Printable View
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.
My immediate reaction was utter shock, disbelief and disgust (as per the main fight thread) but after literally an hour I decided look at the fight in a different way.
I thought Pacquiao won but I can easily see how you can score the fight to Bradley.
I mention in the article, Dan Rafael of ESPN tweeted after the 10th "It's all Manny, all the time through 10."
Even Roach told Pacquiao he lost that round, how anyone could score round 10 for Pac is beyond me.
Similarly though, how two of the three judges gave Bradley the fifth is beyond me;D
I just think the level of hysteria is completely over the top on this one - as I said, I thought Pacquiao won, but observers who scored it 119-111 and this kind of thing are flat out kidding themselves.
Hysteria, yeah that's a good word.
Good Def Leppard album - but I'm giving my age away there;D
Filofax. While were on the subject ;D
Just a plain old fax?
Well, I can agree with you that Pacquiao got either lazy, wanted to make it a better fight for the fans and that he can only blame himself for letting the fight get away. Yes, too believe the state of boxing would be better removing subject judging from boxing, but to give the fight to Bradley when he did even less to earn it is just wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greig
Are you saying you don't understand the hysteria...? Or that you're just confident in your score and don't... care? I feel there's a subtle difference.
(What is a filofax? I've heard that word, is that like the oldschool index card system thing in the library? Hmm....)
Hi Ecolibri,
Yes, I'm saying I can't understand the hysteria.
I think the boxing media are manipulating people into thinking this was a more one-sided fight than what it really was, starting with Jim Lampley and the HBO crew.
It's funny, but people I've spoken to who watched the fight in countries that took the international feed, the feed where Brian Kenny did the commentary, have nowhere near such a visceral response to the decision.
Dan Rafael of ESPN scored the bout 119-111 to Pacquiao. Now, the way I see it that is as far away from the actual result as the judges who scored it for Bradley were!!
He didn't even give Bradley round 10, which is flat-out ridiculous - proving my point that these guys, whose opinions carry a lot of weight, watch Pacquiao through rose-coloured glasses, seeing only the good things he does and not the good work of the other guy.
I scored the bout 115-113 for Pacquiao, I think he was unlucky not to win. But this was not, in my opinion, a robbery. He had the ascendancy in the middle rounds, and I thought Bradley was going to quit at a couple of points when he looked completely despondent in the corner.
Then Pacquiao eased off, took his foot off the pedal.
That's the way I see it - I saw the fight for Pacquaio, but it was a close fight, so much closer than the majority of the boxing press - ESPECIALLY the boxing press who are prevalent on social media, are making it out to be.
I saw the fight the way I saw it, and I'll continue to believe in my own skills of analysing a fight.
I was waiting the whole fight for Pacquiao to put his foot on the pedal, he just wasn't the same assertive, Pacman that we have seen these past 5-6 years. I had a feeling he was going to be in trouble getting a decision by mid fight. At no time after round 6 did he look like he was going to knock Bradley out and there were no real clear cut winning rounds. The rounds were close, but i did not see Manny Pacquiao take control of this fight, i always thought he was allowing Bradley far to much latitude and for some bizarre reason he would spring into action when he heard the 10 second clapper? I have no issue with the decision and i watched it again just now. Pacquiao had an off night, that's two off nights in a row.
He was given not out in his last fight against Marquez, but he's heading for three strikes and your out territory. He might just lose the rematch too.
I thought it was like watching Usain Bolt slow down at the 60 metre mark because he's so far ahead, but is still in complete control with no danger of losing.
The reason Pacquiao didnt look as good as has for a few years is because of the opponent. Bradley wasnt being weekened to make acatch weight, he wasnt years past his best or coming off any beatings. Pacquiao had a live opponent that made him work and was catching him, thats why he wouldnt open up!
I think Ortiz would beat Pacquiao too.
Its true.Quote:
Originally Posted by ross
Lets give credit to mosely, marquez and bradley for nulifying pacs output
Lets stop discrediting pacs skills by saying hes past it or hes out of his prime!
If pac was to fight a margarito type of fighter 4 times up until now we would not be saying this.
Pac is still very good and so is mayweather. They are not past it yet.
Interesting article. Surely if most of the rounds were that close then there's really no problem with giving most of them to Manny letting Bradley have 1 maybe two??
I watched the fight Sunday afternoon, I didn't score it but Manny appeared to land the most effective punches. Bradley did have some success but appeared to be on the receiving end in most exchanges. Manny was the harder hitter, he landed more also.
Bradleys footwork was good but so Pacs. Neither fighter looked outstanding and it wasn't the most exciting fight. Not in a rush to sit through it again to score it but to me Pac looked to have won a pretty uneventful fight. I was surprised by the decision but for some reason I wasn't disgusted even though I thought I should be perhaps just getting used to dodgy decisions.
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
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
How did you score Rounds 5 and 8 ?
Both for Pacquiao.
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greig
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.
In your blog you've used the words "edged" and "shaded" for Bradley winning rounds 2, 9, 10, 11 and 12.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greig
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_langQuote:
Originally Posted by Greig
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 GOATQuote:
Originally Posted by miron_langQuote:
Originally Posted by Greig
There is no logical explanation on how Bradley won those rounds.
Boxing is not maths bro. ;D
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterIn your blog you've used the words "edged" and "shaded" for Bradley winning rounds 2, 9, 10, 11 and 12.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greig
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.
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.