trout.2 judges indeed were way off base none the less had the correct winner.yes several folks could have both fighters wining in this fight but if you score a fight the way it should be alvarez was the winner.as you explained well trouts jabs and most of then missed were range finders or pawing distance keepers.his agression or work rate was very ineffective.points are not given for ineffectiveness in aggression.points are given for effective clean damaging punches which alvarez had by far.points for defence and ring generealship are given also.again alvarez by a wide margin.
this is not amateur boxing where a pawing jab equals a knockdown punch.you again don't reward aggression that's poor.in trouts case 80 percent of his punches missed.the jabs that did land were mostly soft range finders.maybe 5 percent of his punches were decent.none with a strong effect or punch.ring iq that night also belong to alvarez.even trout admitted to that.
in every avenue on how to score a fight alvarez got the edge.there are several books and articles written on that .they say basically the same thing.yes after 8 rounds 2 judges were way off.they need to go back to school or get out of judging.the showtime guys were accurate.on the money.
bottom line both fighters enhenced there standings.neither one did nothing to disgrace themselves.

i keep saying that i have no problem with thinking that canelo won the fight but in no way did he win convincingly. i totally disregard compubox. it tells you nothing about how a fight should be scored and about the effectiveness of punches landed.

trout did land quite a few solid shots but canelo's shots just looked more solid. as i stated before, canelo just seem to land about 2 or 3 solid shots most rounds and then did nothing. trout landed a few pretty good shots each round but also landed pawing jabs that werent hard but at least semi effective. thats how he dictated the pace.

trout definitely bothered canelo with his movement and jab. because trout isnt a great fighter, canelo could kind of overcome it. i just think that overall the fight was fought how trout wanted it to be fought with canelo landing some good shots here and there but mostly moving around not throwing.

Ineffective aggression doesn't mean you're dictating the pace. Canelo landed a huge uppercut at the end of the 6th round that IMO set up the KD in the 7th. He was trying to get Trout to come in so he could land those bombs, Trout opted to stay outside and jab (a good game plan had those jabs landed). Look at Canelo's big KO's, they're all on counter shots. If the KO doesn't come on a counter punch, he hurts his opponents badly with one then goes on the offensive. Trout happens to have a good chin (he's also a true Jr MW) and big shots that put other guys away simply kept Trout honest. If Canelo learned to pot shot ( like Paulie suggested) I don't think a guy like Trout makes it out of there.

Trout's game plan was to outbox Canelo and use his stick to set other punches up (a very common game plan for slick southpaws). He couldn't land the jab effectively enough to distract Canelo or make him uncomfortable to set anything else up. He didn't change anything up because he couldn't, Canelo was hurting him when he tried to do that. That's why Canelo won on my card. Trout may have worked harder but Canelo made Trout more uncomfortable and unable to accomplish what he set out to do. Canelo landed big shots and avoided a lot of the pitty pat point scoring that wins Trout fights.

good post hcb. agree with pretty much everything. trouts a good fighter, but he has no pop. also noticed he has some serious chicken legs lol maybe thats why he was staggered easily? also could be why he doesnt hit very hard. someone get this man a leg press!

BoxingGenius wrote:good post hcb. agree with pretty much everything. trouts a good fighter, but he has no pop. also noticed he has some serious chicken legs lol maybe thats why he was staggered easily? also could be why he doesnt hit very hard. someone get this man a leg press!

Eating straight rights and uppercuts like they're chicken legs makes anyone wobbly.

i disagree that trout didnt make canelo uncomfortable. i believe that he made him very uncomfortable which is why he didnt throw many punches throughout the fight and took so many breaks during rounds. its because he couldnt execute his gameplan well. trout wasnt super effective because he isnt a great fighter, not necessarily because of what canelo was doing. for his skill level, trout was effective and did bother canelo during the fight. and as i said before, trout landed some pretty good shots in the fight. its not as if canelo was the only one landing significant punches.

powerpuncher wrote:i disagree that trout didnt make canelo uncomfortable. i believe that he made him very uncomfortable which is why he didnt throw many punches throughout the fight and took so many breaks during rounds. its because he couldnt execute his gameplan well. trout wasnt super effective because he isnt a great fighter, not necessarily because of what canelo was doing. for his skill level, trout was effective and did bother canelo during the fight. and as i said before, trout landed some pretty good shots in the fight. its not as if canelo was the only one landing significant punches.

...I disagree totally and so does trout.alvarez showed no discomfort at all and fought with a gameplan and executed well.even trout said that saying he fought much different then I thought and I could not adapt.by saying that trout is admitting he was not effective because of the way alvarez fought.lets not use the phoney excuses trout was not super effective because he isn't a great fighter.neither one is and there are few great ones fighting today.how effective was jmm a great fighter against Floyd.zero effective.even great fighters at times are not effective if they cant adapt to the other guys game plan.part of alvarezs suprize game plan was a much improved defence.you can see that in the opening minutes of the fight.no one including trout expected alvarez to slip so many punches with head and body movement.that didn't happen by accident since alvarez in the past showed little abilty in doing that before.it was practiced a ton during training.thus a very effective game plan which defense played a major role in.

so was canelos gameplan to go in the fight and not throw punches? if that was his gameplan then i guess you are right that trout didnt throw him off his gameplan. i think that it was a close fight either way a many people thought that trout won because of the same reasons that ive stated. im mainly stating that canelo wasnt effective during the fight either. he had his moments but they were few with the KD being the main one.

can two fighters not be expecting what the other fighter does in the fight? trout was obviously surprised that canelo could slip punches that well and i say that canelo was probably surprised that it was hard to hit trout because he would get countered which happened a lot in the fight.

you could semi compare this fight to the rigo-donaire fight. trout was like rigo dictating the pace and countering while canelo landed the prettier and more telling shots and even knocked down his opponent like donaire. obviously rigo executed his gameplan better and donaire couldnt adjust, but trout was trying to do the same thing that rigo did to donaire. he just wasnt as effective but was effective enough to have many viewers think that he won the fight.

How was Trout dictating the pace of the fight? He was missing with the jab and getting rounds stolen by Canelo by tiring and getting countered in the last 1 min of most rounds. The residual effects were evident in the first 45 seconds of some rounds where Canelo would land a few telling shots, take off for 1:30 (with Trout missing or landing glancing shots) and then fight for :45 seconds and maybe land one or two big shots that obviously caught the judges attention and actually hurt Trout. What Trout was doing was falling into traps not dictating the pace. The rounds he won were when he dictated the pace successfully and Canelo forgot to counter or simply didn't. Even the last round, a round that was a Trout round on my card, Canelo was able to land some nice counters. With some experience fighting like he did against Trout Canelo will find more success. If we're going to knock Canelo for the other night let's knock him for being too picky (a word my old trainer used for a guy waiting for the perfect shot, there are no perfect shots).

Judges score for effective aggression and ring generalship. The rounds Trout lost his aggression was not effective and he didn't neutralize Canelo's method of attack or force Canelo to fight in a style that he was uncomfortable with.

i dont mind you thinking that canelo stole that many rounds but i in no way think that canelo stole most of those rounds. and dont bring up what the judges thought because their scores were terrible. as i said before, its what you perceived. i saw trout being effective enough to keep canelo at a slow pace. i dont at all believe that it was canelo waiting for a perfect shot. canelo countered fairly well in this fight but he isnt a usual counter puncher. i believe that that was his most effective way to land a punch because it was very difficult for him for him to just be aggressive and land shots.

like i said before, the fight was pretty evenly scored between press row scoring and fans. i can see how people thought that canelo won and i have no problem with it but i just thought that canelo wasnt effective either. so my opinion is that neither were effective and canelo was just less effective during the fight.

Canelo's gameplan has always been to not throw punches in a sense. He either has poor conditioning or pacing, so he takes rounds off. It just showed up more against Trout because most of his opponents have been sucked into his rhythm and afraid to stalk him when he stops throwing. Trout stayed active.

I think he pressured Canelo, but never made him uncomfortable.

powerpuncher wrote:i dont mind you thinking that canelo stole that many rounds but i in no way think that canelo stole most of those rounds. and dont bring up what the judges thought because their scores were terrible. as i said before, its what you perceived. i saw trout being effective enough to keep canelo at a slow pace. i dont at all believe that it was canelo waiting for a perfect shot. canelo countered fairly well in this fight but he isnt a usual counter puncher. i believe that that was his most effective way to land a punch because it was very difficult for him for him to just be aggressive and land shots.

like i said before, the fight was pretty evenly scored between press row scoring and fans. i can see how people thought that canelo won and i have no problem with it but i just thought that canelo wasnt effective either. so my opinion is that neither were effective and canelo was just less effective during the fight.

Don't bring up the judges? That's the idea in a fight, impress the judges if you cant score a KO. You're one of the most stubborn posters on this board, you'll argue when there is nothing to argue. Canelo never fights at a fast pace. I explained clearly what Canelo did to win, you haven't. Canelo not a counter puncher? I'm done after this. Canelo hurt and knocked down his opponent, how was he less effective again?

hardcorebee24 wrote:

powerpuncher wrote:i dont mind you thinking that canelo stole that many rounds but i in no way think that canelo stole most of those rounds. and dont bring up what the judges thought because their scores were terrible. as i said before, its what you perceived. i saw trout being effective enough to keep canelo at a slow pace. i dont at all believe that it was canelo waiting for a perfect shot. canelo countered fairly well in this fight but he isnt a usual counter puncher. i believe that that was his most effective way to land a punch because it was very difficult for him for him to just be aggressive and land shots.

like i said before, the fight was pretty evenly scored between press row scoring and fans. i can see how people thought that canelo won and i have no problem with it but i just thought that canelo wasnt effective either. so my opinion is that neither were effective and canelo was just less effective during the fight.

Don't bring up the judges? That's the idea in a fight, impress the judges if you cant score a KO. You're one of the most stubborn posters on this board, you'll argue when there is nothing to argue. Canelo never fights at a fast pace. I explained clearly what Canelo did to win, you haven't. Canelo not a counter puncher? I'm done after this. Canelo hurt and knocked down his opponent, how was he less effective again?

wow! the most stubborn poster? haha. i feel like i have clearly explained my point on why i thought that trout won. so it actually seems like you are the stubborn one pretty much calling every point i made worthless because you dont want to be wrong. do you know why i mentioned not paying attention to the actual judges? its because their scores were ridiculous so they were obviously wrong on their scoring even if they had the right person winning. and you are acting like im the only person who thinks that trout won. its pretty split among fans who people thought won the fight so again, that makes you stubborn thinking that half the fans are just wrong and dont know what they are talking about if they didnt score it for canelo.

powerpuncher wrote:

hardcorebee24 wrote:

powerpuncher wrote:i dont mind you thinking that canelo stole that many rounds but i in no way think that canelo stole most of those rounds. and dont bring up what the judges thought because their scores were terrible. as i said before, its what you perceived. i saw trout being effective enough to keep canelo at a slow pace. i dont at all believe that it was canelo waiting for a perfect shot. canelo countered fairly well in this fight but he isnt a usual counter puncher. i believe that that was his most effective way to land a punch because it was very difficult for him for him to just be aggressive and land shots.

like i said before, the fight was pretty evenly scored between press row scoring and fans. i can see how people thought that canelo won and i have no problem with it but i just thought that canelo wasnt effective either. so my opinion is that neither were effective and canelo was just less effective during the fight.

Don't bring up the judges? That's the idea in a fight, impress the judges if you cant score a KO. You're one of the most stubborn posters on this board, you'll argue when there is nothing to argue. Canelo never fights at a fast pace. I explained clearly what Canelo did to win, you haven't. Canelo not a counter puncher? I'm done after this. Canelo hurt and knocked down his opponent, how was he less effective again?

wow! the most stubborn poster? haha. i feel like i have clearly explained my point on why i thought that trout won. so it actually seems like you are the stubborn one pretty much calling every point i made worthless because you dont want to be wrong. do you know why i mentioned not paying attention to the actual judges? its because their scores were ridiculous so they were obviously wrong on their scoring even if they had the right person winning. and you are acting like im the only person who thinks that trout won. its pretty split among fans who people thought won the fight so again, that makes you stubborn thinking that half the fans are just wrong and dont know what they are talking about if they didnt score it for canelo.

Explain how Canelo, who hurt and KD'd his opponent was less effective. How is Canelo not a counter puncher? One judge had a ridiculous score, the other two were within the realm. 116-111 and 115-112 aren't ridiculous. Where is the outrage that Canelo won? All four commentators had Canelo winning. Where is it split among fans? You have fans here. Those fans all had Canelo winning. All major writers on the sport had Canelo winning. Please give me your definition of effective aggression? Do you score fights on a round by round basis? Next time there is a fight, any fight, I challenge you to DVR it (I will do the same) and we'll post round by round scores with an explanation as to why we scored it that way, deal?

im not going to post it all again because i already explained it and you obviously arent reading my posts because i never said there was an outrage that canelo won. i stated multiple times that i have no problem with giving canelo the fight. i just thought that using round by round scoring (yes, i do score round by round) that trout won.

here is a link of what fans and the press row had it.
http://fightscorecollector.blogspot.com/

the fightsscorecollector guy who posts on here collects scores for fights from random fans on message boards like these. he also has what the press scored it (it even has their credentials just in case you dont believe it).

so to tell you what it says. the press: 23 had canelo winning, 19 had trout winning, 3 had it a draw. for the fans, 87 thought trout won, 58 thought canlo won, and 4 thought it was a draw. so as i before, it was pretty split. and al bernstein scored it a draw so not everyone on showtime had canelo winning. so as i said before, i dont mind you thinking that canelo won, but if you are calling me stubborn for not thinking like you then you are showing how prideful you are and i cant even debate with you because there are many people who know boxing that disagree with you.

so without trying i guess i just answered all of your questions. haha. i will do it again just so you can see how i answered them. you asked, explain how canelo, who hurt and knocked down his opponent was less effective. easy, watch the donaire-rigo fight. donaire hurt and knocked down rigo but donaire was less effective. terrible point to try to make. second, how is canelo not a counter puncher? i dont even know how to answer that. ummm, because he hasnt really ever shown in his fights that he is a counter puncher. explain to me how most fighters arent counter punchers. just because canelo does counter punch sometimes, doesnt make him a counter puncher. if thats the case then pretty much any boxer right now is a counter puncher because i cant really think of any that dont counter punch sometimes. and certain fights they counter more because of their gameplan.

the next questions i will answer again but look at the link above. where is the outrage that canelo won? there was none and rightfully so. it was a close fight. the link provided that there was a split among fans and even many fans on this board had trout winning. i definitely wasnt the only one. so you were wrong there. i already explained that bernstein scored it a draw so not all of showtime announcers had canelo winning. i already showed that not all major sports writers had canelo winning. it was pretty split so you are wrong yet again.

i usually dont try to make people look stupid but you left me no choice because you were so set on me being wrong that you didnt realize how everything you said was either false or just bad arguments.

powerpuncher wrote:so without trying i guess i just answered all of your questions. haha. i will do it again just so you can see how i answered them. you asked, explain how canelo, who hurt and knocked down his opponent was less effective. easy, watch the donaire-rigo fight. donaire hurt and knocked down rigo but donaire was less effective. terrible point to try to make. second, how is canelo not a counter puncher? i dont even know how to answer that. ummm, because he hasnt really ever shown in his fights that he is a counter puncher. explain to me how most fighters arent counter punchers. just because canelo does counter punch sometimes, doesnt make him a counter puncher. if thats the case then pretty much any boxer right now is a counter puncher because i cant really think of any that dont counter punch sometimes. and certain fights they counter more because of their gameplan.

the next questions i will answer again but look at the link above. where is the outrage that canelo won? there was none and rightfully so. it was a close fight. the link provided that there was a split among fans and even many fans on this board had trout winning. i definitely wasnt the only one. so you were wrong there. i already explained that bernstein scored it a draw so not all of showtime announcers had canelo winning. i already showed that not all major sports writers had canelo winning. it was pretty split so you are wrong yet again.

i usually dont try to make people look stupid but you left me no choice because you were so set on me being wrong that you didnt realize how everything you said was either false or just bad arguments.

You make yourself look stupid every time you post here. Your Rigo Donaire comparison is first off to bat. Rigo Donaire was a totally different and an incomparable fight. Rigo totally controlled the action with out fighting and made Donaire look completely one dimensional and stupid. We saw a defense from Canelo that we never saw in any of his previous 40 or so fights, he fought in spots and had Trout admittedly confused. If you want to argue that he's a boxer puncher more than a counter puncher, fine do that, you didn't. Canelo's jabs were harder than Trouts and any of Trouts power was met with more powerful shots via Canelo. Boxer puncher is acceptable and many boxer punchers are also counter punchers. Donaire looked like a home run hitter that couldn't connect with the curve ball. Rigo threw one fast ball and Donaire hit it out of the park, but for 11 other rounds he was ineffective. I read your bullshit biased posts, you're the only one that posts here regularly so I have no choice at this point but to read the bullshit you put down. Do you know what a counter puncher is? He KO'd Baldomir and Camechis with counters. Read this description of the pre fight analysis on boxing scene: http://www.boxingscene.com/compubox-historical-review-canelo-vs-trout-showdown--64656 More analysis : http://www.doghouseboxing.com/Jason/Jason-Petock-041713-Saul-Alvarez.htm "Saul is a strong counter puncher as well" Instead, he had to deal with a careful but determined boxer who utilized constant upper-body movement, well-timed counter punches and an educated jab to control most of the rounds. http://ringtv.craveonline.com/blog/178419-alvarez-earns-ring-title-grudging-respect-by-outboxing-trout. What do you call a fighter that allows his opponent to throw shots, parry's or slips them then comes back and lands two or three of his own? I call that a counter puncher. He's too selective to be called anything else (again, boxer puncher is acceptable). He knocked Trout down with a counter!!! He countered a lazy (you call effective) jab that sent Trout down for the first time in his pro career.

Wlad: not a counter puncher. Robert Guerrero: Not a counter Puncher. Tim Bradley: Not a counter puncher. Manny Pacquiao: Not a counter puncher. Andre Ward: Not a counter puncher. Donaire, Marquez, Broner and Floyd are the only counter punchers in the ring mag p4p top ten. Not everyone is a counter puncher even if they throw counters sometimes. Canelo's success comes from countering opponents. This was particularly evident in the Trout fight. All of his big shots landed were counters. Counter uppercuts when he was against the ropes, and counter rights that he tossed when Trout left his jab hanging.

So here we go, you'll come back with more bullshit and biased opinions that I can counter. All I did was ask you in the next fight you watch to score a round for round analysis so we can see how we each score fights. I want to know where you're coming from during the fight. I want to see how you come up with what you come up with. I regularly read what you write and regularly disagree with what you write, this is just the first time I've written about it. To me you write in support of the fighters you support and it seems to make it hard for you to have an unbiased opinion about each fight. I trust the fans here and on other sites I post on. The over whelming majority of those educated fans had Canelo winning. Use ESPN for example, with Pactards and Flodmos you can't get an honest assessment of what fans see or saw because they see who they want to win not who actually wins, to me you fit into that category.

I asked how Trout was effectively aggressive, emphasis on effectiveness. Not landing pawing jabs that get countered is not effective aggression. Allowing your opponent to parry and slip punches is not effective. Some are arguing that he made Canelo uncomfortable, I didn't see that. I saw Canelo setting traps and taking rounds with bigger, more telling shots and effectively controlling the pace of the fight when he wanted to. Even when Canelo jabbed (Which wasn't enough) he out jabbed Trout. Trout visibly and admittedly was confused and more than a few times hurt. If you want to call it a Trout victory fine, but if you can't give educated analysis to support to backup your claim then I won't take you seriously.

i have no idea what your problem is. you are the first person ever to have such a problem with me. you can really ask any poster and im sure that none would agree with your assessment of me. again, i dont know how i looked stupid with my post that showed that all of your arguments were false. as you said, i cant debate with you if you arent going to listen to facts. for example, you said "Explain how Canelo, who hurt and KD'd his opponent was less effective." that is an exact quote. so i used an example from another fight how somebody can hurt and knock down his opponent and still be less effective. am i wrong? if you think that im wrong then i cant argue with you because you obvious cant listen to facts.

another direct quote from you "All four commentators had Canelo winning. Where is it split among fans? You have fans here. Those fans all had Canelo winning. All major writers on the sport had Canelo winning." again, i gave you facts how you were wrong on all of those points and that i was right. so again, how did i look stupid in my post and you look smart?

and really quick on the counter punching topic. you are calling him a counter puncher and comparing him to floyd, donaire, marquez, amd broner. they all fight specifically to counter punch. canelo does not. thats not even an arguement. most knockdowns come off of counter punches or at least start with a counter punch. i could give you so many examples of fighters who arent counter punchers that have scored multiple knockdowns or at least stunned their opponent with a counter.

lastly, im going to say this one more time. i already stated my arguement why i thought that trout won. if you disagree thats fine. if you believe that i dont know what im talking about or am just biased thats fine but just remember that many people had trout winning the fight and you lose a ton of credibility if you cant see the other side of the argument and think that everybody who thought that trout won doesnt know what they are talking about.

and just so you know what the posters on this thread thought about this fight

njbeatdown- 115-112 trout
diego- said that alvarez at most won 5 rounds
shaun- 114-113 alvarez
kbyte- said bad scoring but deserving winner. wouldnt have argued wither way
boxing genius and dmar- canelo by 2

so just with the people in this thread, counting me and you, 5 had alvarez winning and 3 had trout winning. and you are also calling njbeatdown and diego idiots for scoring for trout and also kbye because he said that he wouldnt have argued either way since thats exactly what i have said multiple times and you think that im stupid for saying that.

my whole thing is that im still not sure why you are getting so worked up over this. i mean, i have my opinion and for some reason it rubbed you the wrong way. i have no idea why.

guys enough.trout admitted he lost the fight.he admitted he was suprized that alvarez fought a fight he didn't expect.it confused him.he missed 75 -80 percent of his jabs the most were pawing jabs.that was his aggression mostly and it was not effective.alvarez landed the harder cleaner crisper punches.the telling and more damaging punches.again alvarez was not confused as PP points out a few times..from the start after 2 rounds you can see defence that he never showed before and effective counterpunching was his game plan.trout had no plan b since plan a was failing and he admits that .Floyd marquez donaire but the first two for sure are labeled counterpunchers because most or all of there offence is based on that.alvarez can do both effectively.agression and counterpunching when needed.marquez cannot for a example.
neither are a complete fighter but alvarez based on this fight is heading a bit in that direction.every complete fighter is effective in counterpunching when needed.they counter a counter a lot.the difference its far from there main style where marquez Floyd and others have.
lets not give examples of a another fight to prove a point.its this fight we are talking about.yes alvarez scored a knockdown hurt trout a few other times but he did more then that.
re read my post on the proper way to score a fight where I said several books and articles all say about the same thing..alvarez shined in all departments there trout did not.its not opinon is visable fact if you pay close attention to detail and on the things that are important in scoring a fight.
2 out of 3 boxing writers gave the fight to alvarez.generaly there a bit more knowledgeable then the majority of the fans that watched this fight.the fans that were polled gave trout the edge as a winner.all 3 judges gave it to alvarez.yes one scoring was overboard but correct.no commentater gave the fight to trout.
trout had his moments in the fight anyone should agree on that.hardcore gave a far clearer breakdown of that fight then PP did.sorry pp that's true.a statement you made to the effect to support your point of view is that trout punch for punch matched alvarez in the telling damaging clean punches that were not pitty pats.thats incorrect and lets not say its one opinion vs another.there is no visable evidence to support that claim.none.every boxing guy I read and the commentaors disagree with that.
if you feel trout won fine.a lot of people agree with you.a lot also agree with hardcore.trout agrees with hardcore.a honest fighter for once.
im wondering and you don't have to anser in writing but to yourself that your saying trouts aggression was affective with his punches his defence affective as much or more then alvarezs his ring iq and ring generalship was better based on what you saw or what you think you saw because of a dislike for alvarez for whatever reason..

Scoring is subjective in boxing.

Fightscore collector-

45 press row scores: 19 trout, 23 canelo, 4 draw
149 fan scores: 87 trout, 58 canelo, 4 draw

I would argue that there are many fans that don't like Canelo and that leads to a possible bias against him in the close rounds. That would account for more fans having scored the fight for Trout than Canelo.

But at the same time, there were many writers (who I'd think have less bias against Canelo) who scored the fight for Trout. Ryan Maquina is a writer I like; Brian Campbell of ESPN; Tom Gray of Ring Magazine, Lee Wylie, Steve Lillis, Mark Ortega of Ring, Gabe Montoya.

And of the press scores listed for Canelo, it looked like 114-113 was the most popular score.


So a high % of boxing writers scored the fight for Trout, draw, or for Canelo by 1 pt. A low % had Canelo winning comfortably.

That is a close fight in terms of boxing scoring, even though Canelo should have won wider in terms of the totality (discussed below).


Canelo was very economical with his punches.
round 1 3 of 22
round 5 6 of 33
round 6 9 of 38
round 8 6 of 28
round 10 8 of 32

I'm not saying you can score rounds by compubox, but it is hard to win a round when you only throw 30 punches.

I scored the fight 6 rounds each and Canelo by a point because of the knockdown.

If you just said who got the better of that fight as a whole, I would have said Canelo by a decent margin.

But this was one of those fights where you get to the end of the fight and the score you have doesn't reflect the totality of the fight.

Trout won some rounds where neither guy was that effective, but he won them. Canelo won rounds where he was highly effective, but ends up with the same 10-9 margin.

It isn't really fair, but we score every 10-9 round the same when the margins are not the same.