Canelo vs Lara

First topic message reminder :

A little surprised there's no thread on it, as I think this is a pretty huge fight. Weigh ins yesterday, both men tipped the scales at 155, but Alvarez has admitted that he's going to blow up like a balloon for this one. How do you see it going? My initial feel was Lara UD12, but I now feel Alvarez UD12, but close enough to set up a bigger rematch in November

The Trout one was embarrassing... The scorecards read 118-109, 115-112, 116-111. Which aren't too bad, but because of WBC, we know he was 80-71, and 78-73 up on two cards. So he'd effectively won after eight rounds. 8-0, 6-2 (plus a knockdown) on two cards. For reference, the other judge had it 76-75 after eight. It's humorous that one judge can have it dead even with the knockdown being the difference, while another has a blowout.

Alvarez does nothing for me. While Lara's output was anemic, he at least had a plan. Canelo was largely ineffective going forward.

What exactly is he supposed to be?

Alverez was trying to win the fight which is why I gave him the nod.

As was Lara. Plodding forward aimlessly isn't any more worthy than attempting to box off the back foot.

Hagler plodded forward against Leonard and you gave him that fight..

Alvarez lost to Mayweather and that's your problem..

Admit it..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hagler plodded forward against Leonard and you gave him that fight..

Alvarez lost to Mayweather and that's your problem..

Admit it..

You're comparing Alvarez's performance against Lara to Hagler's against Leonard? If so, why did you score for Leonard and not Lara? Can't even win an argument with yourself!

Your Mayweather obsession is borderline psychotic. Creepy and juvenile.

The constant name calling and bringing up of old arguments is also juvenile and damn right pathetic, if you box off the back foot in a close fight then rarely are you going to get the nod.

Surely the reality is - if you box off the back foot in a close fight, the name fighter gets the win... but if you come forward in a close fight, the name fighter gets the win.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The constant name calling and bringing up of old arguments is also juvenile and damn right pathetic, if you box off the back foot in a close fight then rarely are you going to get the nod.

Chris Eubank won any number of close fights boxing like a pacifist. He, like Alvarez, was the money fighter.

kingraf wrote:Surely the reality is - if you box off the back foot in a close fight, the name fighter gets the win... but if you come forward in a close fight, the name fighter gets the win.

Spot on pal.

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hagler plodded forward against Leonard and you gave him that fight..

Alvarez lost to Mayweather and that's your problem..

Admit it..

You're comparing Alvarez's performance against Lara to Hagler's against Leonard? If so, why did you score for Leonard and not Lara? Can't even win an argument with yourself!

Your Mayweather obsession is borderline psychotic. Creepy and juvenile.

Dear oh dear....Calm down..

I had Taylor ahead of Chavez too....Silly me !!

Go back to eating coco pops from the box with a TBE hat on.

hazharrison wrote:As was Lara. Plodding forward aimlessly isn't any more worthy than attempting to box off the back foot.

Lara spent too much time not boxing at all.

If Lara engaged more he would have won.

I saw it that Alverez was hunting Lara and landing good body shots.

Before the fight my prediction was Lara would win and he should have. He only has himself to blame as he had the beating of Alverez.

Lara could have won if he wanted to but just didn't throw enough, only has himself to blame really doesn't he

In conclusion It's ok for Hagler to plod and win because you like him..

Fair enough....Don't be so sensitive kiddo...

More to life than Bob Mee and Boxing !!!!!!!!

Getting fed up with the Canelo bashing. It's not his fault that the muppets out their can't see the quiet beatings he dishes out. You have to watch his fights a few times under the watchful eye of Hugh Mac to see it.  

Hagler beat Leonard so bad.... He was dancing, doing Ali shuffles and throwing bolos in the last round!!

Anyway your not a historian Milky...So shut your face !!!

I'm old truss. I've witnessed history. That makes me a historian.

You are as old as the woman you are feeling...

Means I'm beyond hope..

The SRL appreciation society have ganged up!!

Someone has to stand up for him amongst all the epic illusions of the hagler conspiracy theorists haz  

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You are as old as the woman you are feeling...

Means I'm beyond hope..

Also means Rolf Harris will be going to bed early with no supper for being a naughty boy

milkyboy wrote:Someone has to stand up for him amongst all the epic illusions of the hagler conspiracy theorists haz  

You can judge a man on which way he swings regarding Hagler-Leonard!

Hagler probably blew it against Leonard. I thought he deserved the decision personally but he left it open to interpretation and Leonard boxed out of his skin when most thought he would get slaughtered.

In this fight it was Lara who blew it. I say blew it but to be honest he could have put whipping on Alvarez and still not won. I didn't really expect anything different from Alvarez but Lara was quite disappointing. He was never going to give himself a chance of winning fighting that way and throwing so few punches.

catchweight wrote:Hagler probably blew it against Leonard. I thought he deserved the decision personally but he left it open to interpretation and Leonard boxed out of his skin when most thought he would get slaughtered.

In this fight it was Lara who blew it. I say blew it but to be honest he could have put  whipping on Alvarez and still not won. I didn't really expect anything different from Alvarez but Lara was quite disappointing. He was never going to give himself a chance of winning fighting that way and throwing so few punches.

That's the age old argument...because Leonard DIDN'T get annihilated, some people took the view that he must have been brilliant when the truth lies somewhere inbetween (namely Hagler was robbed)

DAVE667 wrote:

catchweight wrote:Hagler probably blew it against Leonard. I thought he deserved the decision personally but he left it open to interpretation and Leonard boxed out of his skin when most thought he would get slaughtered.

In this fight it was Lara who blew it. I say blew it but to be honest he could have put  whipping on Alvarez and still not won. I didn't really expect anything different from Alvarez but Lara was quite disappointing. He was never going to give himself a chance of winning fighting that way and throwing so few punches.

That's the age old argument...because Leonard DIDN'T get annihilated, some people took the view that he must have been brilliant when the truth lies somewhere inbetween (namely Hagler was robbed)

Yup. McIlvanney's (well, Budd Schulberg's) compound optical illusion.

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Someone has to stand up for him amongst all the epic illusions of the hagler conspiracy theorists haz  

You can judge a man on which way he swings regarding Hagler-Leonard!

Amen to that brother!

hazharrison wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

catchweight wrote:Hagler probably blew it against Leonard. I thought he deserved the decision personally but he left it open to interpretation and Leonard boxed out of his skin when most thought he would get slaughtered.

In this fight it was Lara who blew it. I say blew it but to be honest he could have put  whipping on Alvarez and still not won. I didn't really expect anything different from Alvarez but Lara was quite disappointing. He was never going to give himself a chance of winning fighting that way and throwing so few punches.

That's the age old argument...because Leonard DIDN'T get annihilated, some people took the view that he must have been brilliant when the truth lies somewhere inbetween (namely Hagler was robbed)

Yup. McIlvanney's (well, Budd Schulberg's) compound optical illusion.

There's something in the underdog performing better than expected and getting over-rewarded for it theory, though it's not much of a theory despite the flash name because its a fairly bleeding obvious aspect of human nature and not restricted to boxing.

The truth of  the Leonard hagler fight is that ringside opinion was split, public opinion was split and still is. Controversial yes, robbery? Really dave, tut tut fella.

The irony of the fight is that hagler had no business losing to a career welterweight who'd fought once in 5 years. And he very probably wouldn't have done had he not let his ego get in the way and chuck away the early rounds trying to be clever. Fancy that... You're fighting a guy you despise, a legendary egomaniac, and you, lose because your own ego wants to show you can outbox and outsmart him, instead of sticking to what you do best.

When marv lies await at night sweating over the injustice of it all, that's what must haunt him. Whatever he tells himself and his apologists tell him, he lost because he f*cked up... and 25 odd years later people are still making excuses for him, and quoting hugh mcilvanney, the man who couldn't say the words 'I was wrong', so wrote a lengthy piece saying 'i was right, you're all wrong' instead.
   

He was right.

Do you think the fight was a robbery haz? Or a close fight that you think hagler won?

Close fight that Hagler deserved to win. He did all of the hurting but you can't knock Ray Leonard - he put on a performance that convinced the judges (and gave the crowd what they wanted to see).

Fair enough, I saw a close fight that I thought Leonard shaded but have never had a problem with those who see it for hagler, just those that scream robbery.

You're very widely read on boxing, but did you read the piece Hugh Mac  wrote in the Sunday times, the week before the fight, or just the well publicised piece after?

I couldn't agree more Milky, for what it's worth I did have Hagler winning the fight but he should not have left the outcome up to the judges, he blew it big time and unlike the Duran fight didn't have those final three rounds to turn it around.

It was a no win situation for Marv really, he loses like he did and his whole reputation gets questioned but if he wins, well who cares he should have and easily at that. For $11mil though i'm sure he's managed to cope.

milkyboy wrote:Fair enough, I saw a close fight that I thought Leonard shaded but have never had a problem with those who see it for hagler, just those that scream robbery.

You're very widely read on boxing, but did you read the piece Hugh Mac  wrote in the Sunday times, the week before the fight, or just the well publicised piece after?

I don't think I've seen that piece mate - unless someone posted it on a different thread? Can't knock Macca, though. He's the Don!!

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

catchweight wrote:Hagler probably blew it against Leonard. I thought he deserved the decision personally but he left it open to interpretation and Leonard boxed out of his skin when most thought he would get slaughtered.

In this fight it was Lara who blew it. I say blew it but to be honest he could have put  whipping on Alvarez and still not won. I didn't really expect anything different from Alvarez but Lara was quite disappointing. He was never going to give himself a chance of winning fighting that way and throwing so few punches.

That's the age old argument...because Leonard DIDN'T get annihilated, some people took the view that he must have been brilliant when the truth lies somewhere inbetween (namely Hagler was robbed)

Yup. McIlvanney's (well, Budd Schulberg's) compound optical illusion.

There's something in the underdog performing better than expected and getting over-rewarded for it theory, though it's not much of a theory despite the flash name because its a fairly bleeding obvious aspect of human nature and not restricted to boxing.

The truth of  the Leonard hagler fight is that ringside opinion was split, public opinion was split and still is. Controversial yes, robbery? Really dave, tut tut fella.

The irony of the fight is that hagler had no business losing to a career welterweight who'd fought once in 5 years. And he very probably wouldn't have done had he not let his ego get in the way and chuck away the early rounds trying to be clever. Fancy that... You're fighting a guy you despise, a legendary egomaniac, and you, lose because your own ego wants to show you can outbox and outsmart him, instead of sticking to what you do best.

When marv lies await at night sweating over the injustice of it all, that's what must haunt him. Whatever he tells himself and his apologists tell him, he lost because he f*cked up... and 25 odd years later people are still making excuses for him, and quoting hugh mcilvanney, the man who couldn't say the words 'I was wrong', so wrote a lengthy piece saying 'i was right, you're all wrong' instead.
   

All tongue in cheek dear chap...anyway, you think Marv lies awake at night but I suppose Ray does the same when he thinks about how he let Duran get under his skin first time round

... I assumed so Dave, hence the tut tut rather than one of my tirades!

Leonard might well do the same re duran, though for all his faults I don't think he had marv's chip.

 

Do it Atila, you know you want to 

This subject comes up fairly regularly, so I'll save my comments for next time.   

Impressed with your restraint fella, You're mellowing with the advancing years....