Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
Only 1 of the 5 had it 7 to 5 for Manny and the rest had it a wash with9-3 twice and a 10-2 with one 8-4 all 5 for Manny.
Not how this confuses things? According to 4 of the 5 judges Manny kicked his ass. All 5 had him winning.
Does this mean that you now agree that the judges could have been justified in scoring 2 of those fights for Pacquiao against Marquez?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoralesyou say this now but it's the same argument that was used to justify Marquez/Pacquiao III in Manny's favorQuote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyThat's just stupid! How many rounds were clear for Bradley? You have to compare apples to apples. The justification is 5 clear rounds Pacquiao and 1 clear round for Bradley. You would have a better case scoring it 43/17.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
You can't compare Marquez shameful robbery loss to John to Bradley-Pacquiao. Pacquiao didn't have numerous bullshit points deducted against him like Marquez had against John.Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyHuh? Look, Pacquiao lost against Bradley same as Marqez lost against Chris John. The better fighter lost on points because he didn't do enough to get the win in the Judges eyes. They both got complacent/lazy whatever you want to call it and left the results to chance. Fighters can't do that and expect to get the sympathy vote, because they are the better figghter. Bradley had the best corner man shouting at him when he needed the motivation. "We're in a fuck'n fight! forget about your funk'n foot"Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoralesyou say this now but it's the same argument that was used to justify Marquez/Pacquiao III in Manny's favorQuote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyThat's just stupid! How many rounds were clear for Bradley? You have to compare apples to apples. The justification is 5 clear rounds Pacquiao and 1 clear round for Bradley. You would have a better case scoring it 43/17.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelardusI guess that about explains itQuote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
So true. That explains that IamInuit is able to use Microsoft Excel. :cool:
Imagine what Tim would do with a healthy foot!!!!!
What are those bullshit points that were deducted and are they part of boxing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent DemiseYou can't compare Marquez shameful robbery loss to John to Bradley-Pacquiao. Pacquiao didn't have numerous bullshit points deducted against him like Marquez had against John.Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyHuh? Look, Pacquiao lost against Bradley same as Marqez lost against Chris John. The better fighter lost on points because he didn't do enough to get the win in the Judges eyes. They both got complacent/lazy whatever you want to call it and left the results to chance. Fighters can't do that and expect to get the sympathy vote, because they are the better figghter. Bradley had the best corner man shouting at him when he needed the motivation. "We're in a fuck'n fight! forget about your funk'n foot"Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoralesyou say this now but it's the same argument that was used to justify Marquez/Pacquiao III in Manny's favorQuote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyThat's just stupid! How many rounds were clear for Bradley? You have to compare apples to apples. The justification is 5 clear rounds Pacquiao and 1 clear round for Bradley. You would have a better case scoring it 43/17.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
I can't believe this is being taken seriously. How many of you watched the fight, scored it, watched the fight a second time in retrospect and scored it different?
As a percentage Id guess about 80...
So this is just a pointless exercise. And creates more questions than answers - like "should we do away with the 10 point must system?"
The judging here has absolutely nothing to do with judging a live fight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
I think you're twisting the meaning a little bit.
FACT: The more judges you have, the higher the probability that you will have at least one dissenting vote. Statistics.
The fact that 5 out of 5 judges gave Pac 5 rounds unanimously speaks volumes about the bad decision made by the 3 offical judges. You neglect to mention that in TWO other rounds, only 1 judge gave Bradley the round. That is STILL 4 out of 5 in favor of Pacquiao. Add those 2 rounds to the unanimous rounds, and you still have a clear victory in favor of Pacquiao.
Statistics always lend themselves to interpretation by way of convenience, but your claim that the 5 judges "justified" the official decision is unfounded.
that flips both ways, all I take from those "stats" is that 7 rounds were up for grabs and 5 judges still struggled with who to give them to flip flopping between both fighters meaning it could have just as easily gone to Bradley, 5 judges couldn't agree who took those 7 so it's far from impossible that 3 would do the same not too complicatedQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
I think you're twisting the meaning a little bit.
FACT: The more judges you have, the higher the probability that you will have at least one dissenting vote. Statistics.
The fact that 5 out of 5 judges gave Pac 5 rounds unanimously speaks volumes about the bad decision made by the 3 offical judges. You neglect to mention that in TWO other rounds, only 1 judge gave Bradley the round. That is STILL 4 out of 5 in favor of Pacquiao. Add those 2 rounds to the unanimous rounds, and you still have a clear victory in favor of Pacquiao.
Statistics always lend themselves to interpretation by way of convenience, but your claim that the 5 judges "justified" the official decision is unfounded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoralesthat flips both ways, all I take from those "stats" is that 7 rounds were up for grabs and 5 judges still struggled with who to give them to flip flopping between both fighters meaning it could have just as easily gone to Bradley, 5 judges couldn't agree who took those 7 so it's far from impossible that 3 would do the same not too complicatedQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
I think you're twisting the meaning a little bit.
FACT: The more judges you have, the higher the probability that you will have at least one dissenting vote. Statistics.
The fact that 5 out of 5 judges gave Pac 5 rounds unanimously speaks volumes about the bad decision made by the 3 offical judges. You neglect to mention that in TWO other rounds, only 1 judge gave Bradley the round. That is STILL 4 out of 5 in favor of Pacquiao. Add those 2 rounds to the unanimous rounds, and you still have a clear victory in favor of Pacquiao.
Statistics always lend themselves to interpretation by way of convenience, but your claim that the 5 judges "justified" the official decision is unfounded.
You're of course entitled to your opinion (and your interpretation). The WBO, obviously, does not agree, and appears inclined to order a rematch.
the same rematch Bradley had already signed off on when he took the fight, the same rematch he had already promoted before getting the win, and the same rematch that until today Pacquiao was looking away from deciding to most likely fight MarquezQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoralesthat flips both ways, all I take from those "stats" is that 7 rounds were up for grabs and 5 judges still struggled with who to give them to flip flopping between both fighters meaning it could have just as easily gone to Bradley, 5 judges couldn't agree who took those 7 so it's far from impossible that 3 would do the same not too complicatedQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
I think you're twisting the meaning a little bit.
FACT: The more judges you have, the higher the probability that you will have at least one dissenting vote. Statistics.
The fact that 5 out of 5 judges gave Pac 5 rounds unanimously speaks volumes about the bad decision made by the 3 offical judges. You neglect to mention that in TWO other rounds, only 1 judge gave Bradley the round. That is STILL 4 out of 5 in favor of Pacquiao. Add those 2 rounds to the unanimous rounds, and you still have a clear victory in favor of Pacquiao.
Statistics always lend themselves to interpretation by way of convenience, but your claim that the 5 judges "justified" the official decision is unfounded.
You're of course entitled to your opinion (and your interpretation). The WBO, obviously, does not agree, and appears inclined to order a rematch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoralesthe same rematch Bradley had already signed off on when he took the fight, the same rematch he had already promoted before getting the win, and the same rematch that until today Pacquiao was looking away from deciding to most likely fight MarquezQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoralesthat flips both ways, all I take from those "stats" is that 7 rounds were up for grabs and 5 judges still struggled with who to give them to flip flopping between both fighters meaning it could have just as easily gone to Bradley, 5 judges couldn't agree who took those 7 so it's far from impossible that 3 would do the same not too complicatedQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
I think you're twisting the meaning a little bit.
FACT: The more judges you have, the higher the probability that you will have at least one dissenting vote. Statistics.
The fact that 5 out of 5 judges gave Pac 5 rounds unanimously speaks volumes about the bad decision made by the 3 offical judges. You neglect to mention that in TWO other rounds, only 1 judge gave Bradley the round. That is STILL 4 out of 5 in favor of Pacquiao. Add those 2 rounds to the unanimous rounds, and you still have a clear victory in favor of Pacquiao.
Statistics always lend themselves to interpretation by way of convenience, but your claim that the 5 judges "justified" the official decision is unfounded.
You're of course entitled to your opinion (and your interpretation). The WBO, obviously, does not agree, and appears inclined to order a rematch.
Are you now implying that Pac is somehow "scared" to rematch Bradley?? Because if you are, then I guess this conversation takes on a whole 'nother meaning.
stating only facts, Pacquiao was already opting out of the rematch to take on Marquez, wouldn't say he's scared of Bradley if he was willing to go try and fight the man who stomped his ass in Marquez, but Arum is already trying to hold up a Bradley/Pacquiao rematch saying that Pacquiao will fight in November regardless of who his opponent will be and that if it is Bradley that he wants a thorough investigation :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoralesthe same rematch Bradley had already signed off on when he took the fight, the same rematch he had already promoted before getting the win, and the same rematch that until today Pacquiao was looking away from deciding to most likely fight MarquezQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoralesthat flips both ways, all I take from those "stats" is that 7 rounds were up for grabs and 5 judges still struggled with who to give them to flip flopping between both fighters meaning it could have just as easily gone to Bradley, 5 judges couldn't agree who took those 7 so it's far from impossible that 3 would do the same not too complicatedQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
I think you're twisting the meaning a little bit.
FACT: The more judges you have, the higher the probability that you will have at least one dissenting vote. Statistics.
The fact that 5 out of 5 judges gave Pac 5 rounds unanimously speaks volumes about the bad decision made by the 3 offical judges. You neglect to mention that in TWO other rounds, only 1 judge gave Bradley the round. That is STILL 4 out of 5 in favor of Pacquiao. Add those 2 rounds to the unanimous rounds, and you still have a clear victory in favor of Pacquiao.
Statistics always lend themselves to interpretation by way of convenience, but your claim that the 5 judges "justified" the official decision is unfounded.
You're of course entitled to your opinion (and your interpretation). The WBO, obviously, does not agree, and appears inclined to order a rematch.
Are you now implying that Pac is somehow "scared" to rematch Bradley?? Because if you are, then I guess this conversation takes on a whole 'nother meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoralesstating only facts, Pacquiao was already opting out of the rematch to take on Marquez, wouldn't say he's scared of Bradley if he was willing to go try and fight the man who stomped his ass in Marquez, but Arum is already trying to hold up a Bradley/Pacquiao rematch saying that Pacquiao will fight in November regardless of who his opponent will be and that if it is Bradley that he wants a thorough investigation :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoralesthe same rematch Bradley had already signed off on when he took the fight, the same rematch he had already promoted before getting the win, and the same rematch that until today Pacquiao was looking away from deciding to most likely fight MarquezQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoralesthat flips both ways, all I take from those "stats" is that 7 rounds were up for grabs and 5 judges still struggled with who to give them to flip flopping between both fighters meaning it could have just as easily gone to Bradley, 5 judges couldn't agree who took those 7 so it's far from impossible that 3 would do the same not too complicatedQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
I think you're twisting the meaning a little bit.
FACT: The more judges you have, the higher the probability that you will have at least one dissenting vote. Statistics.
The fact that 5 out of 5 judges gave Pac 5 rounds unanimously speaks volumes about the bad decision made by the 3 offical judges. You neglect to mention that in TWO other rounds, only 1 judge gave Bradley the round. That is STILL 4 out of 5 in favor of Pacquiao. Add those 2 rounds to the unanimous rounds, and you still have a clear victory in favor of Pacquiao.
Statistics always lend themselves to interpretation by way of convenience, but your claim that the 5 judges "justified" the official decision is unfounded.
You're of course entitled to your opinion (and your interpretation). The WBO, obviously, does not agree, and appears inclined to order a rematch.
Are you now implying that Pac is somehow "scared" to rematch Bradley?? Because if you are, then I guess this conversation takes on a whole 'nother meaning.
None of this means much as far as who Pac would like to fight next. Thing here is.... I like Pac, I like Marquez..... and I like Bradley. So when I honestly say I think Pac got the raw end of the stick against Bradley, I got no hate coloring my judgement. And I'm backed up by 90% of all viewers in various forums, including the WBO. But it's becoming pretty obvious to me that Pac haters are a lot more subjective when it comes to Pac-Bradley. All they do is bring up Pac-Marquez, as if one bad decision deserved another.
find it hilarious that anyone who disagrees with the fight being a robbery is a "Pac Hater", see though the die hard Pacquiao fans can complain and moan (haven't mentioned you at all) all they want but although Pacquiao did deserve the win and got the short end his fans were the ones who tried to discredit his last opponent who had the same thing happen to him which well was Marquez, see the issue at hand is that there wasn't this uproar of bad decisions last time out from their side, they even tried to go so far and make Marquez out to be a cheater with their claims of a so called "foot stomping technique", I've said it over and over I had Pacquiao winning both times I've watched the fight (second time it was a lot closer than the first, 10-2 the night of the fight, 7-5 the second time), they're being targeted and ridiculed because again when it was their man on the good side of the deal they had no problems with bad scoring but now that Pacquiao got the shaft they're throwing up their arms saying boxing needs a makeover :-XQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoralesstating only facts, Pacquiao was already opting out of the rematch to take on Marquez, wouldn't say he's scared of Bradley if he was willing to go try and fight the man who stomped his ass in Marquez, but Arum is already trying to hold up a Bradley/Pacquiao rematch saying that Pacquiao will fight in November regardless of who his opponent will be and that if it is Bradley that he wants a thorough investigation :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoralesthe same rematch Bradley had already signed off on when he took the fight, the same rematch he had already promoted before getting the win, and the same rematch that until today Pacquiao was looking away from deciding to most likely fight MarquezQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMoralesthat flips both ways, all I take from those "stats" is that 7 rounds were up for grabs and 5 judges still struggled with who to give them to flip flopping between both fighters meaning it could have just as easily gone to Bradley, 5 judges couldn't agree who took those 7 so it's far from impossible that 3 would do the same not too complicatedQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales
I think you're twisting the meaning a little bit.
FACT: The more judges you have, the higher the probability that you will have at least one dissenting vote. Statistics.
The fact that 5 out of 5 judges gave Pac 5 rounds unanimously speaks volumes about the bad decision made by the 3 offical judges. You neglect to mention that in TWO other rounds, only 1 judge gave Bradley the round. That is STILL 4 out of 5 in favor of Pacquiao. Add those 2 rounds to the unanimous rounds, and you still have a clear victory in favor of Pacquiao.
Statistics always lend themselves to interpretation by way of convenience, but your claim that the 5 judges "justified" the official decision is unfounded.
You're of course entitled to your opinion (and your interpretation). The WBO, obviously, does not agree, and appears inclined to order a rematch.
Are you now implying that Pac is somehow "scared" to rematch Bradley?? Because if you are, then I guess this conversation takes on a whole 'nother meaning.
None of this means much as far as who Pac would like to fight next. Thing here is.... I like Pac, I like Marquez..... and I like Bradley. So when I honestly say I think Pac got the raw end of the stick against Bradley, I got no hate coloring my judgement. And I'm backed up by 90% of all viewers in various forums, including the WBO. But it's becoming pretty obvious to me that Pac haters are a lot more subjective when it comes to Pac-Bradley. All they do is bring up Pac-Marquez, as if one bad decision deserved another.