Paulie Malignaggi: "Judge like Adalaide Byrd Should Stay Home"

[UglyPug]

Well, a lot of people who don't understand how a boxing match is scored, although it's quite simple, and basic. They focus on how dominant Trout was in the last 3 rounds; however, they forget how close the first half of the fight was.


Trout clearly won 3-4 rounds (he whipped Cotto's ass in 3-4 rounds), and Cotto clearly won 2 rounds. There was 2-3 rounds that you could say " definitely lean to Trout," and another 3-4 rounds that were very close, and you could make an argument for Cotto.


I won't **** on other's opinions, but I believe they get carried away with emotion, and focus on who "won the fight," rather than properly analyzing each round. . . I tend to be more factual, and objective, rather than trying to sound like I'm "in the know," and act on emotion, and support popular opinion without thinking for themselves.


Trout won the fight, and the boxing match. But a draw is definitely justifiable, and while I suppose 119-109 is jsutifiable as well with all the close rounds, you'd have to be trying harder to arrive at this score, than a draw.

[T-97]

I thought her score was too wide... but then, at least it was the right outcome. I have no idea how Malignaggi scored it a draw...

[loui_ludwig]

LOL, yeah sure Paulie. 114-114 is the correct score, LOL.

[Fistic]

I didn't hear Paulie, I remember hearing Hopkins who clearly has a crush on Trout. I don't think the fight was a draw, but Cotto won more than the rounds that she game him.

[Barry Halls]

I think she's one of the worst high-profile judges in mma and boxing. Some of the most common "what the hell?" moments have come for me with her judging.

She's the lone reason why Bernard-Calzaghe is still thought of as controversial.
It's good for me as i can filter out the morons who thought Bernard won that fight.

Who cares though. It would have been horrible to not give Trout the W.

[Chief2ndzOnly!]

Well, a lot of people who don't understand how a boxing match is scored, although it's quite simple, and basic. They focus on how dominant Trout was in the last 3 rounds; however, they forget how close the first half of the fight was.


Trout clearly won 3-4 rounds (he whipped Cotto's ass in 3-4 rounds), and Cotto clearly won 2 rounds. There was 2-3 rounds that you could say " definitely lean to Trout," and another 3-4 rounds that were very close, and you could make an argument for Cotto.


I won't **** on other's opinions, but I believe they get carried away with emotion, and focus on who "won the fight," rather than properly analyzing each round. . . I tend to be more factual, and objective, rather than trying to sound like I'm "in the know," and act on emotion, and support popular opinion without thinking for themselves.


Trout won the fight, and the boxing match. But a draw is definitely justifiable, and while I suppose 119-109 is jsutifiable as well with all the close rounds, you'd have to be trying harder to arrive at this score, than a draw.

Which rounds did Cotto clearly win? Which round other than the 5th did Cotto clearly impose his will? Dictate the pace, range, and tempo of the round? Effectively aggress Trout(not just moving forward, that only works in Presidential campaign slogans )while landing clean blows(not blocked blows that where perceived to be landing blows due to the camera angle), or successfully boxed off the back foot landing clean and effective counters, setting traps, etc.....etc.

Judging a boxing match must not be as simple as you state Pugs if anyone found a way to give Cotto more than 4 rounds, and that is giving Cotto BOTH of the close rounds 4 and 10. I can honestly say I gave Cotto round 2 and it was only because I felt he did just a little bit more than Trout. Not because of his skill, and his mastery of the 3 golden pillars that are used to score a round in this fine sport. But because of Trout taking his time to adjusting to Cotto, and lowering his workrate and shot selection to ensure he didnt over extend himself and get caught by an elite world-class boxer.

It would be nice if folks could state which rounds Cotto clearly won, and what he did to win them; as I have this fight on DVR and would like to revisit this fight looking for what you all saw to give Cotto so many rounds.

I scored this fight as I saw it, I tuned out the commentators, and watched everything in the round taking notes of the shifts, ebbs, and flow of the entire round as to not short either fighter.

[Jam Jars]

I think she's one of the worst high-profile judges in mma and boxing. Some of the most common "what the hell?" moments have come for me with her judging.

Who cares though. It would have been horrible to not give Trout the W.

Which fights had "what the hell" scoring?

[Barry Halls]

Which fights had "what the hell" scoring?

Most have come in mma. Phan/Garcia, Rocha/Ellenberger.
As i mentioned Hopkins/Calzaghe.

And now I'm excluding the bought and paid for judges who score top-rank fights and anyone in texas.
I don't think Byrd is corrupt. I have other su****ions regarding her.

[daggum]

I think she's one of the worst high-profile judges in mma and boxing. Some of the most common "what the hell?" moments have come for me with her judging.

She's the lone reason why Bernard-Calzaghe is still thought of as controversial.
It's good for me as i can filter out the morons who thought Bernard won that fight.

Who cares though. It would have been horrible to not give Trout the W.

yeah even though most press there thought hopkins won she's the "lone reason" even though hopkins outlanded calzaghe by a wide margin in most of the rounds she's the "lone reason" even though calzaghe could barely hit hopkins she's the "lone reason" none of those things matter it was her fault and her fault alone that people think hopkins won.

[FightScorer]

Pauli need to shut his girl mouth .