Showdown Of The Champions: Saul Alvarez vs. Austin Trout

Enter your Showdown Of The Champions: Saul Alvarez vs. Austin Trout fan card
CONTROVERSY RATING: 44%
The percentage of fan cards that disagree with an official result. Exclusively on EYE ON THE RING.
Showdown Of The Champions: Saul Alvarez vs. Austin Trout
Fan Rating: 
0
Your rating: None
3.333335
Average: 3.3 (3 votes)

Date: 
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Location: 
San Antonio, TX
Rounds Scheduled: 
12
Contracted Weight: 
154
Titles at Stake: 
WBC/WBA Super Welterweight Championship
Referee: 
Laurence Cole

Official Judging
Stanley Christodoulou 118 - 109
Oren Shellenberger 116 - 111
Rey Danseco 115 - 112

More:



Undefeated champions move to unify their titles when WBC Super Welterweight Champion Saul Alvarez faces WBA Champion Austin Trout. In a fight with no shortage of close rounds, Alvarez gains a big edge when he freezes Trout with a straight right hand seconds into round seven, sending the WBA Champion collapsing onto all fours for the first knockdown of his career. Although Trout comes back strong, open scoring lets Alvarez know that he has the fight in the bag as he coasts through the twelfth and wins a surprisingly wide unanimous decision on the cards.




Averaged Fan Card:

round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Saul Alvarez
                                                                    
9.11
9.96
9.22
9.55
9.40
9.48
10
9.07
9.85
9.25
9.88
9
Austin Trout
                                                                    
9.88
9.03
9.77
9.48
9.59
9.51
8.03
9.92
9.18
9.74
9.14
10


Fan Cards: Showdown Of The Champions: Saul Alvarez vs. Austin Trout


scorecard by FLOYD TOUGH COMPETITOR MAYWEATHER
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
9
10
9
10
10
9
10
9
10
9
114
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
10
9
10
9
8
10
9
10
9
10
113


scorecard by CHAMPION97
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
10
10
9
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
114
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
9
9
10
10
8
10
9
10
9
10
113


scorecard by COREY WILLINGER
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
9
9
10
10
10
9
10
9
10
9
114
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
10
10
9
9
8
10
9
10
9
10
113


scorecard by LUKASZRPB
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
9
10
10
10
10
9
10
9
10
9
115
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
10
9
9
9
8
10
9
10
9
10
112


scorecard by ENDOFME1994
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
10
10
9
9
9
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
112
AUSTIN TROUT
9
9
10
10
10
9
8
10
10
10
10
10
115


scorecard by BOXING KNOWLEDGE
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
9
9
10
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
9
114
AUSTIN TROUT
10
10
10
9
10
10
8
9
9
9
9
10
113


scorecard by TALESFROMTHECRYPT
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
9
10
10
10
10
9
10
9
10
9
115
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
10
9
9
9
8
10
9
10
9
10
112


scorecard by MIKE25
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
10
10
9
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
114
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
9
9
10
10
8
10
9
10
9
10
113


scorecard by HAG75
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
10
10
10
9
10
9
10
10
9
9
115
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
9
9
9
10
8
10
9
9
10
10
112


scorecard by CHRISTIANTHEPEARSON
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
9
9
9
10
10
9
10
10
10
9
114
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
10
10
10
9
8
10
9
9
9
10
113


scorecard by GLASSJOE
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
9
9
10
9
10
9
9
9
10
9
112
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
10
10
9
10
9
10
10
10
9
10
116


scorecard by KID_DYNAMITE1217
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
9
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
113
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
10
10
9
10
8
10
9
10
9
10
114


scorecard by ARJ GUY
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
9
10
9
10
10
9
10
9
10
9
114
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
10
9
10
9
8
10
9
10
9
10
113


scorecard by ALBERTOCASTANY
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
9
9
9
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
112
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
10
10
10
10
8
10
9
10
9
10
115


scorecard by ZOE
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
10
9
10
9
10
9
9
10
10
9
114
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
9
10
9
10
8
10
10
9
9
10
113


scorecard by NAGABILLY
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
10
9
9
9
10
10
10
9
10
9
114
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
9
10
10
10
8
9
9
10
9
10
113


scorecard by SUPER-FAST-AT-COMING-LAST
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
9
9
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
9
115
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
10
10
9
9
8
10
10
9
10
10
114


scorecard by ANTLARGAR
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
9
9
9
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
112
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
10
10
10
10
8
10
9
10
9
10
115


scorecard by ZAC.RJ
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
9
10
9
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
113
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
10
9
10
10
8
10
9
10
9
10
114


scorecard by CBMTMM
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
9
10
9
10
10
9
10
9
10
9
114
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
10
9
10
9
8
10
9
10
9
10
113


scorecard by RORSCHACH
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
9
10
10
9
10
9
9
9
10
9
113
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
10
10
9
10
8
10
10
10
9
10
115


scorecard by RAVENSFAN25
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
9
10
9
10
10
9
10
10
10
9
115
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
10
9
10
9
8
10
9
9
9
10
112


scorecard by QUICKJAB
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
9
10
9
9
9
115
AUSTIN TROUT
9
9
9
9
9
10
8
10
9
10
10
10
112


scorecard by SALIMAN
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
9
10
9
10
10
9
10
9
10
9
114
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
10
9
10
9
8
10
9
10
9
10
113


scorecard by EREVOLVER
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
9
9
9
9
10
9
10
10
10
9
113
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
10
10
10
10
8
10
9
9
9
10
114


scorecard by PACQUIAOSBEARDMUSCLE
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
9
10
9
10
9
10
10
9
10
9
10
9
114
AUSTIN TROUT
10
9
10
9
10
9
8
10
9
10
9
10
113


scorecard by 667SAUL
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
SAUL ALVAREZ
10
10
9
9
10
10
10
9
10
9
10
9
115
AUSTIN TROUT
9
9
10
10
9
9
8
10
9
10
9
10
112


Comments

Canelo's power punches and defense won him the fight.

It was a good fight. I disagree with the bloggers who were calling it "boring".

rorschach's picture

Let's see what we see.

Champion97's picture

Great performance from both fighters! Fantastic win for Saul Alvarez!
This was a very close one, I had Trout losing only from a knockdown, not a heavy knockdown, and a knockdown in a round which he could have won had he not been dropped. This was a 50/50 fight, Trout may have been overlooked by some, he had some decent wins, and one brilliant victory, he defeated Miguel Cotto!
Alvarez was very young at this point, and he hadn't had many fights at anywhere near this level, so he should have been commended for taking this fight, it was a risky one. Alvarez won this one, it was very close, the judges were out of line, but he won.

Acerbitas's picture

Oscar De La Hoya's morals are so high he gives the judges a handsome paycheck to get scorecards such as 118-110 in fights that could have gone the other way on a regular basis. For me all the close Canelo fights- Trout, Cotto, Lara I believe he lost yet he wins them by huge margins ?

Champion97's picture

It's frustrating isn't it mate?, the whole situation is as shifty as heck if you ask me, I suppose the explanation could be that the judges are based too strongly towards weight of punch, and the other point scoring attributes Alvarez showcases in the ring, and prioritise the type of success of these opponents of Alvarez far too lowly. I highly doubt Oscar really financially bribes the officials, but it wouldn't surprise me of it was to be proven that he had pulled some strings for Alvarez pre fight a few times in the past.

Acerbitas's picture

For me though, there is no way multiple judges could get it "wrong" so many different times. The Cotto judges were far too wide as were the Trout judges but at least they could have really gone the other way and many people though Canelo deserved the decision.

This many sound harsh and blunt but there is no really any other way to say it, I believe that must good judges who properly know how to judge boxing and have some experience will say that Lara won that fight. Many thought Canelo won but be real Lara should have won a Spilt decision.

Oscar is a difficult person and has always been the most suspicious boxer in the last few years. He seems to lose fights he wins and win fights he loses, if that is a contradiction and a half.

For example:

Most people believe Oscar defeated: Felix Trinidad, Shane Mosley (2nd time)
he lost those fights.

Most people believe he lost to: Pernell Whitaker, Ike Quartey, Felix Sturm
he won these fights.

I'm just saying the guy was involved in a few controversies. Also the B-Hop knockout, no matter how many times I watch it looks suspicious

Champion97's picture

You've every right to a justified opinion. After Alvarez knocked out Amir Khan, Paulie Malignaggi gave an analysis on the judges and their suspicious scoring, he made the point that sometimes it is the unreliable method of the judges that causes it (that isn't a quote and these were not his precise words), he said that when judges are biased for whatever reason, and subconsciously fail to stay neutral, they tend watch the round, and search for a reason to give a guy a round, Malignaggi said, if you do this, sure you'll find your reason, and if you do this, rather than judging the round properly, and giving both sides a fair crack of the whip, these judges may look at Alvarez landing with the hardest punches if the round (people who really know boxing realise that the hardest punches although they often are, are not always necessarily the best punches), and consider this reason enough to give the round to the fighter they want to give the round to.

No it's perfectly valid to say that Saul Alvarez won the fight, you can't complain about that, but it was one of those fights which could have gone either way, a couple of points either way, no more than that, to have Alvarez winning by 6 points is incorrect, and outside the bounds of subjectivity, but that's just through a judge giving Alvarez every single close round (because Lara won 3 decisive rounds), which isn't right, if I was to have had my wish for that fight, it would have been for all three scorecards to have been for either by 1 or 2, a judge in favour of Alvarez, and two in favour of Lara, one has to be glad it was a split decision. You say it yourself, you can't hope for a split decision When you feel a fighter undoubtedly wins a fight.

I don't disagree with that. Not unlike Evander Holyfield, who was robbed in the Olympics, and given a gift of a draw against Lennox Lewis, one would have been generous to have given him 3 rounds.

Those are facts, and nobody can argue against facts, but these are just coincidences, and him officially losing fights he legitimately won raises the strong possibility that it isn't Oscar De La Hoya who's suspicious but the judges, I do believe be is shifty, and he has been making a special effort to help Alvarez and give him unnecessary advantages, but I don't believe he pays judges. I think judges are very carefully picked.

Acerbitas's picture

El Chino officially retired.

Champion97's picture

Yeah pal I read about that, retired or working, what a legend, my favourite fighter of all time, although he didn't win either fight, he gave Floyd Mayweather Jr two extremely hard, competitive, (I believe) close fights, winning 5 rounds in each in my opinion, after he took Adrien Broner to cleaners, what a night that was, with the exception of Klitschko vs Fury, the best night of boxing ever in my opinion.

I remember before Mayweather vs Pacquiao, the ridiculous comments from opinions 'if a crude slugger and plodder like Maidana can connect' and so on, well, (chuckle), Mayweather looked pretty young, fast, agile, sharp, fit against Pacquiao when he out classed him in that master class performance last May, the explanation was that Mayweather was still Mayweather, still the best in the world, only Maidana was extremely underrated, a top level, fantastic, boxer, all round boxer, who would have been an absolute nightmare for anyone out there, I think he'd beat Pacquiao.

Acerbitas's picture

Yes he was, an intelligent puncher with great boxing ability who gave Mayweather 2 of his toughest fights. Many people believing he actually deserved to win the first fight by a close margin and still managing to out think and wobble Mayweather in the 2nd fight.

Pacquiao would probably drop Maidana like Ortiz did, but Maidana sets up his right hand to well that he could telegraph the Marquez fight and knock him clean out. I don't think that fight ever goes the distance, I do not see Manny or Marcos in their boxing it out for 12 round without power shots going and someone not beating the count of 10. What a great fight that would have been. You know another fight I would have liked to have seen ? Zab Judah vs Marcos Maidana, that would have been an interesting and entertaining fight I think.

Champion97's picture

No when I watched it back I came to the conclusion that Mayweather won by 2-4 points, and 3-5 in the second, I thought Mayweather had an easier time in the first fight, and in a sense, seeing as Mayweather deserved to lose a point, and Maidana didn't, it could have been a closer fight, and the margin should have been Mayweather by 1-3. There's no doubt Floyd won both fights, but it isn't easy to see that.

I doubt it would turn out like that, because of the tactical situation, and the experience on both sides, I think it would be unpredictable, you never know how things will pan out in this sport, I think it would go the distance, but one stopping the other wouldn't surprise me, I think Maidana would win by UD though. I think that's simply too ons sided to be entertaining on the level your talking about, I suppose circumstantially, it could be, if you got the best Judah there ever was in with the Maidana who was schooled by Devon Alexander, then maybe that would excite and fascinate, I see what you mean what ever the circumstances though, because of their styles.

Acerbitas's picture

Jonny you are an absolute traitor ! You argued for ages that El Chino won the 1st Floyd fight. Mind changer !
Also did you not champubox and have Maidana ahead ?

Humour....

Champion97's picture

I did, but that was always going to be temporary. He did land more punches but he didn't win , some say he could have gotten the decision, some say 'he got schooled' neither are accurate, he gave Mayweather two extremely hard fights, he lost that first fight, but by a maximum of 4 points, and it was extremely competitive. I still believe Maidana being underestimated is what made Mayweather vs Pacquiao turn out the way it did.

Acerbitas's picture

I watched it again on tv. Had Maidana 115-113. Barry Jones had it by Mayweather by a few for clean work. Which is true, his jab was accurate and his counter right hand and his defense was excellent. Maidana missed a lot, however managed to land punches (HARD PUNCHES) from all angles whilst not being cleaner which makes an argument over the scoring pillar of clean and hard punching. Evidently cleaner work (Floyd) or much harder (Maidana). It's pretty fair that Floyd had better defense but to defend against the ropes he sacrificed ring generalship and gave initiative to Maidana for a lot of the rounds to block shots but also take a few hard hooks to the body. Effective aggression is tough because it's about who is initiating the exchanges and this changed from round to round. It was a close fight and Maidana really roughed him up.

I disagree, he definitely could have gotten a decision. I think it could be a 115-113 fight either way. One judge did score it a draw and there was a few rounds that could have swung it to Maidana.

Champion97's picture

The thing is mate, me, you, we know boxing, much better than the average person, but we're not ultimate experts. When I watched the fight, I genuinely believed Maidana could have gotten the decision, but Steve Bunce, Barry Jones, Al Bernstein, Teddy Atlas, and many other great analysts all made it clear that Floyd won the fight decisively, that's all I needed to know to know I must have been wrong in my thinking, because, well, you know what I've just said, ultimately, if Steve Bunce says a fighter clearly won a fight, he clearly won a fight, the guys I've mentioned know far more about boxing than you or I, it isn't even close, do you seriously want to argue that Maidana could have won when every expert out there says that incorrect?, because I didn't, and I think these kind of fights that can be confusing, are a great way for one to learn about boxing.

Just to be clear one one thing, Mayweather winning decisively has nothing to do with Maidana missing in itself, obviously it cut down his landed count. From round 6 onwards, Maidana wasn't actually landing with the power, it was Mayweather, that's the thing, the fatigue from missing all those punches declined his work rate, but more to the point, lessened his ability to land with force, and because he was physically slower in the second half, he was able to get less leverage on his shots, so overall, for quality, Mayweather has him beat, I think the best way to look at is that Mayweather decisively won three more rounds than Maidana, when you think about that, you see the definitive superiority.

It's a fact that he couldn't, not legitimately, but I will say something, just like thinking Porter beat Thurman, it's one those, that gets you, to think Maidana beat Mayweather or Porter beat Thurman, does NOT mean you don't know boxing, it means you have a bit to learn, but to to be an expert at anything, you have to learn.

To summarise this, everyone who thinks Maidana won the fight is an amateur, sure you'll see plenty of YouTubers who think he won, but no professional analyst, no expert out there, out of all of them, that says it all. I do think both fights were close, and Maidana was fantastic in both fights. Michael Pernick was incorrect, says who?, says me, that doesn't mean much really, says who else?, hundreds of professional experts, the only scorecard of the three that was valid was 116-112 Mayweather, if you look over the experts scorecards, most are 116-112 or 115-113, Mayweather decisively won the fight, but you saying Maidana could have won doesn't make you a bad judge of boxing, I'm not putting my word on a higher level than yours, I'm putting the word of experts above mine or yours. Maidana was brilliant in both Mayweather fights, and he didn't do better than Alvarez for purely stylistic reasons, or because Mayweather's love life affected his professionalism, it's because he was a much better fighter, and would beat him comfortably, I believe, I think we can agree on that, and Maidana would have beaten Pacquiao, Golovkin vs Maidana, wow, imagine that!

Acerbitas's picture

" if Steve Bunce says a fighter clearly won a fight, he clearly won a fight, the guys I've mentioned know far more about boxing than you or I, it isn't even close, do you seriously want to argue that Maidana could have won when every expert out there says that incorrect?"

Yes, even the experts such as Dan Rafeal had Canelo winning 117-111 when you yourself said it was no wider than 116-112 either way. DO you still agree with the experts that had Pacquiao beating Bradley first time by 119-109 when it was most likely a 115-113 to 116-112 win for Pacqiuao. I don't really care what professionals say, they come up wrong sometimes and there was plenty of times during the Maidana fight where the commentators credited work that was blocked, most commentators do and that is why a second watch from different angles is necessary. Just because someone knows something more than me doesn't always make their opinion better.... Hitler probably knew a lot more than me about political science but I think his ideas were a little bit crazy and a little bit genocidal.

"Maidana wasn't actually landing with the power, it was Mayweather"

Yeah I would not disagree with that entirely but Floyd ain't got much punch at 147. Landing a few good shots that rocked Maidana's head but he was never really, really hurt.

" Porter beat Thurman"

I still have it Porter 115-113 when I switched the commentary off and decided what landed on my own. Was close but Shawn Porter WAS far too active. I don't get this phrase people use. "Smothers his work" ? What the hell does that even mean ? It sounds like a bad description of inside fighting which Porter was mostly dominant when he got Thurman against the ropes. We knows Thurman hits harder and landed some cleaner shots but a sparring partner only ranked Thurman's power a 7 and Porter's a 6 meaning there isn't much difference really.

"thinks Maidana won the fight is an amateur"

cheers mate

"Mayweather's love life"

I saw a video called two girls, one slap that might have something to do with it....

" Maidana would have beaten Pacquiao"

I don't know, could go either way.

"Golovkin vs Maidana, wow, imagine that!"

I actually would not, Golovkin would beat Maidana around. Early TKO for Golovkin

Champion97's picture

Two can play that quoting game, 'Barry Jones had by Mayweather by a few for clean work', just to teach you something about boxing, in a fight that could go either way, is subjective, and contains no knockdowns, point deductions, or rounds that could be scored 10-8, can not be scored any wider than two points one way, all the experts who scored a fight 116-112, or 116-113, think the fight is decisive, 3 points, is a decisive victory well, 117-113 definitely is, and any wider than that, I would call a fairly wide scorecard at the very least, any wider than 116-112, and that's a one sided fight. This idea you have of 'a FEW points either way' is invalid, and incorrect, two points max, if an expert stores Mayweather ahead by any more than 2 points, then they have him ahead decisively.

No, mate, Steve Bunce and Barry Jones, who are both knowledgeable and neutral at all times, said they thought Bradley lost to Pacquiao by a round or two, HBO aren't genuine, they're experts and potentially great analysts, but they're too absorbed in being businessmen, and taking advantage of situations, Harold Lederman knew Manny didn't beat Tim by 10 points. Well that's you're answer, if you don't want to learn, you won't learn, that's the difference between our arguments, I say Floyd clearly beat Maidana, you disagree, even though it's a fact, the real experts (all of them, remember that, are they all wrong?), agree with what I say, don't forget that Steve Bunce, Steve Lilis and Barry Jones have been studying the sport since before we were born, and know far more than either of us, when they say something is subjective but they have an opinion, and you disagree, that's fins, but when they something is definitive, then you're wrong, it's as simple as that, because you're an idiot? No, because you have a lot to learn, but the crucial thing is mate, if you want to learn, then know where you stand, and when you're blatantly wrong, accept it, learn from it, and come out the tunnel with more knowledge, I've spoken to you on here enough times to know you're not really one of those people who's stubborn and unteachable, you're more knowledgeable now than you were 6 months ago, and I'm sure you'll agree with what I say in the future. I struggle to interpret whether or not you're offended by my statements or not, I hope not, because I enjoy talking boxing with you, and we've always been civil in the past, I hope we can keep it up.

OK, I'm more than willing to take what you say into account, any analyst can make a mistake just as Christiano Ronaldo can hit the woodwork, but I'm not talking about one analyst disagreeing with you at the time of the result, I'm talking about literally over 100 experts who have probably seen it more than once stating facts which you're trying to argue against.

This has absolutely nothing to do with boxing, but I remember being at college, and a kid who was interested on history was absolutely slaughtered by our class mates for saying 'like it or not Hitler was a good leader, he may have been evil, but he was a good leader', I stayed calm, and argued that Hitler was a potentially good leader when he was in natural, he was a very capable leader, but to call Hitler a good leader is like calling a Chef who's as good as Gordon Ramsey but chooses to poison people a fine chef.

I think you took that comment the wrong way, early, Maidana was landing with the more forceful punches, and for more or less the first half, which means a lot in all fairness, but compare the power on those chopping over hand rights in the early rounds, to the messy work in the later rounds, I'm not saying it was all untidy, I'm not saying he didn't produce any quality in the second half of the fight, but you should consider the fact that Mayweather has never been appreciated for his power, granted, he never hurt Chino, but throughout the 12 rounds, he was connecting with great quality, whether or not he hurt his opponent, he still deserves credit for landing with power like that, and with such precision, we have to consider the fact that, for power, it was interesting, for the cleaner work, it was no contest.

I'm going to make this as simple as possible, Paulie Malignaggi is the best analyst on the planet, I actually had Porter 115-113 when I watched the fight the first time, I knew I could have been incorrect, I revisited the fight, and Paulie was spot on as always, notice no experts actually think Porter won the fight.

OK mate, if you want to learn about this, I'll teach you, so, Porter wants to bully Thurman in close, he wants to limit his moving and breathing room, and smother and negate Thurman's technicality, but, despite doing this, because he was so close, he couldn't get the right distance, he couldn't time his work the right way, he couldn't get that leverage on his actual credit worthy offence, that's what experts mean when they say 'Porter ended up smothering his own work', it isn't poor tactics from Porter Sr and Jr, it's because Thurman is a class act, and the best welterweight on the planet in my opinion. Porter was certainly not dominant, the way Thurman was able to time his counters, and punch his way off the ropes, was fantastic, and he was happy to stand and trade with Porter, because although (as we learnt in this fight), one would be foolish to give Porter a free shot, he's a volume puncher, he's most dangerous when you allow him to unload sustained consistent offence on you, and with Thurman's counter punching, and power in his shots, he was able to spoil his opponent's rhythm. Oh come on mate, you're beyond that.

No worries, it's the truth, I was not insulting anybody, least of all you, I was being literal, I'm not a paid analyst, neither are you, it's not about intelligence, it's about experience, which you're still gaining, just like me, but you need to show a certain level of particular respect to the opinions of those who are higher up than you or I. Everybody starts out as an amateur, it's like being a child, we all go through that stage, boxing is not football, it's a complex sport that takes time to learn about, there is no shame in being merely not a professional when you've been following the sport for not so long as 18 months as you have.

All I was meaning to say there was that it was suggested that Mayweather separating from his Fiancée affected his ability and professionalism, but I don't believe that, and I think Maidana deserves so much more credit than that, he lost, but by a maximum of 4 points, and I thought it was closer.

Of course it could, but I believe he would win, fascinating, hypothetical now, but still fascinating.

Maidana at his best, well, nobody deeply knows what would happen, but having thought about it long and hard, I believe that would have been a sensational fight.

Acerbitas's picture

I don't agree with that to be honest, just because the majority say so or the experts say so doesn't always make it right. I find that to be a slave mentality.

I liked the Gordon Ramsay example by the way.

" Paulie Malignaggi is the best analyst on the planet"

Took his girl and his belt- Adrien "AB" Broner

"experts mean when they say 'Porter ended up smothering his own work',"

I didn't hear any experts say that, it was a few random guys on the internet. To be honest from what you have described I don't think this term is the best way to describe it. Porter had a LOT of success particularly with the body shots. That's not to say Thurman didn't have success either.

" level of particular respect to the opinions of those who are higher up than you or I"

I respect as evidence for an argument. If I talk about Floyd the majority thought he beat Maidana so I consider him 48-1 in my debates, because NO ONE apart from Floyd fans though Castillo beat him, even the experts. That being said I don't really talk their word as the law of the land, because they disagree amongst themselves. Hell, Larry Merchant had Muhammad Ali winning the fight of the century by 3 points, which is mind-boggling and a bit impossible but he was an Ali fan anyway. So what happens if they are all in agreement ? Doesn't change for me, all the experts for the first fight had Floyd winning 115-114 or 115-113 including Bernstein, Malinaggi and so forth. Take away the one even round then they would have had it a draw. One more arguementative round and Maidana could have stolen it.

"that would have been a sensational fight."

After seeing what Canelo did to Josesito Lopez I don't want to see Maidana get hurt because he was a true warrior who would always get up but Golovkin is too strong and a chin of iron.

Also for the history, I think Hitler was good until he decided to open up the war to the Soviets. Then he finished himself right there. Too many enemies by that point.

Champion97's picture

This isn't about a majority vote, this is the equivalent of arguing about illness with a doctor, of course it makes it right is every single expert says the same thing, because in every fight that could have gone either way, there are bound to be many analysts who score the fight one way or another, I think around 55% of the analysts who scored the fight thought Alvarez beat Trout, but 100% think Floyd won, and they all say the same, this is definitive, it is not a subjective situation, if you cover the fight, and still come to the same conclusion, then you're wrong about something, you're reading too much into something, you're missing something, I'm sure you'll see soon enough.

Come on, let's not be silly, because Broner and Malignaggi both had a relationship with the same woman, and Malignaggi was narrowly out pointed by the talented, underrated fighter, that effects his ability to be a good analyst?, yeah I didn't think so, he probably is the best analyst on the planet, I would advise you and everybody else who wants to learn about or continue to learn about boxing to watch videos in which he breaks down fights, because of anyone knows boxing, it's Paulie Malignaggi.

Well, I did. You never know who people are, they could know more than me about boxing, they could know less than my cat, they probably quoted an analyst who they'd seen analyse the fight. No I'm not summing up the while fight, I'm just making a valid point, and the fact that an issue for Porter was that a con came with the pro when he ended up smothering his own work, is a fact. He did, but it's important to think about rounds as well, and remember that to win a boxing fight which contains no knockdowns or point deductions, you need to win a certain number of rounds, if you watch the fight, and observe, you see Thurman won a significantly higher amount of unarguable rounds than Porter, which is crucial.

No, not the majority, everybody boxing expert. Are Teddy Atlas, Steve Bunce, Steve Lilis. Barry Jones, Al Bernstein, Paulie Malignaggi, Steve Farhood, and all this other experts put there all wrong?, come on. Actually that's not true, the vast majority of experts thought Castillo deserved the decision, just like the vast majority thought Herrera should have gotten the win over Danny Garcia, but that's a different topic. Like I said, HBO are businessmen and women, they know what they're talking about, but controversy brings excitement and drama to the sport, they're bound to make it appear more subjective than it really is, because it's beneficial to themselves, Larry Merchant knows boxing, but he doesn't pride himself in it. I'm not talking about shifty businessmen, I'm talking about reliable pundits, they're bound to agree, Steve Bunce is a great example, you don't want to underestimate his knowledge, he and every other real analyst out there says Floyd clearly beat Maidana, and so he clearly beat Maidana, the answer to the puzzle is that you're missing something in the fight, maybe something very crucial, it's one of those fights which it's easy to be fooled by, but the fact remains the same, whether you're right or wrong on boxing should be judges based on what the genuine, straight, reliable experts say, and if they say the opinion you have is not valid, then they're right. That's doesn't necessarily mean they think it have gone the other way, 'it was a fight Floyd clearly won', Al Bernstein said that. That isn't as simple as you think, people have different ways of coming up with aggregate score lines.

That's your opinion, that's something you will learn in boxing, you can't state opinions as if they're facts, and common opponents are never reliable case closers, they're something to take into account, and it can mean something, but rarely much, and just because Alvarez did a more impressive job against Lopez than Maidana does not define the thought that he would be stopped by Golovkin early.

I'm no historian, so I can't really have that discussion with you.

Acerbitas's picture

"you're reading too much into something, you're missing something, I'm sure you'll see soon enough."

It is what a judge prefers at the end of the day. Most prefer clean punching, I prefer more punching and higher workrate even if it isn't great boxing to most people. Still if you outland your opponent there isn't much more than I can ask of you.

"Malignaggi was narrowly out pointed by the talented, underrated fighter, that effects his ability to be a good analyst?"

No, it is just pretty funny to watch on youtube.

" you need to win a certain number of rounds, if you watch the fight, and observe, you see Thurman won a significantly higher amount of unarguable rounds than Porter, which is crucial."

I disagree with this actually. Thurman won the more decisive rounds for me where Porter's aggression (effective for me most of the time, but not all the time) and work rate got the better of Thurman. Of course Porter won some rounds thoroughly too with body shots that hurt Thurman. I thought Porter nicked a few more rounds to make it 115-113. Everyone thought it was a close fight, I don't mind of Thurman got the decision but I believe what my own eyes tell me, no sound, no commentators and I thought Porter did better in the fight because I know what lands myself and what doesn't. No biases at all.

"the vast majority of experts thought Castillo deserved the decision"

That is what I was trying to say but I might have mistyped/ used bad expression

" Floyd clearly beat Maidana, and so he clearly beat Maidana"

No, not CLEARLY. Edged Maidana. BARELY beat Maidana. Deserved to win.

"'it was a fight Floyd clearly won', Al Bernstein said that. That isn't as simple as you think, people have different ways of coming up with aggregate score lines."

Sounds like he is full of shit to me. You can't clearly win a fight by one point.

"if they say the opinion you have is not valid, then they're right."

I strongly disagree, everyone's opinion is valid whether you heavily disagree with it/hate it or not. Boxing is subjective and you cannot merely state opinion as fact and use everyone who agrees with you as evidence. Boxing pundits had it a VERY Close win for Floyd and the majority of people (Boxing fans who may have as much authority as the pundits) said the 117-111 scorecard was ridiculous and so was 116-112. It was most likely 114-114 or 115-113. So Floyd edged it. Fair enough. I thought Maidana edged it. It's an opinion. I ain't wrong. You ain't wrong. Nobody is missing nothing.

"That's your opinion, that's something you will learn in boxing, you can't state opinions as if they're facts "

I accept an opinion, why can't you ?

"does not define the thought that he would be stopped by Golovkin early."

I meant Canelo was evidently too big and strong for Lopez and viciously beat him. Maidana was better than Lopez but Golovkin's far better than Canelo and he hits far too hard. Personally he gets flattened early due to the power of GGG, Chino did have a moderate chin but could be put down by the likes of Ortiz and dropped with a body shot by Amir Khan. If Golovkin targets the body its really over.

Champion97's picture

This is getting stupid now, OK, I'll sum up this discussion with the facts, you don't like it, that's not my problem.

No, you don't understand, that's a fact, if you dispute a fact, you're wrong, it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing.

Look, sometimes in life, you need to accept you're wrong, you are wrong about this, if all the professionals, I repeat, professionals (people who are so knowledgeable they're paid to analyse boxing) factualize and confirm the statement that Mayweather won the fight with no doubt in any of their minds, and that the case that Maidana could have won was not valid, then obviously, this is the case, it's so ridiculous you're trying to argue against this that it's amusing, if you want to learn about boxing, you have to accept that those who know more than you are right, and learn from them, if you try and argue that those who know more than you are wrong, then you will never learn.

Wrong again, that's something else you will learn in time, that's very disrespectful given that he knows more about this sport than you could in a decade's time. You can believe a fighter decisively won a fight by one point, when I said what I said about different analysts having different methods for coming up with aggregate score lines, I mean respected, experienced boxing commentator like Al Bernstein can't be 'full of s***' when doing his job, and if he says he scored a fight for a guy by one point, and says he clearly won the fight, and all this time you've believed this isn't possible, it isn't that the expert is wrong, it is that you are wrong, obviously, a far better way for you to think is 'I wasn't aware that was a possible scoring scenario, interesting, I learned something today', the thought that a fighter can't clearly win a fight by one point was an assumption that you have built up in your mind, it's not something you definitively learned.

No, again, you cannot disagree with a fact, did you never learn about facts and opinions?, right, if professionals, very experienced pundits, all over the world, many of them former world champions themselves, say something in boxing is a fact, then it is a fact, therefore, they say an opinion is not valid (meaning that it is a fact that something is not) then they are right. This isn't about how forcefully I or anybody else disagrees with something, I wasn't measuring validity with that, I'm saying that you don't say whether or not something is valid, you don't have that privilege, the professionals do.

You have so much to learn, you will read what I say and not argue if you want to learn, I knew boxing was subjective before you knew more than the average person about it, yes boxing is subjective, but not to the extent that absolutely every opinion out there is valid, and you can argue anything is possible, otherwise the sport would be out of control, obviously. You need to understand that it is not a case of the sport either being subjective or not, and actually the accurate truth lies in between those two incorrect theories, the facts are, there are wrong answers, there are inaccurate scorecards, there are invalid scorecards, but very often, there is more than one possible score which is correct, and there no more valid than each other in any definitive way, which is what creates the subjectivity. An example would be, is 115-113 for Mayweather right, or is 116-112 right?, answer, they both are, equally knowledgeable judges would score the fight with either score, why, because the sport is subjective, any score for Maidana is incorrect, why, because it's not valid, why? Because it's not inside the bounds of subjectivity, how do we know? Because the fight teaches us this when we analyse it properly. This is crucial, I'm not using the fact that everyone says Mayweather won as evidence, I'm using the fact that the real experts say it was decisive as evidence, huge difference. No they didn't, that's wrong, it's as simple as that, please tell me you're not talking about fat, unemployed Youtubers who have nothing better to do with their time, real experts all said Mayweather clearly won, they all say 'exciting', and 'competitive', granted, some said 'close', and I think 117-111 is as invalid as a draw, Mayweather won, by 2-4 points, nobody said 116-112 was a bad score, that was the only valid score from the judges, fact. Boxing fans can enjoy the sport, and try to learn to analyse it, but you should think about the fact that they are merely fans, their knowledge is not reliable, they certainly do not have as much authority as experts, of course they don't. Again, that's what all the amateurs say, the people who don't really know boxing, you're seriously going to value their opinions in the same way you value the opinions of the real analysts?, come on, that's an insult to the people who really know boxing.

I do accept your opinion, I accept Skip Bayless's opinion that Manny Pacquiao beat Floyd Mayweather Jr, I accept CJ Ross's opinion that Mayweather vs Alvarez was a draw (you're far more aggressive towards incorrect judges and apparent pundits than me, which makes you a hypocrite), I accept and respect the opinion that Floyd Mayweather beat Castillo even though I thought it went the other way, I accept and respect the opinion that Garcia vs Guerrero was a draw even though I thought Danny shaded it, I accept the opinion that a 40 year old, heavily smoking, 50 stone person who struggles to move has no health issues, but I don't respect it, because it's based on stupidity, and therefore it isn't valid, the opinion that Maidana beat Mayweather either time, is not valid, fact, I accept it, I don't respect it, you are absolutely no better than anyone who says Pacquiao beat him, you're both stating false facts, you're both wrong. I accept that you believe Maidana beat Mayweather the first time, but you're wrong, that opinion is based on inexperience, and your unwillingness to accept it, is based on immaturity.

The word 'personally' being added to that paragraph of opinionated text is good, because you're showing that's an opinion not a fact because it isn't. That would have been such a fantastic, interesting fight in my opinion. That's a fair point, and an understandable way of looking at it, but if we look at it closer, and dig deeper, we see its a lot more complicated than that, you talk about Golovkin's power in an equation with Maidana's relative vulnerability regarding his body, and come to the conclusion that this leads to a stoppage for Golovkin, that's fine, as long you accept that that is just your opinion, I respect that, but three things we should take into account, are Maidana's durability (his recovery rate is phenomenal), Maidana is a massive puncher as we all know (although he didn't really look like a puncher against Mayweather, because Mayweather rode so many of his shots), and the mentality of Golovkin, he wouldn't rush in, he'd be cautious, and take his time, I believe, then again, in favour of your opinion, if Golovkin lands a body shot that lands in a vulnerable enough area, Maidana doesn't see it coming, and he lands full force, Golovkin could well close the show, whatever you believe, hypothetically, one can't be against that fight.

This discussion isn't fun any more,

But this is,

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.youtu...

Watch, enjoy, and thank me later.

Acerbitas's picture

I agree mate, that is a classic. You seen this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKIAV4zlKw0

Champion97's picture

Hilarious mate, cheers, you know I fancy myself as a bit of an impressionist myself, I'm not bad I don't think, but wow, that was some serious impersonating, comedy machine or what.

Acerbitas's picture

The Eubank impression gets me every time. I'm terrible at impressions and accents.

Champion97's picture

I'll say, the Chris Eubank impression, is not an easy one to do, I've tried it time and time again, credit to Jon Culshaw. My best boxing impressions are Keith Thurman, Steve Bunce, Tyson Fury, Paulie Malignaggi, Carl Froch, Robert Garcia, Barry Jones, I try to impersonate Steve Lilis, Nick Halling, Glen McCory, and Chris Eubank, but it's not easy, at all. My Scottish accent isn't bad at all, I have a feeling you might be a wee bit better than you think.

Acerbitas's picture

Out of curiosity why does it highlight comments you've already posted as new ? Do you just sit and edit comments you made ages ago ?

Champion97's picture

No, just correcting typos.

The big one tomorrow, last minute prediction?

Champion97's picture

Alright mate?