Last night, Saul ‘Canelo’ Alvarez secured the IBO, WBC and super WBA middleweight titles. Reminiscent of the first meeting, the high-profile title clash ended with a controversial judge’s decision.
The build-up to the rematch was stilted and marred by controversy. The bout was initially booked for March 5th but was nixed when Alvarez tested positive for a banned substance.
The doping comission accepted Canelo’s excuse and the fight was rebooked for August. The anticipation seemed to have diminished but in the final days, it burnt white hot again. In the heady post-fight come down, let’s take a look at Golovkin versus Canelo 2.
There was a big fight feel in the T-Mobile Arena as the two modern greats skipped forward. They could not keep their hands off each other at the weigh-ins but it was a cautious start.
By round two, Canelo had found his mark and landed the first big shot of the fight. He began to open up with mixed combinations. Meanwhile, Golovkin worked his jab, he was unable to get past Canelo’s tight defence.
The first half of the fight continued in that fashion. Golovkin stayed active with his jab but struggled to put combinations together. ‘GGG’ may have had a higher output. Canelo landed the significant shots though.
Between rounds Golovkin seemed to be breathing very heavily. We saw Canelo looking very lean in the build-up, this was clearly an attempt to be more conditioned. Canelo was dictating a relentless pace that the older fighter was fighting to keep up with.
In the fifth round, Golovkin began to figure Canelo out and land punishing shots, he started to hurt Canelo in the second half of the fight. I believe he took rounds: 4,5,7,9,10,11 and 12. I saw Golovkin edging it by one round.
With that said, I can see the case for Canelo, like all truely high-level fights, you could watch it multiple times and score it differently each time.
Despite the bad blood during the build-up, Golovkin and Canelo displayed nothing but class and respect. They honoured the legends of their division, the greats like Chris Eubank who would have called it: ‘parliamentary process’.