The WBO review cards by 5 Int judges are in.

[J_C]

Very interesting to see the round-by-round.

Round 5 is the only round that the official judges gave to Bradley that none of the WBO scores gave to him. Not sure this really validates Pacquiao. I thought Pacquiao won 8-4, but the fact that you can piece together a 7-5 Bradley scorecard from among the WBO reviewers seems to weigh against the robbery/corruption claim quite a bit.

I agree with this.

Although it shows Pac was certainly unlucky not to get the nod, it doesnt show that Pac won wide and shit like a lot say. 5 pro judges managed to score 7 seperate rounds for Bradley. Therefore, not a robbery.

[IamInuit]

Gentleman 1 judge had it 7-5

The others were

8-4
9-3
10-2
9-3

[Violent Demise]

I think this vid pretty much explains it all

[Majesty]

I think this vid pretty much explains it all

Bradley actually linked that video on his twitter today

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

I think this vid pretty much explains it all

Bradley actually linked that video on his twitter today

This video is excellent! I mean I don't necessarily blame HBO, I even thought a lot of those left hands were landing.

Might have to score the fight again again

[Leighton]

I think this vid pretty much explains it all

Bradley actually linked that video on his twitter today

This video is excellent! I mean I don't necessarily blame HBO, I even thought a lot of those left hands were landing.

Might have to score the fight again again

agreed. I find this video really interesting. The commentators clearly say alot of the Pac shots are landing and if it wasnt slowed down I would have probably given alot of them to him myself.
The problem with this video is that it is bias against Pac.
I would like to see someone try and show some punches that counted for Bradley in the commentators eyes that didnt land.
I must admit. I have been swayed at times by the commentators in other fights when I though the opposite.
Could more people comment on this clip and post a clip showing the other side of the story if they can find one.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

I think this vid pretty much explains it all

Bradley actually linked that video on his twitter today

This video is excellent! I mean I don't necessarily blame HBO, I even thought a lot of those left hands were landing.

Might have to score the fight again again

agreed. I find this video really interesting. The commentators clearly say alot of the Pac shots are landing and if it wasnt slowed down I would have probably given alot of them to him myself.
The problem with this video is that it is bias against Pac.
I would like to see someone try and show some punches that counted for Bradley in the commentators eyes that didnt land.
I must admit. I have been swayed at times by the commentators in other fights when I though the opposite.
Could more people comment on this clip and post a clip showing the other side of the story if they can find one.

Yes you are right this video is pretty biased in that it is all for Bradley... Plus the video title is just stupid. (Is it really that hard to avoid silly terms like pactard and nut hugger?) But anyway its a shame because if it was presented from a slightly more impartial perspective then maybe the pro pac man fans would actually have something to say about this video.
Otherherwise I really do think this is a truly excellent video.

[fan johnny]

It still doesn't change anything expect that Bradley can now be stripped of the belt.

[ElTerribleMorales]

so even with the 5 different judges they only agreed that 5 of the 12 rounds were clearly Pacquiao's?! if anything they justified the decision rather than discredited it

[InTheNeutralCorner]

so even with the 5 different judges they only agreed that 5 of the 12 rounds were clearly Pacquiao's?! if anything they justified the decision rather than discredited it

Also out of curiosity, what is now your take on the Pacquiao-Marquez III fight?

I recall that your round by round score for that fight also did not agree with the rest who claim that fight is a robbery yet you still insisted that is a robbery. Did it change now?

[ElTerribleMorales]

so even with the 5 different judges they only agreed that 5 of the 12 rounds were clearly Pacquiao's?! if anything they justified the decision rather than discredited it

Also out of curiosity, what is now your take on the Pacquiao-Marquez III fight?

I recall that your round by round score for that fight also did not agree with the rest who claim that fight is a robbery yet you still insisted that is a robbery. Did it change now?

I still have Marquez winning all 3 fights, the 3rd one the clearest of them all, I had Pacquiao beating Bradley as well just in case you're trying to kick up dust

[fan johnny]

so even with the 5 different judges they only agreed that 5 of the 12 rounds were clearly Pacquiao's?! if anything they justified the decision rather than discredited it

That'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.

[ElTerribleMorales]

so even with the 5 different judges they only agreed that 5 of the 12 rounds were clearly Pacquiao's?! if anything they justified the decision rather than discredited it

That'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.

you say this now but it's the same argument that was used to justify Marquez/Pacquiao III in Manny's favor

[fan johnny]

so even with the 5 different judges they only agreed that 5 of the 12 rounds were clearly Pacquiao's?! if anything they justified the decision rather than discredited it

That'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.

you say this now but it's the same argument that was used to justify Marquez/Pacquiao III in Manny's favor

Huh? 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"

[InTheNeutralCorner]

so even with the 5 different judges they only agreed that 5 of the 12 rounds were clearly Pacquiao's?! if anything they justified the decision rather than discredited it

That'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.

you say this now but it's the same argument that was used to justify Marquez/Pacquiao III in Manny's favor

Does this mean that you now agree that the judges could have been justified in scoring 2 of those fights for Pacquiao against Marquez?