As
with many big name fights, and more and more fights in general it seems, the
big clash between Gennady Golovkin ended in controversy and disappointment for
fans who were expecting to see a clean, competitive fight without controversy.
Adelaide Byrd’s ridiculous scorecard of 118-110 in favour of Saul Alvarez left
most fans, including those who felt Alvarez won the fight, bemused. I rewatched
the fight and here I give my thoughts on the most controversial fight of the
year.
Round 1: Golovkin shows his intent to go for the
knockout as he stalks Alvarez from the offset. He threw more punches throughout
and landed more. His jab was persistent although didn’t land every time.
Alvarez contented himself with trying to execute power shots and landed some,
but not a high percentage of them, mainly to the body. Late on Alvarez landed
his best shots of the round which brought cheers from the crowd. If the round
was given to Alvarez it would perhaps be due to the judges being swayed by the
noise from the fans. Even so, this was a clear Golovkin round, albeit not a
dominant one. Interestingly on the night, I gave this round to Alvarez. So,
already I have Golovkin in more of a chance of winning this one than even on
the night where I felt he was robbed.
My score 2nd time watching: Golovkin 10-9 / Golovkin 10-9
My score on the night: Alvarez 10-9 / Alvarez 10-9
Adelaide Byrd’s score: Alvarez 10-9 / Alvarez 10-9
Round 2: Very good round for Alvarez. Golovkin used
his jab as much as possible but it didn’t land frequently and not with any real
power either. On the other hand, Alvarez’ array of punches landed more
frequently and with much more intent. Clear Alvarez round.
My score 2nd time watching: Alvarez 10-9 / 19-19
My score on the night: Alvarez 10-9 / Alvarez 20-18
Adelaide Byrd’s score: Alvarez 10-9 / Alvarez 20-18
Round 3: Not a clear round to either fighter. I can
see it being given to either fighter. I gave it to Alvarez by the smallest of
margins. Golovkin landed the more accurate punches throughout but they were
mostly jabs with not too much authority behind them. Meanwhile, Alvarez loads
up his punches better and landed a few good shots to the body. Some of his
shots were deceptive though and already you get the feeling the judges might be
scoring punches that didn’t even land! The crowd cheer any time he loads his
shots up and on a couple of occasions they missed their target by a few inches
and yet still received a cheer.
My score 2nd time watching: Alvarez 10-9 / 29-28 Alvarez
My score on the night: Golovkin 10-9 / Alvarez 29-28
Adelaide Byrd’s score: Alvarez 10-9 / Alvarez 30-27
Round 4: Not a dominant round for Golovkin, but
certainly one that he won. He stalked Alvarez throughout and used his jab to
good measure. Alvarez’ best moments were early on in the round but they were
not his most effective work of the fight so far. Golovkin threw and landed more
shots throughout and his power punches have started to get through.
My score 2nd time watching: Golovkin 10-9 / 38-38
My score on the night: Golovkin 10-9 / 38-38
Adelaide Byrd’s score: Golovkin 10-9 / Alvarez 39-37
Round 5: First round so far that I rewatched a 2nd
time because it was so close. With about 30 seconds of the round remaining, I
had counted 13 effective shots to Alvarez compared to 9 effective shots by
Golovkin (Compubox had counted 13 to 8 in favour of Alvarez). I don’t really
pay too much attention to Compubox figures as they’re only as accurate as the
people operating the system. I rely more on my own eyes. My figures, with benefit
of the pause button, are more reliable in my opinion. In the end, I counted 14
effective punches to 11 in favour of Alvarez. It was a very close round but I
have to give it to Alvarez on the basis that I counted more effective shots in
his favour, even though I thought the two best shots of the round were from
Golovkin. Interestingly, Compubox figures showed Golovkin threw 74 shots
compared to Alvarez’ 43 shots. Obviously neither landed much with their shots
and, in my opinion, accuracy and effectiveness must count for far more than
shots thrown. On the other hand, you can’t argue against Golovkin being given
the round if he threw in excess of 70 shots and landed roughly the same amount
as Alvarez.
My score 2nd time watching: Alvarez 10-9 / Alvarez 48-47
My score on the night: Golovkin 10-9 / Golovkin 48-47
Adelaide Byrd’s score: Alvarez 10-9 / Alvarez 49-46
Round 6: Very close round. I counted 20 effective shots
to Golovkin compared to 19 by Alvarez (Compubox: 16 to 15). The reason I feel
Golovkin deserved the round is that his best shots rocked Alvarez’ head back
multiple times. When he landed, he landed big. In comparison, most of Alvarez’
best punches this round missed; he loaded his shots up a lot, but they didn’t
hit their target. I gave this round to Golovkin, but I don’t think giving it to
Alvarez would be a big issue. In such cases, I think it might be best for
boxing as a whole to always score such rounds 10-10.
My score 2nd time watching: Golovkin 10-9 / 57-57
My score on the night: Golovkin 10-9 / Golovkin 58-56
Adelaide Byrd’s score: Alvarez 10-9 / Alvarez 59-55
Round 7: A clear Golovkin round; possibly the clearest
round to him so far this fight. He landed with several big overhand rights
which rocked Alvarez’ head back. He was the far busier fighter and I scored 16
effective shots to Alvarez’ 8 (Compubox: 16-12). I have to question what
Compubox means though when they say ‘jab landed’ and ‘power shot landed’. Some
of the shots that each fighter lands aren’t always what I describe as being
‘effective’. In my opinion, a jab which ‘lands’ but has no or little venom in
it is hardly an effective shot, or at least not as effective as many other
shots.
My score 2nd time watching:
Golovkin 10-9 / Golovkin 67-66
My score on the night: Golovkin 10-9 / Golovkin 68-65
Adelaide Byrd’s score: Golovkin 10-9 / Alvarez 68-65
Round 8: I thought this was a close round, but which I
think you have to give to Golovkin on merit. It was one of those rounds where
the aggressor was the dominant fighter. I scored 12 effective punches to
Alvarez’ 10 (Compubox: 21-11). The problem I have with compubox operators, as I
stated above in the last round, is they will score anything that lands as a
‘landed shot’; a landed shot is not necessarily an effective or powerful one.
Also, at one point, with 20 seconds left, Alvarez throws a big shot that
clearly misses yet Compubox counted it as a landed shot. Watch the replay and
you clearly see it doesn’t touch Golovkin. This should emphasise why it isn’t
always a good idea to agree religiously with what Compubox says.
My score 2nd time watching:
Golovkin 10-9 / Golovkin 77-75
My score on the night: Alvarez 10-9 / Golovkin 77-75
Adelaide Byrd’s score: Alvarez 10-9 / Alvarez 78-74
Round 9: A clear Golovkin round. He was relentless throughout. He landed more power shots than Alvarez and they landed heavy. Alvarez landed the best shot he’s thrown all fight and it didn’t bother Golovkin. I counted 24 shots to 17 in favour of Golovkin (Compubox: 24-13). So I actually gave Alvarez 4 more shots than Compubox did. Unbelievably Adelaide Byrd scored this round for Alvarez. She also scored round 8, which was heavily in favour of Golovkin according to Compubox, to Alvarez.
My score 2nd time watching:
Golovkin 10-9 / Golovkin 87-84
My score on the night: Golovkin 10-9 / Golovkin 87-84
Adelaide Byrd’s score: Alvarez 10-9 / Alvarez 88-83
Round 10: I rewatched this round a couple of times. At
first I counted Alvarez landing 17 effective shots to Golovkin’s 13, but
Compubox counted 18 to 23. This would clearly favour Golovkin being the winner.
However, as I say, Compubox operators count anything and everything. The 2nd
time I watched it, I focused on the power and hurtfulness of the shots landed.
In my opinion, the most powerful shots landed were those of Alvarez, so I gave
him the round. I generally think if fighter X lands the most shots in a round
but they are pitter-patter jabs and/or not-so effective shots, whilst fighter Y
lands half the amount of punches but they are all powerful shots, I score the
round to fighter Y. I think that’s the fairest thing to do. This round can be
given to either fighter though and maybe a 10-10 score would be fairest.
My score 2nd time watching:
Alvarez 10-9 / Golovkin 96-94
My score on the night: Golovkin 10-9 / Golovkin 97-93
Adelaide Byrd’s score: Alvarez 10-9 / Alvarez 98-92
Round 11: On the night, I scored this round a draw, but Golovkin
clearly ‘edged it’ – meaning he won it, but not by the largest of margins. He
stalked Alvarez all round and landed the better shots. I counted 17 effective
shots to 12 in favour of Golovkin (Compubox: 17-13).
My score 2nd time watching:
Golovkin 10-9 / 106-103
My score on the night: 10/10 / Golovkin 107-103
Adelaide Byrd’s score: Alvarez 10-9 / Alvarez 108-101
Round 12: I had to watch the final round 3 times as my
punch stats were completely different to those of Compubox. I scored 22
effective punches to 11 in favour of Alvarez (Compubox: 17-13 in favour of
Golovkin). Well, I don’t know how they only counted 13 to Alvarez because I
rewatched the round 3 times and he’d landed that many by the midway part of the
fight. I think it’s imperative to differentiate between punches landed on
gloves or above the head or that clearly miss but appear to connect due to the
angle of the camera etc. So, I don’t know how my punch stats could be so
different to theirs in this final round. I believe both went out there to win
the final round, but Alvarez did the better work and landed the much better
shots.
My score 2nd time watching:
Alvarez 10-9 / Golovkin 115-113
My score on the night: Alvarez 10-9 / Golovkin 116-113
Adelaide Byrd’s score: Alvarez 10-9 / Alvarez 118-110
Final
score
Golovkin 115-113
Alvarez
Overall
thoughts
Even
though my new score has only changed by 1 point (I gave Golovkin one less point
this time around), I can see that the fight was closer than I thought it
was first time around. I can even see how the fight could be scored a draw. I’d
struggle to see how Alvarez could be given the win though, at least by more
than a point, because Golovkin clearly threw and landed more shots. Alvarez was
possibly the ‘smarter’ boxer though because he avoided brawling for much of the
point and instead invested energy in counter punches. He also finished strongly
which might have swayed it in many people’s eyes. I changed my scoring for 5 rounds this time
around: I gave rounds 3, 5 and 10 to Alvarez instead of Golovkin, I scored
round 1 to Golovkin instead of Alvarez, and I gave round 11 to Golovkin instead
of scoring it a draw. My reasoning is as follows: It is very good to be able to
use the pause button and count effective punches, something you can’t do when a
fight is live. This also emphasises why Compubox stats are sometimes not the
best way to analyse a fight as they’re susceptible to human error and crowd
bias. In round 1, I thought Golovkin won a close round; he clearly out-landed
Alvarez. Like with many round ones in boxing, a 10-10 score would not be wrong.
In round 3, I thought Alvarez edged the tightest of rounds; again, a 10-10
round wouldn’t be wrong. In round 5, I think Alvarez was the best performer,
landed slightly more effective shots (contrary to Compubox figures), and won
yet another close round; again, a 10-10 score would not be criminal. In round
10, as I explained above, I scored the round for Alvarez because he landed the
more hurtful shots even though Golovkin was given the benefit of the doubt
based on Compubox figures. I think more hurtful punches are worth more than
less powerful and not as effective jabs. I felt Alvarez deserved to win round
10. In round 11, I switched from a 10-10 score on my original scorecard to a
10-9 Golovkin round; in my opinion, Golovkin won a close round, he threw and
landed more and was busier. Again though, as with many close fights, this could
be scored 10-10.
So,
this is what it boils down to: It was a close fight with many close rounds. In
such cases, I have no problem with judges scoring half of the rounds 10-10, and
I don’t think other fans should either; after all, they were commonplace in decades
gone by. It helps to keep close fights close and more accurate, in my opinion.
However, another way to keep a fight close is to make sure if you do score
close rounds 10-9, then you need to make sure you even them out throughout a
fight. Example: I gave rounds 1, 4, 6 and 11 to Golovkin and rounds 3, 5 and 10
to Alvarez; all of these rounds were close. It would be criminal to give all 7 of those rounds to one fighter and thus distort the reality of the fight.
Again, if all of these rounds were scored 10-10 it would reflect the reality of
the fight. In the same way, giving Golovkin 4 rounds that were close but that
he probably edged and giving Alvarez 3 rounds that were close but that he
probably edged keeps the fight close and realistic. Rounds 2 and 12 were clear
Alvarez rounds in my opinion, and rounds 7, 8 and 9 were clear Golovkin rounds.
Some people might reason that if rounds 1, 4, 6 and 11 were close then why
can’t they be given to Alvarez and thus give him a win by a few points. By that
same reasoning, Golovkin could be given other close rounds (e.g. 3, 5 and 10)
and win by an even bigger margin. Also, I gave round 12 to Alvarez because I felt he deserved it, even though Compubox punch stats suggest Golovkin should have won the final round. It is not fair to simply hand over close
rounds to one fighter and thus hand in a lopsided scorecard that doesn’t
represent the reality of the contest.
And this brings me to Adelaide Byrd’s shocking, corrupt, and incompetent scorecard. She gave the close rounds 1, 6 and 11 all to Alvarez, but also gave him the close rounds 3, 5 and 10 that I gave him, hence her lopsided scorecard. How can anybody justify that? If you’re going to be brave and give a 10-9 score in a close contest, you have to make sure you are fair throughout; this is why counting effective punching is imperative. This is also why having the ability to pause and analyse a fight is so important. She also gave rounds 8 and 9 which were clear Golovkin rounds to Alvarez; that stinks of corruption or incompetence, especially since both of the other judges gave rounds 8 and 9 to Golovkin and punch stats seem to show Golovkin won those rounds.
And this brings me to Adelaide Byrd’s shocking, corrupt, and incompetent scorecard. She gave the close rounds 1, 6 and 11 all to Alvarez, but also gave him the close rounds 3, 5 and 10 that I gave him, hence her lopsided scorecard. How can anybody justify that? If you’re going to be brave and give a 10-9 score in a close contest, you have to make sure you are fair throughout; this is why counting effective punching is imperative. This is also why having the ability to pause and analyse a fight is so important. She also gave rounds 8 and 9 which were clear Golovkin rounds to Alvarez; that stinks of corruption or incompetence, especially since both of the other judges gave rounds 8 and 9 to Golovkin and punch stats seem to show Golovkin won those rounds.
