I'll explain Adelaide Byrd's scores.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Disclaimer: I had Golovkin winning, 115-113. I can accept a draw, because I saw at least two swing rounds.


Much has been made of Byrd's scores. But if you look at the rounds in question it's clear what she was going by.

First let's do some comparative work:

• All three judges gave Canelo round 1. I actually disagreed, but I get why - Golovkin was tenative and looked uncomfortable. He wasn't his "usual self" - aggressive, throwing caution to the wind.
• All three judges gave Canelo Round 2. I agree.
• All three judges gave Canelo 10, 11 and 12. I disagree with 10 but that's fine. Golovkin had gassed from the earlier rounds and wasn't himself again.

So right there you have Canelo up 5 rounds.

• All three judges gave Golovkin Round 4. I agree.

There you have 1 round for him.

So what went wrong with the other rounds, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 - which Byrd gave all to Canelo?

There's a pattern...it's defensive aggression she favors. Otherwise known as setting traps and countering, or rope-a-dope countering. Even when you don't actually connect consistently or cleanly.

Here's some other examples she scored:

• Canelo/Khan (scored for Khan for setting traps)
• Hopkins/Calslappy (scored for Hopkins for setting traps)
• Calslappy/Lacy (scored for Calslappy for setting traps)
• Broner/Porter (scored for Broner for rope-a-dope countering)

and now Canelo/Golovkin.

In the rounds she deviates, she flat out gave the round to Canelo for the appearance of effective countering and evasion regardless of what Golovkin was doing. Even in those situations where Canelo got tagged on the way out or was on the ropes trying to rope-a-dope yet still getting hit, which happened quite a few times when he gassed.

On my card, if what Canelo was doing still got him hit, I didn't give him credit. Thus why I had Golovkin winning by one round.

[////]

She is just an official's wife who was given the prerequisiteless job of judging, the same exact situation as equally terrible Lisa Giampa.

[The Comic DON]

Disclaimer: I had Golovkin winning, 115-113. I can accept a draw, because I saw at least two swing rounds.


Much has been made of Byrd's scores. But if you look at the rounds in question it's clear what she was going by.

First let's do some comparative work:

• All three judges gave Canelo round 1. I actually disagreed, but I get why - Golovkin was tenative and looked uncomfortable. He wasn't his "usual self" - aggressive, throwing caution to the wind.
• All three judges gave Canelo Round 2. I agree.
• All three judges gave Canelo 10, 11 and 12. I disagree with 10 but that's fine. Golovkin had gassed from the earlier rounds and wasn't himself again.

So right there you have Canelo up 5 rounds.

• All three judges gave Golovkin Round 4. I agree.
• All three judges gave Golovkin Round 7. I disagree, but I understand. Golovkin's aggression dropped a bit.

There you have 2 rounds for him.

So what went wrong with the other rounds, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 - which Byrd gave all to Canelo?

There's a pattern...it's defensive aggression she favors. Otherwise known as setting traps and countering, or rope-a-dope countering. Even when you don't actually connect consistently or cleanly.

Here's some other examples she scored:

• Canelo/Khan (scored for Khan for setting traps)
• Hopkins/Calslappy (scored for Hopkins for setting traps)
• Calslappy/Lacy (scored for Calslappy for setting traps)
• Broner/Porter (scored for Broner for rope-a-dope countering)

and now Canelo/Golovkin.

In the rounds she deviates, she flat out gave the round to Canelo for the appearance of effective countering and evasion regardless of what Golovkin was doing. Even in those situations where Canelo got tagged on the way out or was on the ropes trying to rope-a-dope yet still getting hit, which happened quite a few times when he gassed.

On my card, if what Canelo was doing still got him hit, I didn't give him credit. Thus why I had Golovkin winning by one round.

Maybe, but one would have to take a look at the fights she previously scored and see if there's a set standard to way she scores

But seeing that she usually scored fights the same as Moretti (had it115-113 Golovkin) but this fight she turned in one of the worst scorecards of the year tells me there's more to this than just the way she judges fights.

Either she was paid off
or
She let bias get in the way of judging the fight properly.

[Scipio2009]

Disclaimer: I had Golovkin winning, 115-113. I can accept a draw, because I saw at least two swing rounds.


Much has been made of Byrd's scores. But if you look at the rounds in question it's clear what she was going by.

First let's do some comparative work:

• All three judges gave Canelo round 1. I actually disagreed, but I get why - Golovkin was tenative and looked uncomfortable. He wasn't his "usual self" - aggressive, throwing caution to the wind.
• All three judges gave Canelo Round 2. I agree.
• All three judges gave Canelo 10, 11 and 12. I disagree with 10 but that's fine. Golovkin had gassed from the earlier rounds and wasn't himself again.

So right there you have Canelo up 5 rounds.

• All three judges gave Golovkin Round 4. I agree.
• All three judges gave Golovkin Round 7. I disagree, but I understand. Golovkin's aggression dropped a bit.

There you have 2 rounds for him.

So what went wrong with the other rounds, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 - which Byrd gave all to Canelo?

There's a pattern...it's defensive aggression she favors. Otherwise known as setting traps and countering, or rope-a-dope countering. Even when you don't actually connect consistently or cleanly.

Here's some other examples she scored:

• Canelo/Khan (scored for Khan for setting traps)
• Hopkins/Calslappy (scored for Hopkins for setting traps)
• Calslappy/Lacy (scored for Calslappy for setting traps)
• Broner/Porter (scored for Broner for rope-a-dope countering)

and now Canelo/Golovkin.

In the rounds she deviates, she flat out gave the round to Canelo for the appearance of effective countering and evasion regardless of what Golovkin was doing. Even in those situations where Canelo got tagged on the way out or was on the ropes trying to rope-a-dope yet still getting hit, which happened quite a few times when he gassed.

On my card, if what Canelo was doing still got him hit, I didn't give him credit. Thus why I had Golovkin winning by one round.

Honestly need to see the fight, but the logic of your breakdown seems sound. Regardless of what you want to think, three judges on three sides of the ring were unanimous in their assessment of 7 of the 12 rounds. There was disagreement in the remaining 5 rounds.

Would be interesting to see how the judges broke down on those 5 rounds (namely whether any rounds were scored with the two other judges scoring one way and Byrd the other).

[Combat Talk Radio]

Maybe, but one would have to take a look at the fights she previously scored and see if there's a set standard to way she scores

But seeing that she usually scored fights the same as Moretti (had it115-113 Golovkin) but this fight she turned in one of the worst scorecards of the year tells me there's more to this than just the way she judges fights.

Either she was paid off
or
She let bias get in the way of judging the fight properly.

Moretti scored on who was doing the most coming forward and who was landing the most shots - the aggressor. He's old school, so that doesn't surprise me.

I'm telling you, Byrd favored the guy who was doing the most "stick and move" type fighting.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Honestly need to see the fight, but the logic of your breakdown seems sound. Regardless of what you want to think, three judges on three sides of the ring were unanimous in their assessment of 7 of the 12 rounds. There was disagreement in the remaining 5 rounds.

Would be interesting to see how the judges broke down on those 5 rounds (namely whether any rounds were scored with the two other judges scoring one way and Byrd the other).

They all agreed the opposite of what Byrd had for those 5. She was the only one to score them for Canelo. Thus why I'm almost confident she's scoring based on Canelo's rope-a-dope and countering, regardless of whether he was really effective or not. To me, if the guy is still cutting you off, still walking you down and still hitting you, your defensive was not fully effective.

Here's the official #CaneloGGG scorecard Adelaide Byrd scored just rounds 4 and 7 for GGG. Nevada State Athletic Commission must look at it pic.twitter.com/jGv4iMrc2W

— Gareth A Davies (@GarethADaviesDT) September 17, 2017

[Jsmooth9876]

I skipped the whole write up because there's no explanation you could come up with that makes Canelo win 10 of 12 rounds.

[Combat Talk Radio]

I skipped the whole write up because there's no explanation you could come up with that makes Canelo win 10 of 12 rounds.

There is if you watch the fight and notice that in 9 of those 10, Canelo was either rope-a-doping or countering off slipped punches.

Problem is, in 5 of those 9, he slipped a punch, landed a punch and then got caught with a punch back. You can't win a fight if you're slipping INTO punches.

[GGG Gloveking]

Disclaimer: I had Golovkin winning, 115-113. I can accept a draw, because I saw at least two swing rounds.


Much has been made of Byrd's scores. But if you look at the rounds in question it's clear what she was going by.

First let's do some comparative work:

• All three judges gave Canelo round 1. I actually disagreed, but I get why - Golovkin was tenative and looked uncomfortable. He wasn't his "usual self" - aggressive, throwing caution to the wind.
• All three judges gave Canelo Round 2. I agree.
• All three judges gave Canelo 10, 11 and 12. I disagree with 10 but that's fine. Golovkin had gassed from the earlier rounds and wasn't himself again.

So right there you have Canelo up 5 rounds.

• All three judges gave Golovkin Round 4. I agree.
• All three judges gave Golovkin Round 7. I disagree, but I understand. Golovkin's aggression dropped a bit.

There you have 2 rounds for him.

So what went wrong with the other rounds, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 - which Byrd gave all to Canelo?

There's a pattern...it's defensive aggression she favors. Otherwise known as setting traps and countering, or rope-a-dope countering. Even when you don't actually connect consistently or cleanly.

Here's some other examples she scored:

• Canelo/Khan (scored for Khan for setting traps)
• Hopkins/Calslappy (scored for Hopkins for setting traps)
• Calslappy/Lacy (scored for Calslappy for setting traps)
• Broner/Porter (scored for Broner for rope-a-dope countering)

and now Canelo/Golovkin.

In the rounds she deviates, she flat out gave the round to Canelo for the appearance of effective countering and evasion regardless of what Golovkin was doing. Even in those situations where Canelo got tagged on the way out or was on the ropes trying to rope-a-dope yet still getting hit, which happened quite a few times when he gassed.

On my card, if what Canelo was doing still got him hit, I didn't give him credit. Thus why I had Golovkin winning by one round.

After examining the cards, they actually only gave GGG the 4th on all 3 cards. I wish they had all agreed on GGG in the 7th, he would have won a SD

[Combat Talk Radio]

After examining the cards, they actually only gave GGG the 4th on all 3 cards. I wish they had all agreed on GGG in the 7th, he would have won a SD

You are correct, Trella didn't give him the 7th. My fault.