To those who think the decision was fair..........

[Fenster]

Came up on a site that I think provides a good analysis of the fight scores - judges and press row. I suggest you guys check it out. Quite a good read.

Pacquiao-Bradley: A second viewing with round by round judges cards, round by round press row cards and round by round compubox stats | Michael D. Sellers

I wouldnt pay any attention to press row scores. They arent qualified judges and have likely never even trained to be a judge, which would be a good idea so they could try and give their readers an educated view rather than just their biased opinion. Also, its pro boxing not amateur, so compubox punch stats means nothing. Did you realise that any other punch than a jab is counted as a power punch?

Are you taking the piss?

You're saying nobodies opinion counts unless they are a qualified judge?

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Came up on a site that I think provides a good analysis of the fight scores - judges and press row. I suggest you guys check it out. Quite a good read.

Pacquiao-Bradley: A second viewing with round by round judges cards, round by round press row cards and round by round compubox stats | Michael D. Sellers

that's pretty good, would be better if you could watch each questionable round, it still shows the writers bias because they are picking out what they think lands or doesn't land - Bradley was only showing shots with no power how the hell did Manuel Medina ever win a fight

[arcanum26]

Came up on a site that I think provides a good analysis of the fight scores - judges and press row. I suggest you guys check it out. Quite a good read.

Pacquiao-Bradley: A second viewing with round by round judges cards, round by round press row cards and round by round compubox stats | Michael D. Sellers

that's pretty good, would be better if you could watch each questionable round, it still shows the writers bias because they are picking out what they think lands or doesn't land - Bradley was only showing shots with no power how the hell did Manuel Medina ever win a fight

I don't see how they would be biased for a fighter when 94% of these people had it in favor of Manny (based on a poll I've seen). I would imagine that they're scoring the fight independently and without listening to outside influences. Don't see any reason why they would be biased for this fight alone as they've already shown they're more than willing and able to score a fight against Manny (see Marquez).

[uptoscratch]

To your first point, "stop and think," I would contend that anyone who is arguing that Bradley won or that it was a close fight that could have gone either way has already stopped and thought about the fight.

The folks in the media carrying on and toting around proverbial pitchforks, are the people who, in my opinion, have not stopped or thought. They're just echoing what they heard on the broadcast and from a few outspoken commentators.

Neither Compubox, nor Tim Bradley, nor Sportscenter, nor Roger Mayweather are perfectly objective or infallible sources of truth.

1. Compubox is a computer program that is operated by humans. It operates on a punch-by-punch basis, instead of a round-by-round basis, but that doesn't mean it's impervious to error. Humans still input the punches and they can be swayed by crowd noise and biases just as judges and commentators can.

2. Tim Bradley gave an honest answer and said he'd watch the fight to see how it went. That doesn't play into my opinion of the bout any more than the 1000s of boxers who all say they thought they won. I'm sure if Bradley knew that the media would hold his answer against him to further discredit his win he would've given the standard boilerplate response of "Of course I thought I won the fight."

3. Sportscenter anchors know as much about boxing as they do about nuclear physics. If I want an opinion on what hair gel to use, I'd listen to them carefully and respectfully. I'll determine my boxing opinions without their input.

4. Roger Mayweather has a huge financial interest in 1) preserving Pacquiao's drawing power for a fight with his nephew; and 2) in making sure that high-status, high profile fighters like Pacquiao -- and his nephew -- get the benefit of doubt from the judges in future contests even if it's not clear they were the better man in the ring.

I scored the fight a draw myself. If pressed to favor one man over the other, I would've favored Pacquiao after my first watch. But the more I read from disgruntled fans telling me I need to watch the fight over again, the more I am impressed by what Bradley was able to do.

[arcanum26]

To your first point, "stop and think," I would contend that anyone who is arguing that Bradley won or that it was a close fight that could have gone either way has already stopped and thought about the fight.

The folks in the media carrying on and toting around proverbial pitchforks, are the people who, in my opinion, have not stopped or thought. They're just echoing what they heard on the broadcast and from a few outspoken commentators.

Neither Compubox, nor Tim Bradley, nor Sportscenter, nor Roger Mayweather are perfectly objective or infallible sources of truth.

1. Compubox is a computer program that is operated by humans. It operates on a punch-by-punch basis, instead of a round-by-round basis, but that doesn't mean it's impervious to error. Humans still input the punches and they can be swayed by crowd noise and biases just as judges and commentators can.

2. Tim Bradley gave an honest answer and said he'd watch the fight to see how it went. That doesn't play into my opinion of the bout any more than the 1000s of boxers who all say they thought they won. I'm sure if Bradley knew that the media would hold his answer against him to further discredit his win he would've given the standard boilerplate response of "Of course I thought I won the fight."

3. Sportscenter anchors know as much about boxing as they do about nuclear physics. If I want an opinion on what hair gel to use, I'd listen to them carefully and respectfully. I'll determine my boxing opinions without their input.

4. Roger Mayweather has a huge financial interest in 1) preserving Pacquiao's drawing power for a fight with his nephew; and 2) in making sure that high-status, high profile fighters like Pacquiao -- and his nephew -- get the benefit of doubt from the judges in future contests even if it's not clear they were the better man in the ring.

I scored the fight a draw myself. If pressed to favor one man over the other, I would've favored Pacquiao after my first watch. But the more I read from disgruntled fans telling me I need to watch the fight over again, the more I am impressed by what Bradley was able to do.

Good post overall. However, I disagree with your assessment about Compubox for this fight. I'm perfectly aware that Compubox is not an exact science and can't be used to gauge an entire fight based on the total punches landed/thrown. But it also shows punches landed on a per round basis.

That being said, even if Compubox made an error in their tally - say give or take 20 punches for each fighter, it still stands that Pac clearly out landed Tim by a wide margin. In terms of power punches alone, Compubox had Manny out pointing Tim by almost 2 to 1. Not even close. I would agree with your assessment if the figures were closer but the margin on this fight seems to be definitive in Pac's favor.

[TitoFan]

To your first point, "stop and think," I would contend that anyone who is arguing that Bradley won or that it was a close fight that could have gone either way has already stopped and thought about the fight.

The folks in the media carrying on and toting around proverbial pitchforks, are the people who, in my opinion, have not stopped or thought. They're just echoing what they heard on the broadcast and from a few outspoken commentators.

Neither Compubox, nor Tim Bradley, nor Sportscenter, nor Roger Mayweather are perfectly objective or infallible sources of truth.

1. Compubox is a computer program that is operated by humans. It operates on a punch-by-punch basis, instead of a round-by-round basis, but that doesn't mean it's impervious to error. Humans still input the punches and they can be swayed by crowd noise and biases just as judges and commentators can.

(It is still the most objective tool available at the moment and, until some other revolutionary method comes along, it's all we've got, other than the observation and judgement of judges, some of whom could benefit from continuing education in the technique of judging prizefights. And yes.... it's based on a punch-by-punch basis, but these can be easily tabulated per round, rather than just over the entire fight, as was incorrectly stated by another poster).

2. Tim Bradley gave an honest answer and said he'd watch the fight to see how it went. That doesn't play into my opinion of the bout any more than the 1000s of boxers who all say they thought they won. I'm sure if Bradley knew that the media would hold his answer against him to further discredit his win he would've given the standard boilerplate response of "Of course I thought I won the fight."

(Bradley reportedly commented immediately after the fight that "he couldn't beat this guy" or something to that effect. The amount of weight anyone wants to put on a statement like that is strictly personal. I feel it carries a lot of weight).

3. Sportscenter anchors know as much about boxing as they do about nuclear physics. If I want an opinion on what hair gel to use, I'd listen to them carefully and respectfully. I'll determine my boxing opinions without their input.

(If was just SportsCenter complaining about the results, you'd have a stronger point. My point is to show the vast number of similar reactions to the same boxing decision).

4. Roger Mayweather has a huge financial interest in 1) preserving Pacquiao's drawing power for a fight with his nephew; and 2) in making sure that high-status, high profile fighters like Pacquiao -- and his nephew -- get the benefit of doubt from the judges in future contests even if it's not clear they were the better man in the ring.

(Yeah ok... I won't defend Roger Mayweather too much. He clearly is not a disinterested party).

I scored the fight a draw myself. If pressed to favor one man over the other, I would've favored Pacquiao after my first watch. But the more I read from disgruntled fans telling me I need to watch the fight over again, the more I am impressed by what Bradley was able to do.

(This statement gives away a little of subjectiveness on your part. If you're being swayed over the comments of others, then you've ceased to objectively judge the fight on its own merits).

See above.

[ross]

Compubox is bullshit.

It counts anything that isnt a jab as a powerpunch. I bet every shitty little pitty pat punch is counted by those morons that fuck around with it. Do they ever even show who operates the system and show their credentials?

Seeing as there is such massive controversy maybe the same people should be filmed, rewatching the tape in slightly slower motion and press these magic compubox buttons. Until that happens I wont believe anything as Arum is involved

Iv said it elsewhere in this forum but ill say it again, the
Ast round looked like Calzaghe v Lacy

[TitoFan]

Compubox is bullshit.

It counts anything that isnt a jab as a powerpunch. I bet every shitty little pitty pat punch is counted by those morons that fuck around with it. Do they ever even show who operates the system and show their credentials?

Seeing as there is such massive controversy maybe the same people should be filmed, rewatching the tape in slightly slower motion and press these magic compubox buttons. Until that happens I wont believe anything as Arum is involved

Iv said it elsewhere in this forum but ill say it again, the
Ast round looked like Calzaghe v Lacy

Ah yes....

In a perfect world, the system would have buttons for: jabs, hooks, uppercuts, crosses, and even low blows. But until we can find a superhuman individual who has 10 fingers in each of his 3 arms.... and can operate the system at the speed at which the fight occurs in real time..... we'll just have to settle for the "shitty" system we have.

[uptoscratch]

(This statement gives away a little of subjectiveness on your part. If you're being swayed over the comments of others, then you've ceased to objectively judge the fight on its own merits).

To clarify, it's not what I'm hearing from other fans that is changing my opinion, it's my subsequent viewing of the fight and specific rounds within the fight that is changing my opinion.

For example, that "second-viewing" scorecard that was posted above, said that Round 5 was "a smoking gun round." I was intrigued by that statement so I went back and watched round 5 very carefully, at half-speed and at points in 1/4 speed, in HD.

If you do the same, you will see that Pacquiao does not land a punch for the first 2:24 of that round. He throws a left hand around 1:53 (not 1:47 as that site states) and Jim Lampley says "Boom, another left hand." But Bradley actually slips the punch completely.

During that first 2½ minutes, while Pacquiao is reportedly "stalking" Bradley (translation: walking around doing nothing) Bradley is repeatedly touching his jab to Pacquiao's face. Most of the time it's caught on the gloves, but it connects at least a half-dozen times, sometimes stiffly. Definitely more than the Compubox figure of 2, which is clearly wrong.

Around the :50 mark, Pacquiao jumps in, misses a bunch of wild shots, and Lampley says, "More trading" even through nothing actually lands. Bradley then purposefully re-establishes his position from where he has been peppering Pacquiao with his jab all round, and Lampley says "more retreating." His commentary is just ignorant of what's actually happening.

At :36 (not :34), Pacquiao stuns Bradley with an lefty uppercut from an awkward angle. Lampley and Steward comment on Pacquiao's "power," but clearly Bradley was caught off balance because he didn't see the punch coming. Pacquiao tried to take advantage, but Bradley recovers quickly and all of Pacquiao's follow-up punches miss or are deflected.

After that they exchange some ineffective combinations, with Pacquiao landing a couple slap-punches to the head and Bradley getting some partly-deflected body shots.

On my initial watch, I gave the round to Pacquiao, because of that left hand, which was the single most impactful punch of the round. But on re-watching, I would've scored it for Bradley, because that punch didn't actually hurt him, and Bradley did much more to score points and control the action for the other 2:59 of the round.

So instead of it being a "smoking gun" for the conspiracy theorists, I saw the round as further supporting the judge's scoring.

[ruthless rocco]

(This statement gives away a little of subjectiveness on your part. If you're being swayed over the comments of others, then you've ceased to objectively judge the fight on its own merits).

To clarify, it's not what I'm hearing from other fans that is changing my opinion, it's my subsequent viewing of the fight and specific rounds within the fight that is changing my opinion.

For example, that "second-viewing" scorecard that was posted above, said that Round 5 was "a smoking gun round." I was intrigued by that statement so I went back and watched round 5 very carefully, at half-speed and at points in 1/4 speed, in HD.

If you do the same, you will see that Pacquiao does not land a punch for the first 2:24 of that round. He throws a left hand around 1:53 (not 1:47 as that site states) and Jim Lampley says "Boom, another left hand." But Bradley actually slips the punch completely.

During that first 2½ minutes, while Pacquiao is reportedly "stalking" Bradley (translation: walking around doing nothing) Bradley is repeatedly touching his jab to Pacquiao's face. Most of the time it's caught on the gloves, but it connects at least a half-dozen times, sometimes stiffly. Definitely more than the Compubox figure of 2, which is clearly wrong.

Around the :50 mark, Pacquiao jumps in, misses a bunch of wild shots, and Lampley says, "More trading" even through nothing actually lands. Bradley then purposefully re-establishes his position from where he has been peppering Pacquiao with his jab all round, and Lampley says "more retreating." His commentary is just ignorant of what's actually happening.

At :36 (not :34), Pacquiao stuns Bradley with an lefty uppercut from an awkward angle. Lampley and Steward comment on Pacquiao's "power," but clearly Bradley was caught off balance because he didn't see the punch coming. Pacquiao tried to take advantage, but Bradley recovers quickly and all of Pacquiao's follow-up punches miss or are deflected.

After that they exchange some ineffective combinations, with Pacquiao landing a couple slap-punches to the head and Bradley getting some partly-deflected body shots.

On my initial watch, I gave the round to Pacquiao, because of that left hand, which was the single most impactful punch of the round. But on re-watching, I would've scored it for Bradley, because that punch didn't actually hurt him, and Bradley did much more to score points and control the action for the other 2:59 of the round.

So instead of it being a "smoking gun" for the conspiracy theorists, I saw the round as further supporting the judge's scoring.

i think you need to rewatch that round.
pac landed at least 6 solid shots where as bradley landed weak jabs and a body shot.