HBO said that Byrd will not have any punishment for her corruption, said to call

Why would she make the card closer? She has gotten away with it her whole career. She felt bullet proff.

 

Discussion? You can't have a discussion with a fanatic troll.

 

Stop saying "El Pollo." Say "La Gallina". If you're trying to call someone a coward in trollish fashion at least do it right.

 

Attention to this and an avenue to complain are fine but the problem runs deeper than Bennett or Byrd. This is system and removal of these two would be a nice start but they would only be replaced by those as if not even worse. You will always find people who are willing to play ball in these situations. FFS the NSAC has dozens in line that they are grooming to take Bennett and Byrd's places.

It pains me to say this but if you are fans of untraditional, non A side fighters do not expect things to change if fact they may even get worse.

 

Bob Bennett protected Saline Jr.'s ass... He ain't gonna do jack about Adelaide.

 

Check Hook is ------------------------>, La Gallina!

 

So has anyone picked up the phone or are we going to argue about who won the fight?

 

Even during the 50's corruption wasn't this blatant

 

Shadow--

I can speak to other GGG fans, but I think I am at least reasonable but I also know I have my own bias like everyone else on this forum. So lets get into it--

What I have noticed about Canelo is that there always seems to be one really wide, unexplainable card in his big fights. I made a post about this earlier but cant find it so I am going off memory here.

Cotto-
I score this fight 8-4 for Canelo. Thought he had a great night. But there we have a 11-1 card. To me there is no way that fight can be scored 11-1 without some sort of bias and giving Canelo every close round and every bit of credit for anything.

Floyd--
We've been over this a million times. I scored it 8-4 but I should note I was rooting for Canelo in this fight. My bias and dislike for Canelo didnt happen until the Khan fight. But here we have a 6-6 card that almost every boxing media reporter crucied Ross for and she was forced into retirement.

Khan.
We all knew the KO was coming. But there was a 4-1 (Canelo)card? Thats nuts. Best I could see it is 3-2 Khan. I actually dont remember much--I only watched this fight once. Didnt see it live and was disgusted with Canelo and GBP in general for this fight.

Lara/Trout--
I have to admit I have not watched either of these fights. But from what I have read there are several people who believe they were close and maybe Canelo even lost. I didnt see them so I cant speak to them. I do know that Canelo seemed to be the agressor in both and got a KD in the Trout fight. But both those fight have one wide score card that does not seem to match the fight the other judges saw or the media's scorecards either.

So there we have it. An established pattern of at least one wide scorecards in all his big fights or in the case of Floyd, a card no other serious boxing person can support.

When I see patterns like this, it really makes me think either they are bought cards OR the judges are judging those fights with a heavy bias on one fighter. Let's eliminate the first one because unless I see a judge taking a bag full of cash I'm not going to out right accuse them of that. So that leaves the 2nd option. Heavy bias.
If these judges are submitting these type of cards with such wide scores, and it is happening over and over again that a pattern develops, how can the other fighter hope to get a fair shake? A judge turning in that kind of card --to me anyway--was obviously scoring based on their own bias toward Canelo.

 

I'm around, suck it up.

 

How the **** can they let this corrupt piece of **** back judging fights again? That decision is still as raw now as it was on fight night. This is a ****ing disaster for boxing because she's still gonna be on the take, but she's gonna wise up and bring her scorecards closer next time. Bad day for boxing.

 

Looking over the Canelo Cotto scorecards, the judge who scored it 119-109 was Dave Moretti. He gave Canelo every round except for the 4th round.

The other judges had it 118-110 (Burt Clements) and 117-111 (John McKaie). So what you are describing didn't really happen in the case of Canelo Cotto. No judge had more than a 1 round difference from each other. The single round that Moretti scored for Cotto (the 4th) McKaie also scored for Cotto, which was the only round that more than 1 judge gave to Cotto. The other rounds scored to Cotto were round 1 and 6 (by McKaie) and rounds 2 and 9 (by Clements). So that’s 5 total different rounds that were given to Cotto by the 3 judges, suggesting that some of the rounds were close and perhaps you can find 4 or 5 rounds to argue for Cotto.

So what you are describing about there being one really wide unexplainable scorecard simply didn't happen here. The 3 judges had it 9-3, 10-2 & 11-1. And like I said, the 11-1 card had the same round scored for Cotto as the 9-3 card did. So it's not like Moretti's 11-1 card was much wider than the other two. And the ironic part of that is that Moretti is the only judge that scored Canelo Triple G in favor Triple G 115-113.

Hmmm interesting. 8-4 sounds reasonable. I think the most rounds you can give Canelo vs Floyd are 5 (like rounds 2,3,4,10,12) but 4 rounds to Canelo sounds reasonable. I looked over the CJ Ross card and didn't agree with it. For example, she gave Canelo Round 1 and Round 8, two rounds that I thought Floyd won pretty clearly and no other judges agreed with her on those. So even though some on here have tried to argue that I supported her card, fact is that I didn't. I had it pretty much like you saw it, a close but clear win for Floyd but Canelo winning several rounds and more rounds than pretty much anybody's won on Floyd as Floyd doesn’t lose many rounds too often. That said, despite Ross's card, I still thought the outrage was a bit over the top. Round 1 was a feel out round and though I had Floyd winning, there wasn't all that much that really happened in the round. Round 8 though the only thing I can say is that it was a lot closer than Round 7, which was probably Floyd's best round of the fight.

She also gave Canelo round 11, which I thought Floyd won pretty convincingly, but oddly enough Dave Moretti also scored that round to Canelo. And even stranger, Round 10, which was one of Canelo's best rounds, a round that saw Canelo launching a sustained attack on Floyd with Floyd against the ropes, Ross and Moretti both gave that Round to Floyd. Perhaps the odd scoring there had to do with the angle that the judges were seated, maybe judge Metcalfe, the judge that had it 9 rounds to 3, had a better view of the action in Rounds 10 and 11 than the other two judges had, but that's the only thing that would really make any sense and explain how both Ross and Moretti could score those rounds wrong. Moretti and Ross also happened to score Round 9 the same, each giving that round to Canelo as well, while Metcalfe once again again differed and gave that Round to Floyd. In fairness, Round 9 was a relatively close round in my view, and not really one of the easier rounds to score. (I've studied this bout pretty closely, and I did a full summary, so I have a pretty good recollection of what happened in each round)

What makes it hard for me to really criticize Ross is fact that outside of Rounds 1 and 8, her card (the other 10 rounds) were identical to Moretti's card. So I mean the same judge who had G over Canelo had a card that was 83.33% identical to Ross's heavily criticized card in Canelo vs Mayweather.

It's easy to say that now, but it was quite shocking when it happened. It was a marvelous punch that Canelo landed, and he hardly gets any credit for it. Remember before Khan decided to fight Canelo, fans wanted to see Floyd to fight Khan, so it's kind of ridiculous how you can criticize Canelo for fighting Khan when he was seen at the time as the best possible opponent out there for Floyd. I'm guessing your disgust with Canelo and GBP had to do with him fighting Khan instead of Triple G. But at least Canelo fought Khan at 155 and didn't make Khan move all the way up to 160 like Triple G did to Brook.

As far as the scoring, 3-2 Khan seems to be the general consensus and the most reasonable card, and that's pretty much how I saw it. Oddly enough, and this you may find hilarious, but guess who was scoring that fight?

It was Ms. Adalaide Byrd. And guess what, Adalaide Byrd was the only judge who had Khan winning , had it 3 rounds to 2 in favor of Khan. Byrd gave Khan Rounds 1-3 and Canelo Rounds 4 and 5, which really seemed to fit the flow of the fight.

Glenn Trowbridge had it 4 rounds to 1 Canelo and Glenn Feldman had Canelo ahead 3 rounds to 2. They all agreed on Khan winning Round 2, Trowbridge had Canelo winning Rounds 1 and 3, and Feldman had Canelo winning Round 1 but Khan winning Round 3.

So just think about that for a moment, the same judge everybody's jumping on for her Canelo G scored, was the only judge who scored Canelo Khan correctly ! lol Just think about that. IF we are gonna crucify Byrd for her Triple G Canelo score, then shouldn't we also praise her for having Canelo Khan correct?

I mean how many people have been arguing that Byrd is such a bad judge and all that, but no one has mentioned that she had the most accurate and popular score in Canelo Khan. You can't ignore that if we are going to assess her performance and especially when you have another example of her judging a Canelo fight, and getting it right.

Judges have their preferences, for sure. Some favor come forward fighters, some like aggression, some are more willing to give rounds to counter punches fighting off the backfoot etc. Like Byrd giving Khan 3 rounds vs Canelo kind of makes sense when you think that Canelo was the aggressor in that fight trying to walk Khan down and it was Khan that was outboxing him. Khan fought Canelo a lot like Canelo fought Gennady at times in terms of using footwork, using lateral / backwards motion to open up space, etc.

You really have to pay attention to the tendencies of the fighters and look for consistency. As hard as it may be to accept, Byrd does not seem to give rounds to fighters just for coming forward as is typical with a lot of judges. She scored Hopkins over Calzaghe, had Khan ahead of Canelo, and had Canelo beating Triple G quite clearly. There are similarities in those bouts that show that she has some level of consistency in what she's looking for. And I think you are interpreting her being biased towards a fighter (Canelo) to just being biased in terms of fighter styles.

If she would have scored Canelo Khan 4 rounds to 1 or something, then I think you'd have more of an argument. But she gave 3 rounds to Khan so it shows she's being consistent in terms of the type of style that she gives rounds to, not the specific fighter.

 

@ Farmboxer Could you please show me the picture of the judge whose name is Byrd?

 

Are there rules and regulations for selecting judges at the ringside? Is this female judge qualified for her job? Does she really know how to score the fight especially the super fight?