Canelo or De La Hoya - Who Rates Higher for You?

Quick one, chaps.

I've made my claim that Canelo is perhaps the most underwhelming or limited pound for pound number one of recent times (at least amongst those who have spent a good two or three years in contention for that title, anyway) in a couple of other places, and was met with a reply which got me thinking, and which I have to admit I'd not really pondered before - namely that Canelo has surpassed the 'Golden Boy' and former mentor Oscar De La Hoya, with Oscar now taking the ignoble title of the most average serious pound for pound candidate. With the benefit of hindsight we can say that they were probably overestimating his abilities, and they may have jumped the gun, but De La Hoya was placed at number one for a while by Ring Magazine in the late nineties, with several other publications following suit or at least seeing him as a genuine candidate.

I guess the issue of whether or not they ever deserved to be pound for pound king is immaterial, but the question alone is enough to make for some interesting debate the more I think about it - has Canelo surpassed De La Hoya in terms of accomplishments and legacy? And what about as a pure fighter - is he better in this regard, too?

Plenty of similarities there. Both the biggest star and PPV draw in the sport during their pomp, at least outside of the Heavyweight division in any case. Both called out by anyone in or either side of whichever weight class they were in at any given time, as everybody wanted that big pay day which their name would afford them. Both fought with that pressure / advantage (depending on how you see it) of knowing that their results would likely determine the landscape of those divisions for the foreseeable future, and that there was a lot of money and potential super fights riding on them. Both have awesome-looking résumés when you look at the names on them, and the number of divisions in which they've won titles - but both likewise lose a bit of sparkle when you scratch the surface and take a bit more of a detailed look and evaluation of them. And of course, they both get the accusation that their star power has given them some undeserved wins thrown at them - though curiously in the case of Oscar, he also lost a couple in which most thought he was the victim of an injustice rather than his opponents.

Would be interested to see what people make of this. Let me know.

Intriguing question...

Similar records and similar in some cases luck with the judges..

Cotto win for Canelo is similar to Chavez..

GGG 2 is similar in importance to Whitaker...

Kovalev..Trout.. Smith....../ Quartey....Mayorga.. Vargas..

Khan /Gatti..

Thought Oscar v Mayweather was a draw...Robbed by Trinidad / BJS and Lara..gift v GGG 1..

Oscar stays at 130..135 he reigns for years. ..Chuck in Leija types..Camacho etc..

Too many defeats however.

Canelo just.

There's certain aspects of Oscar's career that don't sit right with me. He had the Trinidad fight in the bag then got on his bike in the last few rounds and did just enough to throw it away. Also thought he was gifted the win against Sturm in order to be the perfect money talks match up for Hopkins. In a close fight he was always going to be given the decision, although the same could be said for GGG-Alvarez I being an unfair decision.

The thing I like about Alvarez is that now he's no longer insisting on "Canelo-weight", he's developed into a pretty decent fighter who genuinely wants to fight the best in the division he's currently in and get all the belts. Is it a strong division? Not particularly - I think that both Calzaghe and Ward would beat him, and with a bit to spare, but you can only fight what's in front of you. I think that once he's got the Plant fight, he'll win that quite convincingly, and then head for Light Heavyweight and go after Bivol & Beterbiev.

I think Canelo has achieved more than Oscar but with poorer opposition, plus there's the drug thing that will always hang over him. I know that it's likely that a fair few other fighters are juicing, but the fact is he got caught, and the pitifully small "suspension" he got stinks. That said, I think it will take a pretty decent fighter to beat him right now, and nobody in the current Super-Middle division is likely to do that.

I'm not sure he's the worst p4p number 1.  I wasn't sold on Andre Ward being any better given the dubious nature of both Kovalev wins and the fact he beat good rather than great super middleweights who themselves had previously been bested at some point or another.

I tend to think there is huge bias in favour of African American slicksters being top of the tree and those that aren't are viewed less favourably.

However I liked the classy nature of Canelo in this last fight both in and out of the ring.  So whilst the gift against Golovkin, the drug bust and that stinking Kovalev rehydration clause fight weigh him down, I think after the last showing he proves he's a legitimate p4p #1 who carries the tag quite well.

I think he is better than ODLH. Too many losses and a stinky one againt Sturm. Ironically though I thought he beat PBF.

@Mr Bounce - yes Oscar definitely got away with one against Sturm, I think even most of his biggest fans admit that one. Though the decision itself stank, I don't really hold that performance against De La Hoya too much. Never a Middleweight, didn't look in shape and was past his best by that stage anyway, just doing his bit as the sport's cash cow to keep the money rolling in. I think if he had the chance to magically go back and change a couple of results around in his career, he'd happily take a loss there, which wouldn't really have cost him any legacy points, if it meant he could turn Trinidad (in particular) or maybe Mosley II into a win.

As you say, though, the judges were never going to throw a spanner in the works of the De La Hoya-Hopkins fight, which was already in place, for the sake of a relatively unknown at the time Felix Sturm.

Funnily enough, there's an almost completely forgotten controversial verdict much earlier on in De La Hoya's career against John John Molina which bore similar circumstances. A deal and date of less than three months away had already been agreed for De La Hoya's Lightweight unification fight against Ruelas (albeit HBO at the time still didn't recognise De La Hoya's WBO title) and Molina was supposed to be just a nice little tune up before what was seen as De La Hoya's first real test and competitive fight against Ruelas, with whom he shared a bit of a personal rivalry and some animosity over something or other. In fact that Ruelas fight was to be Oscar's first PPV as the headliner.

Instead De La Hoya looked really bad against Molina and not everyone was convinced he'd won the fight - me included with hindsight, although I'll concede it was a scrappy, tough one to score and Molina was very lucky not to have any point deductions against him. In the end the judges gave De La Hoya the win by stupidly wide scores, which tells you there was little chance of them ever helping derail the Oscar project which was gathering huge pace at that time.

@Mochyn du - was Ward ever really considered pound for pound number one? He obviously cemented himself solidly in the top four or five for most people after clearing out 168, beating Dawson etc. but inactivity hampered him badly after that. I don't remember anyone putting him top of the tree after those two debatable wins over Kovalev, but I could be wrong. Either way, I don't think he was ever a pound for pound top spot candidate for a prolonged period and in several notable publications the way De La Hoya was for a while, and the way Canelo has been for the last three years running.

All three respondents so far going with Canelo over De La Hoya. As I said, the thought hadn't really crossed my mind so that comes as a slight surprise to me. Will have to give it some serious thought....

Just checked it out and Andre Ward was, according to the Ring Magazine (is that still so special now?) the p4p#1 for a brief 187 days. So cementing his place arguably not but he did at least hold it for a spell.

I tend to think Canelo as better than ODLH as a boxer just about but that could be all that magic meat and popeye spinach he guzzles. Astonishing how these bigger men are running scared in the ring with him. Nevertheless I am a cynic who thinks that
"nutrition" is part and parcel of elite sports where the real money makers are given a pass to do as they wish.

You live and learn, Mochyn du. I guess they must have slid Ward in there briefly after Gonzalez's defeat(s) against Sor Ringvisai as I remember they definitely had Gonzalez top for a while. A bit surprising as the manner of Ward's wins over Kovalev weren't all that satisfactory or popular...But I guess there wasn't all that much to choose from at the time. No sooner had Ward been anointed, off into retirement he went.

A shakier pound for pound number one than Canelo? Hard to say. We never saw Ward mastered and outclassed the way Canelo was against Mayweather (granted that was a long time ago now) and there were probably fewer reservations about Ward's all-round abilities. Some of his toughest tests on paper, such as Kessler (notwithstanding the dirty stuff), Froch and Dawson, turned out to be very dominant and pretty straightforward wins for him. But then again, outside of a small cluster of good names, his record is pretty thin and sparing.

Back to the direct comparisons with De La Hoya in terms of the abilities, rather than records. It's hard to say, I guess. Canelo's best opponents have been fairly equally spread between Light-Middle and Super-Middle (I'll leave 175 out for the time being as he's only had one championship fight there so far) whereas you can see a clear divide either side of Light-Welter for Oscar.

In terms of his pure abilities and how impressive he looked on film, De La Hoya peaked at Lightweight and Light-Welter with the performances against Ruelas, Hernandez, Chavez (I) and Gonzalez. But he was never going to stay in those divisions for all that long, firstly because he was huge at those weights (especially Lightweight) and bound to outgrow them sooner or later, and secondly because his cash cow status more or less demanded that he move up to Welterweight and beyond, where the bigger fights and better opponents were.

At Welter and Light-Middle he never quite looked the same or as impressive - but was that because they weren't his optimum weights, or because he was fighting better opponents who could exploit his weaknesses? I think it's a bit of both. He was a touch more sluggish at the higher weights than before, and inconsistent with his footwork and output. But you'd have to say those problems were compounded by the fact that Whitaker, Trinidad, Mosley etc. were a big advance on the guys listed above, too. Even fights against guys a rung below that level, such as Quartey and Carr, were filled with problems and some troubling portents for the losses which would come later down the line.

I'd say Canelo is maybe a more consistent fighter across the board, and perhaps a bit cleverer and more cunning that De La Hoya. But to counter that I'd say that while Oscar had a couple more clear shortcomings, his strengths were much more pronounced and impressive than Canelo's, especially at Light-Welter and below. He always had some weaknesses but at those weights he was very quick (not one of Canelo's stronger points), had a fantastic left be it jabbing or hooking and could get up on his toes much easier / more consistently. I think he was the more athletic fighter of the pair.

Personally I'd prefer the best version of De La Hoya over the best version of Canelo in that respect, but I guess it depends what floats your boat.

I would argue that Alvarez has a vicious streak in him that Oscar never did. He's not afraid to take a couple to land one, but he revels in the KO and the damage caused. This is probably something that's appeared since he moved to a more comfortable weight to suit his frame, but looking at the inch perfect destruction of Kirkland, Khan and Saunders, Canelo seemed to fire those punches with a joyful delight.

Oscar had his share of KOs but they were much more of the accumulative variety rather than out and out power, the fight against Genaro Hernandez being a case in point. The fights against Vargas and Mayorga were made personal by his opponents but it was more a case of "I'm better and faster than you" rather than "Eat THIS ya bar steward". Definitely a different kind of enjoyment there!

88Chris05 wrote:...  Personally I'd prefer the best version of De La Hoya over the best version of Canelo ...

If you had to choose between the worst version of De La Hoya and the worst version of Canelo, who would you pick?

No name Bertie wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:...  Personally I'd prefer the best version of De La Hoya over the best version of Canelo ...

If you had to choose between the worst version of De La Hoya and the worst version of Canelo, who would you pick?

Well I guess by default I'd have to go with the worst version of Canelo, as so far we've never seen him look as rubbish as De La Hoya did against Sturm or Pacquiao. Give it a few more years, though....

@Mr Bounce, yeah there's always been that niggling suspicion with Oscar that he wasn't quite ruthless or mean enough when the big moments came, hence the way he ran away from his shot at ultimate glory against Trinidad when it was all there on a plate for him. Naturally people will wonder if that stemmed from him earning such an enormous amount of money at such a young age and getting bored of the glitz and glamour prematurely.

You've probably come across the old video at some point of the Sky Sports team discussing that loss to Trinidad immediately afterwards, in which Jim Watt said something along the lines of, "A fighter shows you who they really are in the championship rounds of a big fight like this - and what Oscar De La Hoya showed me tonight is that he doesn't want to fight anymore."

It was probably unfairly compounded by his film star looks, that high-pitched voice and the clean cut image that Arum carefully cultivated around him, but quite a few were commenting even in his heyday that they thought there was a bit of a soft underbelly there which could be exploited - hence Lederman in particular during the Molina fight seeming to take great joy in pointing out how De La Hoya was "crying" to the referee all the time, and how he should shut up and actually do some fighting rather than complaining etc.

I think they probably overstated it a little, and you certainly can't accuse Oscar of not having plenty of fighting heart. He duked it out with plenty of dangerous punchers and took his licks well. But maybe just lacking that absolute cutting edge at the highest level which separates the very, very good or even great from those absolute elite fighters, which he was being groomed to become.

I posted an article on the old 606 site something like "Oscar was never really golden".
I was a bit hard on the poor apple really because of the points raised in the article above. I saw in Oscar  a fighter who was very good at all the skills but not really excellent in any of them. That's kind of how I see Alvarez except I have to admit that Alvarez excels in his punching power.
Oscar's autobiography certainly reveals that he thought he was gifted at least one fight (Sturm- when he won the middleweight belt as a rather porkier version of himself). They both have Floyd as a bellweather. Oscar in my opinion though but  not everyone on here agrees, I thought ran Floyd surprisingly close at times.
With time I have come to rate him higher than my previously held opinion. I just can't take to Alvarez. I'm not so blind as to not admit he's not a special fighter ,but I see him as a Marciano type slugger with bolted on tricks. It's a shame that GGG was mentally bruised after their first outing as his skills demonstrated that a great switch-mover will always give him trouble. The trouble is though, as the legend says, Everyone has a plan until they get hit.
I get it that he is much improved since the Floyd fight in 2012 and he learnt a few skills off the great man. I just think that De La Hoya has the better boxing brain and didn't rely on his power to get him out of jail.

Yep, De La Hoya definitely made a much better fist of it against Mayweather than Alvarez did, that's for sure. Canelo was never in the fight at all against Mayweather, whereas De Le Hoya was there or thereabouts after eight rounds before he faded down the stretch, compounded by Mayweather also raising his game in fairness.

That was also a younger Mayweather he faced, pretty close to his prime and Oscar was certainly not in his anymore, another reason to rate it as a much better effort than Canelo's...Although you could argue that on the particular night in question, Mayweaher wasn't quite in top form against De La Hoya.

Be interesting to see if Canelo bothers with completing the GGG trilogy. I thought he'd jump at the chance of making the third fight after seeing how Golovkin looked against Derevyanchenko. But presumably Canelo is never fighting at 160 again, and I think if Golovkin was ever going to make a serious assault on 168 he'd have done it a while ago.

I can't see Golovkin accepting the fight at Super-Middle. He probably wouldn't even want a catchweight of 164, 165 or whatever. So it looks like Golovkin will never get the chance to right that wrong.

Shame. If Golovkin were a bigger draw and judged purely on fistic merit, he'd probably be 43-0 now and we'd be talking about him as one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. Instead we're living through the Canelo era.

I think the trilogy would have been completed if Golovkin had won the second fight or it had been another dodgy draw. I think Canelo's team would have tried until they won it by fair means or foul. I often wonder what way Canelo's path would have taken him if he'd been beaten by Golovkin. Would he have moved straight up? Tried a crack at the WBO title to go for that belt as leverage to go for a rematch?

As for the different versions of De La Hoya and Alvarez, I think if they'd faced each other at their respective peaks, it would have been very different outcomes: The welterweight ODLH against the welter Canelo would have been an easy UD for Oscar. However, at Middleweight I think Canelo walks through Oscar and stops him in the mid rounds. Canelo, whether with "help" or not, has grown into the heavier weights and certainly packs a bang.

88Chris05 wrote:

Shame. If Golovkin were a bigger draw and judged purely on fistic merit, he'd probably be 43-0 now and we'd be talking about him as one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. Instead we're living through the Canelo era.

Chris - GGG would have still made $150 million in the ring, probably $20-30m more outside of it as a Hublot and Jordan ambassador AND he holds the record for the most middleweight title defences. Also from all interviews I've seen, it appears his faculties are all intact. Let's not hold the violin too high for him.

The sad thing about Oscar and Canelo is Golovkin types that stay in their comfort zone and fight nobodies get lauded while risk takers like the aforementioned get hammered for making Boxing interesting.

Lets face it switch Canelo or Oscar for GGG and they would have fought Ward and Froch...instead of Geale..Macklin and other garbage..

Floyd and Manny...Leonard...Hearns...Duran too deserve great credit as role models...Armstrong...Arguello et al.

Hearns beating record breaking Hill at 175 deserves to be up there with the greatest wins of alltime.

Hearns another one that gets woefully shortchanged.

GGG given far too much leeway for lacking bollox...

kingraf wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

Shame. If Golovkin were a bigger draw and judged purely on fistic merit, he'd probably be 43-0 now and we'd be talking about him as one of the greatest Middleweights of all time. Instead we're living through the Canelo era.

Chris - GGG would have still made $150 million in the ring, probably $20-30m more outside of it as a Hublot and Jordan ambassador AND he holds the record for the most middleweight title defences. Also from all interviews I've seen, it appears his faculties are all intact. Let's not hold the violin too high for him.

Monzon holds the record for most middleweight title defences in reality.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The sad thing about Oscar and Canelo is Golovkin types that stay in their comfort zone and fight nobodies get lauded while risk takers like the aforementioned get hammered for making Boxing interesting.

Lets face it switch Canelo or Oscar for GGG and they would have fought Ward and Froch...instead of Geale..Macklin and other garbage..

Floyd and Manny...Leonard...Hearns...Duran too deserve great credit as role models...Armstrong...Arguello et al.

Hearns beating record breaking Hill at 175 deserves to be up there with the greatest wins of alltime.

Hearns another one that gets woefully shortchanged.

GGG given far too much leeway for lacking bollox...

Different horses for different courses I guess. Golovkin is a good, not a great fighter. He was jobbed in my opinion in the first fight with Canelo thanks to the iffy scoring card by Byrd. That said, Canelo rightfully won the second fight. Also, he's not a big middleweight so I kind of understand why he hasn't gone for the bigger weights but am also disappointed that he didn't. He wanted to unify all the belts at 160 but never quite managed it because the Canelo gravy train called at his station. I think if he'd achieved his goal he may have then gone to 168. Some fighters make the move, some don't, but I don't think it's fair to criticise someone because they are chasing a goal in a particular division. I would have liked to see Golovkin go to 168 as well, but not all fighters want to do that. Very few fighters stay at one weight, but look at Monzon and Hagler - generally considered the best middleweights of their time. They don't get stick from you for not going to 175 do they? I also don't think it's a case of lacking a pair - no fighter really lacks a pair because they go into a fight knowing they're going to be punched in the face. You just don't like Golovkin. He gave Alvarez 2 of his hardest fights, but you can't give him credit for it because you don't like him. I get that. But stop taking away from his achievements (winning 3 belts in a division is not to be sneezed at) just because of your likes and dislikes. Change the record.

Moving up the weights also depends on the frame and age of the boxer.  I suppose in the past when testing was not a major part of the sport it was also easier to get some significant help moving up the weights.  ps: I think also some weight categories have more prestige and hence more money than others.  Maybe in the past the middleweight category was second only to the heavyweight category regarding prestige.

Spinks...Carpentier...Foster...and Conn didn't have great frames and moved up more than 8 pounds.

Let's not give GGG a pass.

No name Bertie wrote:Moving up the weights also depends on the frame and age of the boxer.  I suppose in the past when testing was not a major part of the sport it was also easier to get some significant help moving up the weights.  ps: I think also some weight categories have more prestige and hence more money than others.  Maybe in the past the middleweight category was second only to the heavyweight category regarding prestige.

Steroids were not that prevalent in early days of boxing so it's a cop out excuse. Money is about who you fight not what weight you fight them at.

Mr Bounce wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The sad thing about Oscar and Canelo is Golovkin types that stay in their comfort zone and fight nobodies get lauded while risk takers like the aforementioned get hammered for making Boxing interesting.

Lets face it switch Canelo or Oscar for GGG and they would have fought Ward and Froch...instead of Geale..Macklin and other garbage..

Floyd and Manny...Leonard...Hearns...Duran too deserve great credit as role models...Armstrong...Arguello et al.

Hearns beating record breaking Hill at 175 deserves to be up there with the greatest wins of alltime.

Hearns another one that gets woefully shortchanged.

GGG given far too much leeway for lacking bollox...

Different horses for different courses I guess. Golovkin is a good, not a great fighter. He was jobbed in my opinion in the first fight with Canelo thanks to the iffy scoring card by Byrd. That said, Canelo rightfully won the second fight. Also, he's not a big middleweight so I kind of understand why he hasn't gone for the bigger weights but am also disappointed that he didn't. He wanted to unify all the belts at 160 but never quite managed it because the Canelo gravy train called at his station. I think if he'd achieved his goal he may have then gone to 168. Some fighters make the move, some don't, but I don't think it's fair to criticise someone because they are chasing a goal in a particular division. I would have liked to see Golovkin go to 168 as well, but not all fighters want to do that. Very few fighters stay at one weight, but look at Monzon and Hagler - generally considered the best middleweights of their time. They don't get stick from you for not going to 175 do they? I also don't think it's a case of lacking a pair - no fighter really lacks a pair because they go into a fight knowing they're going to be punched in the face. You just don't like Golovkin. He gave Alvarez 2 of his hardest fights, but you can't give him credit for it because you don't like him. I get that. But stop taking away from his achievements (winning 3 belts in a division is not to be sneezed at) just because of your likes and dislikes. Change the record.

Au contraire.  Think I can recall Truss making the argument against Hagler on more than one occasion because he didn't move up to face Spinks!  Greb aside, don't think there's a middleweight in history that steps up for that fight.

There's a world of difference between moving from Middlweight to Light Heavyweight to face either Bob Foster or Michael Spinks than there is going from Middleweight to Super Middleweight to face any of the champions there.

How do you people think Alvarez fares against the great 168lbers? I'm going to discount Jones but i'm thinking more the chasing pack like Calzaghe, Kessler, Ward, Froch, Benn, Eubank etc? In short I don't see him winning against any of them and then to take it back a step how does he fare against the Middleweight greats?

I'm honestly not sure about a lot of them, Soul, mainly because the British lads that Canelo has beaten at 168 so far really aren't up to much. Fielding was in way over his head, and I thought Smith's performance against Canelo was absolutely dreadful. Saunders did alright in patches but wasn't able to tell us anything about Canelo we didn't already know.

Straight off the bat I'd confidently say that Ward beats him with something to spare. As well as being technically good and having that hand speed, Ward was also very physically imposing and strong at 168. He's not getting bullied like a lot of Canelo opponents do, and with Ward you just know if necessary he'd think nothing of using the dark arts against him, too. I think he's too big and a bit too good for Canelo's style to work against him.

The Starie, Salem and Hopkins fights showed one way to trouble Calzaghe and drastically reduce his output - make it rough and scrappy, turn it into an inside fight, push him around a bit and, if you can, try and clock him with that big looping right hand which he was quite open to (Reid had success with that as well). But ultimately, while not looking all that impressive, he did win all of those fights and I think he'd do the same against Canelo. Obviously Canelo is the little engine that could and would keep pressuring, looking to get close and bully his man, but I don't think he's got the dimensions and underhand tactics to control Calzaghe in the clinches. I think Calzaghe lands enough and does enough clean boxing to win on points.

So basically I think that, if Canelo was able to hang with the really exceptional Super-Middleweight champions like those two, it would probably be more apparent by now. I don't see him pulling those wins off.

But as for the rest of the chasing pack you've mentioned, we might not have a better idea until he's faced a couple more styles and different opponents at the weight. Would be interested to see what other people think of how he gets on in some of those fights, though.

Think he beats Benn by courtesy of having a great chin and a style that forces Benn to work... Stopping him late when he tires...Kessler was pretty ordinary and I'd make Canelo slight favourite with his blistering body work..

He loses to Eubank pre Watson...beats Eubank post Watson.

Froch probably hits too hard and the southpaw Calzaghe's jab would be tougher fare than Saunders..Joe by decision...Ward mugs him.

I rate Kessler very highly, not quite in the Ward or Calzaghe class but certainly showed even in defeat that he was a quality operator; good jab, powerful, strong, punch variation to both head and body as well as being iron chinned.

The determining factor for me is that all of Calzaghe, Ward, Froch and Kessler were immensely strong at the weight and all have proven chins so the constant pressure that did for Saunders and Smith won't work against them. It's also worth considering that with the exception of Ward they all fight at a pace that could make it very uncomfortable for Alvarez who is used to being the man walking forward, Froch and Kessler could and probably would manhandle him on to the retreat. In real terms I think Kessler punches harder than Golovkin while Froch throwing 900 punches in the fight carrying his power late will deter him also.

Trying to think of decent style comparisons between the guys Froch fought at championship level and Canelo, and to me the most obvious or at least nearest one would be Johnson.

Froch won a competitive fight there clearly enough, but without looking too good - over the twelve rounds Johnson probably landed the cleaner, heavier individual shots. There are some similarities between the Johnson approach there and that of Canelo. The high guard, the body shots, the attempts to apply a steady build up of forward pressure etc. Given his age Johnson had to be a little bit selective about when to really work and he couldn't quite cut the ring off effectively enough at times, and he faded a bit late on, but still gave Froch some uncomfortable moments.

I could potentially see a similar kind of fight between Froch and Canelo. You'd expect Canelo to be a bit fresher than Johnson in the late rounds but overall the pressure and work-rate he produces would likely be similar, just steadily creeping forward. Froch hit a lot of glove due to Johnson's high guard and decent fundamentals but he banked the rounds in which he could throw his twos and threes and get out of there, initiating the exchanges before Johnson could quite get set to throw.

Based on that I think it would probably be quite a close fight and I could see a similar scenario where it's Froch's quantity against Canelo's quality. If Froch could use his reach to stop Canelo from getting set as he follows him around I could see him grinding out the points win (assuming the judges are on the level).

I don't normally like making excuses but you cannot judge Froch based on that performance, his mindset was all wrong and expected to walk through Johnson and ate right hands for fun, something he just didn't do against better opponents. Alvarez doesn't have the power to pressure Froch the way Kessler did at times and even then it was moments in their fights rather than the norm, i'd expect him to be the one doing the smothering such is the difference in size and strength.

It's a bit of a one sided way of looking at things too, Froch would be throwing a lot of punches and fighting at a pace that Alvarez would be uncomfortable with especially when he'll be on the back foot.