Gustavo Padilla vs. Adelaide Byrd

lol well you've yet to go over the rounds that Byrd scored to Canelo that you have such a problem with. Yesterday I went into great detail about Round 7, a round that Byrd gave to Golovkin, and pointed out specific punches that Canelo landed to which you haven't responded to.

It's like you put a blind fold over your eyes when it comes to Canelo Golovkin, and instead of discussing the rounds in any detail, you move away from that every time we start getting into specific punches and you then seek validation of others posters who refuse to look at what happened in the rounds by creating topics like this.

As much as you like to remain in denial over the extent at which Canelo outboxed Golovkin, the fact of the matter is that in nearly every round (even in Golovkin's best rounds) Canelo performed at a very high level, landed quality punches, had great defense, which allowed him to win so many rounds. Really you should be thankful that Trella and the other judge gave Golovkin so many rounds that could have gone to Canelo otherwise Canelo would have got a UD.

While on the topic of Byrd and Hopkins, remember Byrd was the only judge who scored Hopkins over Calzaghe and the only judge who had Khan ahead of Canelo so she obviously has a consistency when it comes to giving credit to highly skilled boxers who win rounds off the backfoot.

 

You're obviously very insecure about Canelo winning that fight, and continue to harp on the Byrd card, which is fine by the way, but the least you could do is to acknowledge the work and the offense that Canelo got in in many of these so-called Golovkin rounds.

I try not to be biased when going through a round, I tried to be fair to Golovkin, pointed out his best punches as well as Canelo's. You're just describing it as biased because you only want to pay attention to Golovkin's offense and not Canelo's lol. That's makes you biased.

Like yesterday when I pointed out that left hook at 2:04 left in the 7th. You could have at least "wow that was really a great punch by Canelo, though I still thougth Golovkin won the round, I could see how a judge could rate that punch highly and combined with the uppercut give the round to Canelo".

And see, by you doing that, acknowledging that kind of thing is the difference between Byrd's card being reasonable and it not being reasonable.

This is very relavent to the actual topic, how can you evaluate "which is worse" if you ignore what Canelo is doing in these rounds?

As far as what was worse, the first thing we need to define is what makes a score bad. How wide a scorecard is doesn't affect who the winner is. So if you thought Hopkins won that fight clearly, then surely Padilla's is worse becuase he had the wrong guy winning right? To really answer your question, you gotta go through that fight (which I haven't seen in a while) and determine how many close rounds there are and how many can reasonably given to Shumenov. I think there are similarities between both fights, in that Hopkins fights off the backfoot and I think we can agree that Golovkin landed more offense on Alvarez than Shumenov did on Hopkins. I doubt that Hopkins landed the kind of big punches on Shumenov that Alvarez landed on Golovkin though so that's another thing to consider.

 

I was just rewatching Usyk-Glowacki, and one of the scorecards was 119-109. I thought, that’s ridiculous, who is that judge? Then I saw Robert Byrd in the ring. Wouldn’t you know it, the judge was Adelaide Byrd and the fight was in Poland!

 

A better match up would be Gustavo Padilla and Glenn Trowridge, how anyone could score the fight for Pacquiao, let alone have Pacquiao winning by 3 rounds in the 3rd JMM-Pac fight is beyond ridiculous.

 

This isn't a popularity contest. It's obvious that Golovkin's workrate and come-forward style is preferred by the majority of fans to Canelo's quality punching and overall effectiveness. The vast majority of fans who voted for Golovkin winning do not study the film and they probably don't pay attention to the details. The vast majority are just casual boxing fans who see Lederman's card, and react to Byrd's 118-110 score and say "what? But Lederman said the other guy won, Byrd is crazy with that score".

It's telling that you continue to use a number like 80% thought Golovkin won as some sort of proof that he won. Online polls, even % of media people polled, doesn't prove anything. There are many factors that have gone into why that is the case that I have already gotten into and there's no need to rehash it.

Well that's great that you did that with Peter-Toney and you had a chance to do that for Canelo Golovkin but when we've discussed specific rounds you haven't paid attention or responded to the points in the round where Canelo's best work was being done. I tried to highlight these moments for you but you didn't want to hear it. It's also important to point out that I'm not defending Byrd's card. I've stated several times that she should have done better to split the close rounds, the rounds that Golovkin started getting in more offense. What I am doing however is trying to better understand why she gave certain rounds to Canelo and if they are close enough to be reasonable. One of those rounds is round 6 which is a round that other posters here have given to Canelo. Round 7 isn't even a Byrd Canelo round while 8 and 9 are. There's a difference between defending a judges card and trying to understand why a judge scored a round for a fighter. Which is what the commisions do with the judges, they review the rounds, cite punches / moments during the round to give reasons to support their score.

So enough of the "you're defending Byrd" nonsense. I thought Golovkin won more than 2 rounds OK. But in all the rounds Golovkin won, Canelo was doing enough good work that I could see why a judge could give the round to Canelo. It's not like any of these Golovkin rounds were dominated by Golovkin, and that's what we have to do if you want to decide which of these scores was worse.

Of course, but that doesn't cause a "robbery" which angers fans more than just what the margin of the right guy winning was. The most important job of a judge is making sure that the right guy wins. That's what bothers fans the most, when the wrong guy wins.

What you're talking about though is really what I've been trying to do all this time with Canelo Golovkin, which you've refused to discuss in any detail. You're asking about what's worse in terms of how off the scores were, which is why I've been saying all this time, going through rounds like 7 in Canelo Golovkin should be right down your alley and relevant to this topic.

Which is why i loled when I saw this topic because it's like you're asking a question after refusing to go through the rounds of Canelo Golovkin in any detail. If you want to answer this question, then we need to go through rounds like 7-9 in Canelo Golovkin, to judge how one-sided or close those rounds were. Then do the same thing for Hopkins Shumenov. Get it?

 

Good, we have a disagreement about one of Byrd's cards. Gil's suggesting that Byrd was way off in Usyk-Glowacki, that it was actually a close fight, but here CST80 comes in to save the day with a very different picture, that Byrd had it right.

Where have we seen this kind of thing before? Hmmmmmm, you know, I have yet to see an example of a bad Byrd scorecard. Can we get some examples of Byrd's terrible history of bad judging? (Besides Canelo Golovkin of course)

 

Glowacki won the second half of that fight.

 

It’s not remarkable when you see that Usyk went life and death with Hunter.....