Pacquiao/Bradley - a counterpoint

[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.

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.

[miron_lang]

"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.

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 ?

[Greig]

Both for Pacquiao.

[miron_lang]

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.

[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.

[Fenster]

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.

[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.

[GOAT]

Both for Pacquiao.

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

Boxing is not maths bro.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

Both for Pacquiao.

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

Boxing is not maths bro.

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