The WBO review cards by 5 Int judges are in.

[TitoFan]

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

I think you're twisting the meaning a little bit.

FACT: The more judges you have, the higher the probability that you will have at least one dissenting vote. Statistics.

The fact that 5 out of 5 judges gave Pac 5 rounds unanimously speaks volumes about the bad decision made by the 3 offical judges. You neglect to mention that in TWO other rounds, only 1 judge gave Bradley the round. That is STILL 4 out of 5 in favor of Pacquiao. Add those 2 rounds to the unanimous rounds, and you still have a clear victory in favor of Pacquiao.

Statistics always lend themselves to interpretation by way of convenience, but your claim that the 5 judges "justified" the official decision is unfounded.

that flips both ways, all I take from those "stats" is that 7 rounds were up for grabs and 5 judges still struggled with who to give them to flip flopping between both fighters meaning it could have just as easily gone to Bradley, 5 judges couldn't agree who took those 7 so it's far from impossible that 3 would do the same not too complicated

You're of course entitled to your opinion (and your interpretation). The WBO, obviously, does not agree, and appears inclined to order a rematch.

[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

I think you're twisting the meaning a little bit.

FACT: The more judges you have, the higher the probability that you will have at least one dissenting vote. Statistics.

The fact that 5 out of 5 judges gave Pac 5 rounds unanimously speaks volumes about the bad decision made by the 3 offical judges. You neglect to mention that in TWO other rounds, only 1 judge gave Bradley the round. That is STILL 4 out of 5 in favor of Pacquiao. Add those 2 rounds to the unanimous rounds, and you still have a clear victory in favor of Pacquiao.

Statistics always lend themselves to interpretation by way of convenience, but your claim that the 5 judges "justified" the official decision is unfounded.

that flips both ways, all I take from those "stats" is that 7 rounds were up for grabs and 5 judges still struggled with who to give them to flip flopping between both fighters meaning it could have just as easily gone to Bradley, 5 judges couldn't agree who took those 7 so it's far from impossible that 3 would do the same not too complicated

You're of course entitled to your opinion (and your interpretation). The WBO, obviously, does not agree, and appears inclined to order a rematch.

the same rematch Bradley had already signed off on when he took the fight, the same rematch he had already promoted before getting the win, and the same rematch that until today Pacquiao was looking away from deciding to most likely fight Marquez

[TitoFan]

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

I think you're twisting the meaning a little bit.

FACT: The more judges you have, the higher the probability that you will have at least one dissenting vote. Statistics.

The fact that 5 out of 5 judges gave Pac 5 rounds unanimously speaks volumes about the bad decision made by the 3 offical judges. You neglect to mention that in TWO other rounds, only 1 judge gave Bradley the round. That is STILL 4 out of 5 in favor of Pacquiao. Add those 2 rounds to the unanimous rounds, and you still have a clear victory in favor of Pacquiao.

Statistics always lend themselves to interpretation by way of convenience, but your claim that the 5 judges "justified" the official decision is unfounded.

that flips both ways, all I take from those "stats" is that 7 rounds were up for grabs and 5 judges still struggled with who to give them to flip flopping between both fighters meaning it could have just as easily gone to Bradley, 5 judges couldn't agree who took those 7 so it's far from impossible that 3 would do the same not too complicated

You're of course entitled to your opinion (and your interpretation). The WBO, obviously, does not agree, and appears inclined to order a rematch.

the same rematch Bradley had already signed off on when he took the fight, the same rematch he had already promoted before getting the win, and the same rematch that until today Pacquiao was looking away from deciding to most likely fight Marquez

Are you now implying that Pac is somehow "scared" to rematch Bradley?? Because if you are, then I guess this conversation takes on a whole 'nother meaning.

[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

I think you're twisting the meaning a little bit.

FACT: The more judges you have, the higher the probability that you will have at least one dissenting vote. Statistics.

The fact that 5 out of 5 judges gave Pac 5 rounds unanimously speaks volumes about the bad decision made by the 3 offical judges. You neglect to mention that in TWO other rounds, only 1 judge gave Bradley the round. That is STILL 4 out of 5 in favor of Pacquiao. Add those 2 rounds to the unanimous rounds, and you still have a clear victory in favor of Pacquiao.

Statistics always lend themselves to interpretation by way of convenience, but your claim that the 5 judges "justified" the official decision is unfounded.

that flips both ways, all I take from those "stats" is that 7 rounds were up for grabs and 5 judges still struggled with who to give them to flip flopping between both fighters meaning it could have just as easily gone to Bradley, 5 judges couldn't agree who took those 7 so it's far from impossible that 3 would do the same not too complicated

You're of course entitled to your opinion (and your interpretation). The WBO, obviously, does not agree, and appears inclined to order a rematch.

the same rematch Bradley had already signed off on when he took the fight, the same rematch he had already promoted before getting the win, and the same rematch that until today Pacquiao was looking away from deciding to most likely fight Marquez

Are you now implying that Pac is somehow "scared" to rematch Bradley?? Because if you are, then I guess this conversation takes on a whole 'nother meaning.

stating only facts, Pacquiao was already opting out of the rematch to take on Marquez, wouldn't say he's scared of Bradley if he was willing to go try and fight the man who stomped his ass in Marquez, but Arum is already trying to hold up a Bradley/Pacquiao rematch saying that Pacquiao will fight in November regardless of who his opponent will be and that if it is Bradley that he wants a thorough investigation

[TitoFan]

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

I think you're twisting the meaning a little bit.

FACT: The more judges you have, the higher the probability that you will have at least one dissenting vote. Statistics.

The fact that 5 out of 5 judges gave Pac 5 rounds unanimously speaks volumes about the bad decision made by the 3 offical judges. You neglect to mention that in TWO other rounds, only 1 judge gave Bradley the round. That is STILL 4 out of 5 in favor of Pacquiao. Add those 2 rounds to the unanimous rounds, and you still have a clear victory in favor of Pacquiao.

Statistics always lend themselves to interpretation by way of convenience, but your claim that the 5 judges "justified" the official decision is unfounded.

that flips both ways, all I take from those "stats" is that 7 rounds were up for grabs and 5 judges still struggled with who to give them to flip flopping between both fighters meaning it could have just as easily gone to Bradley, 5 judges couldn't agree who took those 7 so it's far from impossible that 3 would do the same not too complicated

You're of course entitled to your opinion (and your interpretation). The WBO, obviously, does not agree, and appears inclined to order a rematch.

the same rematch Bradley had already signed off on when he took the fight, the same rematch he had already promoted before getting the win, and the same rematch that until today Pacquiao was looking away from deciding to most likely fight Marquez

Are you now implying that Pac is somehow "scared" to rematch Bradley?? Because if you are, then I guess this conversation takes on a whole 'nother meaning.

stating only facts, Pacquiao was already opting out of the rematch to take on Marquez, wouldn't say he's scared of Bradley if he was willing to go try and fight the man who stomped his ass in Marquez, but Arum is already trying to hold up a Bradley/Pacquiao rematch saying that Pacquiao will fight in November regardless of who his opponent will be and that if it is Bradley that he wants a thorough investigation

None of this means much as far as who Pac would like to fight next. Thing here is.... I like Pac, I like Marquez..... and I like Bradley. So when I honestly say I think Pac got the raw end of the stick against Bradley, I got no hate coloring my judgement. And I'm backed up by 90% of all viewers in various forums, including the WBO. But it's becoming pretty obvious to me that Pac haters are a lot more subjective when it comes to Pac-Bradley. All they do is bring up Pac-Marquez, as if one bad decision deserved another.

[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

I think you're twisting the meaning a little bit.

FACT: The more judges you have, the higher the probability that you will have at least one dissenting vote. Statistics.

The fact that 5 out of 5 judges gave Pac 5 rounds unanimously speaks volumes about the bad decision made by the 3 offical judges. You neglect to mention that in TWO other rounds, only 1 judge gave Bradley the round. That is STILL 4 out of 5 in favor of Pacquiao. Add those 2 rounds to the unanimous rounds, and you still have a clear victory in favor of Pacquiao.

Statistics always lend themselves to interpretation by way of convenience, but your claim that the 5 judges "justified" the official decision is unfounded.

that flips both ways, all I take from those "stats" is that 7 rounds were up for grabs and 5 judges still struggled with who to give them to flip flopping between both fighters meaning it could have just as easily gone to Bradley, 5 judges couldn't agree who took those 7 so it's far from impossible that 3 would do the same not too complicated

You're of course entitled to your opinion (and your interpretation). The WBO, obviously, does not agree, and appears inclined to order a rematch.

the same rematch Bradley had already signed off on when he took the fight, the same rematch he had already promoted before getting the win, and the same rematch that until today Pacquiao was looking away from deciding to most likely fight Marquez

Are you now implying that Pac is somehow "scared" to rematch Bradley?? Because if you are, then I guess this conversation takes on a whole 'nother meaning.

stating only facts, Pacquiao was already opting out of the rematch to take on Marquez, wouldn't say he's scared of Bradley if he was willing to go try and fight the man who stomped his ass in Marquez, but Arum is already trying to hold up a Bradley/Pacquiao rematch saying that Pacquiao will fight in November regardless of who his opponent will be and that if it is Bradley that he wants a thorough investigation

None of this means much as far as who Pac would like to fight next. Thing here is.... I like Pac, I like Marquez..... and I like Bradley. So when I honestly say I think Pac got the raw end of the stick against Bradley, I got no hate coloring my judgement. And I'm backed up by 90% of all viewers in various forums, including the WBO. But it's becoming pretty obvious to me that Pac haters are a lot more subjective when it comes to Pac-Bradley. All they do is bring up Pac-Marquez, as if one bad decision deserved another.

find it hilarious that anyone who disagrees with the fight being a robbery is a "Pac Hater", see though the die hard Pacquiao fans can complain and moan (haven't mentioned you at all) all they want but although Pacquiao did deserve the win and got the short end his fans were the ones who tried to discredit his last opponent who had the same thing happen to him which well was Marquez, see the issue at hand is that there wasn't this uproar of bad decisions last time out from their side, they even tried to go so far and make Marquez out to be a cheater with their claims of a so called "foot stomping technique", I've said it over and over I had Pacquiao winning both times I've watched the fight (second time it was a lot closer than the first, 10-2 the night of the fight, 7-5 the second time), they're being targeted and ridiculed because again when it was their man on the good side of the deal they had no problems with bad scoring but now that Pacquiao got the shaft they're throwing up their arms saying boxing needs a makeover

[TitoFan]

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

I think you're twisting the meaning a little bit.

FACT: The more judges you have, the higher the probability that you will have at least one dissenting vote. Statistics.

The fact that 5 out of 5 judges gave Pac 5 rounds unanimously speaks volumes about the bad decision made by the 3 offical judges. You neglect to mention that in TWO other rounds, only 1 judge gave Bradley the round. That is STILL 4 out of 5 in favor of Pacquiao. Add those 2 rounds to the unanimous rounds, and you still have a clear victory in favor of Pacquiao.

Statistics always lend themselves to interpretation by way of convenience, but your claim that the 5 judges "justified" the official decision is unfounded.

that flips both ways, all I take from those "stats" is that 7 rounds were up for grabs and 5 judges still struggled with who to give them to flip flopping between both fighters meaning it could have just as easily gone to Bradley, 5 judges couldn't agree who took those 7 so it's far from impossible that 3 would do the same not too complicated

You're of course entitled to your opinion (and your interpretation). The WBO, obviously, does not agree, and appears inclined to order a rematch.

the same rematch Bradley had already signed off on when he took the fight, the same rematch he had already promoted before getting the win, and the same rematch that until today Pacquiao was looking away from deciding to most likely fight Marquez

Are you now implying that Pac is somehow "scared" to rematch Bradley?? Because if you are, then I guess this conversation takes on a whole 'nother meaning.

stating only facts, Pacquiao was already opting out of the rematch to take on Marquez, wouldn't say he's scared of Bradley if he was willing to go try and fight the man who stomped his ass in Marquez, but Arum is already trying to hold up a Bradley/Pacquiao rematch saying that Pacquiao will fight in November regardless of who his opponent will be and that if it is Bradley that he wants a thorough investigation

None of this means much as far as who Pac would like to fight next. Thing here is.... I like Pac, I like Marquez..... and I like Bradley. So when I honestly say I think Pac got the raw end of the stick against Bradley, I got no hate coloring my judgement. And I'm backed up by 90% of all viewers in various forums, including the WBO. But it's becoming pretty obvious to me that Pac haters are a lot more subjective when it comes to Pac-Bradley. All they do is bring up Pac-Marquez, as if one bad decision deserved another.

find it hilarious that anyone who disagrees with the fight being a robbery is a "Pac Hater", see though the die hard Pacquiao fans can complain and moan (haven't mentioned you at all) all they want but although Pacquiao did deserve the win and got the short end his fans were the ones who tried to discredit his last opponent who had the same thing happen to him which well was Marquez, see the issue at hand is that there wasn't this uproar of bad decisions last time out from their side, they even tried to go so far and make Marquez out to be a cheater with their claims of a so called "foot stomping technique", I've said it over and over I had Pacquiao winning both times I've watched the fight (second time it was a lot closer than the first, 10-2 the night of the fight, 7-5 the second time), they're being targeted and ridiculed because again when it was their man on the good side of the deal they had no problems with bad scoring but now that Pacquiao got the shaft they're throwing up their arms saying boxing needs a makeover

For the record, Terrible, I've stated over and over again that my main reason for complaining is that we've gotten a bunch of bad decisions in a relative short period of time. Look bad through my posts, and you'll see that I was completely disgusted and complained loudly about the recent Abril-Rios robbery. But you know the saying..... "the straw that broke the camel's back". I'm just tired of bad judging. My bad for picking the Pacquiao-Bradley fight to finally snap. It could've been anybody. Honest.

But I stand by what I said about my perspective. I don't dislike any of the fighters involved. Now..... had Margarito been the beneficiary of a nebulous decision... that would've been a different story. No objectivity there.