Canelo vs Trout- Score It

As for someone who scored Canelo winning by 2-3 pts, I don't begrudge that scorecard. It is reasonable.

I don't begin to believe that my 6-6, Canelo by 1 pt score, is definitive. It is just an opinion. I think it is a reasonable one.

I think someone that had Trout by a pt is also reasonable.

It all depends on how you score the close rounds in the fight. I try to not make the mistake of thinking my scoring of those rounds is somehow right and someone else's scoring of those same rounds is wrong.

dmar, you think that hardcore makes better points because you agree with him and thats fine. some other posters would say that i make better points because they agree with me. its just the fact that you are trying to say that opinions are facts. i feel like you guys havent actually even read my posts.

and just so you know, i literally had no bias in this fight. it keeps getting brought up for some reason. i have never disliked either of these fighters. if anything, i thought that trout wasnt very good, and i thought that alvarez had a lot of potential. and no, i dont think that canelo had high ring iq or ring generalship in the fight. at best it was a little above average. and if you score the fight as captain said on the fight as a whole and not round by round then i would agree that canelo overall did better, but round by round i had trout winning because i felt that canelo gave away many rounds.

anyways, im done with this debate on who we all think won and why because at the moment that doesnt matter. what matters is why dmar and hardcore think that anybody who scored it for trout scored the fight incorrectly. thats the real question.

PP one final note.in every disgussion you are in with others your all over the place.hardcore and I have read your posts did you read ours.1.no where did I say alvarez had a high ring iq or ring generaliship.i said it was better then trouts.thats a perfect example how you attempt to twist things which you do on a constant basis .you put in words that were never said.
2.hardcore and I did not infer that if anyone scored the fight for trout scored it incorrectly.thats another example of twisting things since your debate skills are not up to par..we both pointed out in detail how a fight should be scored covering several areas.
yes in your case most of your opinions you consider fact.example you stated then defended the foolish opinion that alvarez was confused by trout.there is no visable evidence to support that in fact it was trout as both hardcore and I pointed out that it was trout that was confused.trout admitted that or inferred that strongly.thats fact not opinion.you stated that trout was just as effective in landing the clean hard telling punches as alvarez did..no where have I read any writer or commentater agree with you.nor is there any visable evidence to support that statement.
I can go on and on how you make statements in debates that are out of thin air without any justification to support your point of view.
your final statement proves that bullshit.saying the real question is that hardcore and dmar said that anyone who scored the fight for trout was incorrect..no we both feel that if someone had it for trout we can see there point of view a bit but disagree and went on to say why.your reasons why trout won was 1.effective aggression.hardcore and I said it was not and explained why.your position is he confushed alvarez.thats a fairytale.he matched alvarez with effective clean damaging punches..again your putting in opinion as fact when the visial eveidence shows otherwise...want to know what the real questions are..1.do you actualy know or understand what effective punching is.2.do you know at all what effective aggression is.do you know when a fighter is confused.trout does.thoses were your strong points you felt supporting a trout win..the final real question was what fight were you watching to make thoses statements.

good point capt. this fight is a perfect example of the difference in scoring a fight in totality vs round by round. canelo won easily if you score the fight as a whole. but trout did win some rounds. i can see anywhere from trout by a point to canelo by 2. i had it 7-5 canelo with the KD adding a point

for many years ive been a advocate of either a half point system or a 20 point system.rounds where litterly zero happens they give to someone instead of saying neither deserved a 10-9 round..a 20-19 round will be fair.rounds where there was some fighting and one guy clearly got the best of it could be scored 20-18..so theres a round each but the fights not exactly even.for judges who refuse to score a 10-8 round because of no knockdown dispite the fact one fighter dominated big time and scored blows that hurt or wobbled a guy a few times then they can say 20-17..
there are good reasons while I feel and think that way.

the funny thing is dmar, you just did the exact thing that you claimed i do. haha. i never stated that certain things i said were fact. i never said it was a fact that trout confused alvarez. my evidence for that is based that canelo threw less punches and landed less in this fight than any other fight ive seen him in. so you can say that that was his intention and i can say that it wasnt but trouts style forced him to do it. both are opinions which i will admit but you are stating that its a fact that trout didnt confuse canelo which is for sure an opinion.

anyways, im done with this debate. i usually dont have a problem with you or hardcore but i dont know what your problem is with my scoring in this fight was. and from everything that you and hardcore have said, i cant see how i could interpret your tone as anything other than you thinking that anybody who scored it for trout doesnt know how to score a fight. my initial response started with saying that i had no problem with canelo winning but i thought that trout won. either way, i have no problem with either of you but if you werent meaning to come across as i stated you have been, you really need to work on your writing tone.

again, im not the only one who thought that trout won and im not the only ones who have these arguments.

yes in your case most of your opinions you consider fact.example you stated then defended the foolish opinion that alvarez was confused by trout.there is no visable evidence to support that in fact it was trout as both hardcore and I pointed out that it was trout that was confused.trout admitted that or inferred that strongly.thats fact not opinion.


that's what I said.i guess you have a serious problem in reading comprehension..i forget the fight it was.4 or 5 fights ago alvarez fought a guy and for a good 4 rounds stalked him but threw very little punches to the point some folks could feel he gave away thoses rounds..was he confushed then.no.he was showing patience maybe too much and setting traps for a opening.when it finaly came he finished the guy.a confused guy by the way does not slip punches in bunches with expertise the way alvarez did.that shows he knows what hes doing..a confused guy gets hit perhaps a lot with thoses punches not knowing what to do defence wise.a lower punch count doesn't mean confusion.
as far as tone it was not ment to beliitle you or anyone..again reading comprehension...here are a few things you said..1.you made a fool out of hardcore in that disgussion.it may actualy be the other way around..2.i said defence was a major part of alvarezs game plan.you ignored that eveidence but said to me yeah if throwing less punches was part of his game plan then he stuck to his game plan...whos got a problem with tone..you better think again on that.