Pacquiao/Bradley - a counterpoint

Nothing to discuss there. Bradley deserved the win. All that anger because Pactards going berzerk again. ;D

A couple of the points I brought up in my last post got me thinking about the influence of social media on the public perception of this decision.

I adapted them into a new blog post, criticising in particular the HBO team and Dan Rafael, who I think have been very unyielding in their views.

Let me know what you guys think...

The View from the Outer | Thoughts on sport, music, film, books and life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greig

I seem to be in the 0.000001 percent who doesn't really have a problem with the decision.

I thought Manny was well in control after the sixth round, but elected to go into cruise control from the eighth onward. I think that is what cost him.

That said, I've always believed the 10-point must system is an inadequate way to score a prize fight.

I've summed up my thoughts on the whole shooting match here:-

The View from the Outer | Thoughts on sport, music, film, books and life.

---

if 60% saw it the other way then it just maybe the way judges score it.


BUT

99% to 1%?


come on now. even the rounds that most people gave to Bradley, pac has landed more shots except that Bradley threw a little more.


if out of 100 people i am the only one who have a different opinion on a matter then i must look at myself and not the other 99.


Less work from Pacquiao is still very good enough to win those late rounds. It was not given to him because he had a better output/workrate in the 1st half. But is that enough to steal rounds from him despite being more accurate?

---

with that I think its good that Pacquiao lost this one, Letting the crowd and the judges wait 30 mins? :confused: WTF?

"if out of 100 people i am the only one who have a different opinion on a matter then i must look at myself and not the other 99."

I never follow a crowd. ;D

I don;t believe Pacquaio won the late rounds, and I don't believe he was doing the more quality work in them.

I've rewatched the fight a couple of times and I know what I saw. Like I said, I thought Pac won a CLOSE fight. But it was close, certainly not the ridiculous 119-111 that some people are claiming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greig

"if out of 100 people i am the only one who have a different opinion on a matter then i must look at myself and not the other 99."

I never follow a crowd. ;D

I don;t believe Pacquaio won the late rounds, and I don't believe he was doing the more quality work in them.

I've rewatched the fight a couple of times and I know what I saw. Like I said, I thought Pac won a CLOSE fight. But it was close, certainly not the ridiculous 119-111 that some people are claiming.

---

:)

How did you score Rounds 5 and 8 ?

Both for Pacquiao.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greig

Both for Pacquiao.

---

Thanks.

I asked because the judges gave those rounds to Bradley w/c IMO is an indication that their score is not based from the actual fight.


There is no logical explanation on how Bradley won those rounds.

Similarly Miron, there is no logical way you could score the fight 119-111 as many boxing 'experts' did. That was my point - this was a far closer fight than the majority of the boxing press would have you believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greig

Similarly Miron, there is no logical way you could score the fight 119-111 as many boxing 'experts' did. That was my point - this was a far closer fight than the majority of the boxing press would have you believe.

---

In your blog you've used the words "edged" and "shaded" for Bradley winning rounds 2, 9, 10, 11 and 12.

Five rounds that could have gone either way?

If the rounds were that close then it's perfectly logical that people in the media, ringside, watching on HBO, Primetime and the "world feed" scored it 119-111.

Bradley never had one single dominant period in the entire fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greig

Both for Pacquiao.

---

There is no logical explanation on how Bradley won those rounds.

---

Boxing is not maths bro. ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GOAT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greig

Both for Pacquiao.

---

There is no logical explanation on how Bradley won those rounds.

---

Boxing is not maths bro. ;D

---

Don't the judges round by round scores have to be added to come up with the winner? :hubbahubba:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greig

Similarly Miron, there is no logical way you could score the fight 119-111 as many boxing 'experts' did. That was my point - this was a far closer fight than the majority of the boxing press would have you believe.

---

In your blog you've used the words "edged" and "shaded" for Bradley winning rounds 2, 9, 10, 11 and 12.

Five rounds that could have gone either way?

If the rounds were that close then it's perfectly logical that people in the media, ringside, watching on HBO, Primetime and the "world feed" scored it 119-111.

Bradley never had one single dominant period in the entire fight.

---

Well not really Fenster - I say he edged them for a reason: because I think he did more in them than Pac did to justify winning the round.

As I also say in the blog, you can win a round by a lot, or you can win the round by a little - you still win the round.

And I do think he had a dominant period - the last three-four rounds, purely because Pac took them off, or didn't work as hard as he should have.

He wasn't as dominant as Pac was in 4-5, when he had Bradley hurt, but he was stringing rounds together based on Pac's inactivity.