Gustavo Padilla vs. Adelaide Byrd

Thank you for posting your comments on Byrd prior to the fight. One thing that stands out to me from your statements is your insistence that she is not corrupt. But yet all we've heard since her score of 118-110 in favor of Canelo is how corrupt she obviously is. Based on your prior statements, you must take exception to this popular myth.

You also stated that while you thought she was a poor judge prior to Canelo Golovkin, you didn't think she was biased, and you made it clear that in several fights she was the only judge to get it right. That sounds to me more like inconsistency than being a poor judge.

However I'm not sure if it's inconsistency because she seems to consistently score fights in favor of counter punchers, particularly those that fight off the back foot and look for openings to get in and out, as opposed to plodding, come forward fighters that consistently try to walk you down.

You noted her Spence Brook card as controversial. Byrd had that 97-92 for Spence, while the other two judges had it 96-93 Spence and 95-94 Spence. So that's only a single round separating all 3 judges. And remember Spence knocked Brook down in the 10th round. So all 3 judges would have given Spence a 10-8 10th round.

So if you rewind to the end of the 9th, that's 87-84 Spence, 6 rounds to 3 Spence, right, as opposed to the other judges 5 rounds to 4 Spence, and 5 rounds to 4 Brook. Most saw Spence slightly ahead before the knockdown, close but I don't think 6 to 3 Spence after 9 is all that controversial or unreasonable.

 

Byrd should never Judge another Boxing match ever.....Boxing has to get rid of these type of Incompetent Judges...

 

Tyrd is a very corrupt judge and always has been, she is an idiot! Ban that piece of fecal matter!

 

Firstly, yes I still don't think Byrd is corrupt. By that I don't mean she's completely immune to here the pressure to score the fight in favour of the A-side, but I do mean that I don't believe she took a bribe or has an underhanded deal with some promoter, e.g. GBP.

Secondly, I do stand by my characterization of her as an inconsistent judge. I have noted her tendency to score fights in favour of the counterpuncher, however some of those are completely impossible to get even with a strong
stylistic preference. If you watch the MMA cards you'll see what I mean, no way to get her score in either fight. Also it's not like she always favours counterpunchers, e.g. Hooker-Perez, one of the very worst robberies I have ever seen, she was the only judge to correctly score it for Perez against the counterpunching Hooker.

Thirdly, I realize her Spence-Brook card is not all that far out. However, I do feel that she had to give Spence one relatively clear (not necessarily dominant though) Brook round to get her card. As you said it's not the worst card, I could have left it out, nevertheless it did attract some controversy on here so I included it.

 

And the fans who come on here acting like she has some underhanded deal with some promoter e.g. GBP are ________. (in your words fill in the blank please)

I mean it's sheer lunacy isn't it, don't you think that those who are saying that, mainly the hardcore Golovkin fans are embarrassing themselves? It's not even like most of her fights are under the GBP banner or anything. It sounds like you agree that the popular myth that she is corrupt is utter nonsense and is nothing more than the cries of a fanbase in denial of how well Canelo fought. (regardless of who you had winning or how wide)

Your example of Hooker-Perez speaks to her integrity. While you've noted she usually favors counter punchers that fight off the backfoot, but not in Hooker - Perez, where she was the only judge who got it right. This suggests that she's a competent judge. We have several examples of times that she got it right while other judges did not.

You also put her score for Hopkins Calzaghe in there, 114-113 for Hopkins, was that really all that controversial? I remember after the fight how close everybody thought it was and how many fans were screaming robbery thinking that Hopkins should have won.

If these are the best examples of her supposed bad judging, I'm not sure we really have all that much to criticize. She had Trout Cotto 11 rounds to 1, the other two judges had it 9 rounds to 3. I can see the complaints there, did Cotto really win 3 rounds clearly in that fight? Probably, but it's been so long I will have to take a look back at that.

Magdeleno Donaire, was it 8-4 or 10-2? One thing these scores suggest is just how immune she appears to be to score the fight for the so-called A-side fighter. She doesn't appear to be under any pressure to "keep a fight close" because the fighter losing has a big name, ya know? I mean I think there's some similarities between her wide cards in Trout Cotto, Magdeleno Donaire, and Canelo Golovkin. She didn't just give Cotto, Donaire and Golovkin rounds to "keep it close" she scored what she saw. That's the complete opposite of favoritism, bias, and corruption.

If she was paid off, if she was truly corrupt, certainly she would have kept those fights closer. These results highlight just how absurd claims of her corruption are KiwiMan. Byrd isn't afraid to score a fight wide when she sees pure boxing skill and one fighter landing the cleaner punches. I mean in Cotto Trout sure we can find 2 or 3 maybe even 4 rounds to give to Cotto, but round after round Trout was putting on a boxing clinic. I'm not sure how outrageous 11 to 1 Trout is in that fight. Most would agree Trout won that fight clearly.

As far as her MMA cards, I don't think that's the least bit relevant, and frankly I don't think boxng judges should be judging MMA bouts. It's a whole different mindset, you have to factor in takedowns, and ground control and what not. So her MMA scores are completely irrelevant in my mind, that said, I'd be interested to know how much she factors in takedowns and ground control and where the source of her MMA judging controvrersey lies. Is it that she ignores takedowns, ground control, and only scores the boxing or what?