Pacquiao/Bradley - a counterpoint

[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.