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.

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.

[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

[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 fighter. 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"

You can't compare Marquez shameful robbery loss to John to Bradley-Pacquiao. Pacquiao didn't have numerous bullshit points deducted against him like Marquez had against John.

You missed the point completely. The comparison is not about an "opinion" of who won the fight. That was just a simple statement of historical fact. It has noting to do with my opinion. Marquez lost to John just as Pacquiao lost to Bradley.

The point was neither fighter did enough to secure the win as a result left the fight up to a subject perspective. Both Pacquiao and Marquez got complacent and that is what ultimately lead to their loss. i.e they both thought they did enough to get the win. Pacquiao started coasting whether it was to give the fans a show, he got lazy, or thought he was ahead. It was in fact too little an effort to get two of the judges votes.

[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.

[GOAT]

Crooked compu-box, corrupted judges, faked review-cards, counting phantom-punches,......

What's next

[InTheNeutralCorner]

Does anyone know which version of the fight these international judges watched and was it with volumes on?

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

Insightful!!

Maybe Duane Ford hates Jim Lampley and was sitting right next to him thinking "straight left from Pacquiao huh? We'll see about that"!

[Master]

I think the volume was turned off and this is a complete waste of time. The decision cannot be over turned now, all it does is embarrass the judges even further and just serves no interest. There have been worse decisions and no where near the same fuss is made as they have for this fight.

[shza]

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.

This is the same argument presented by miron_lang with regards to the Pacquiao-Marquez III fight. But instead of the 5 international judges, he used the round by round scoring of a number of Pachaters who insisted that the fight is a robbery.

Just out of curiosity, what is the take of the you two with regards to that Pacquiao-Marquez III fight?

I scored Pac-Marquez III 115-113 for Pac. I posted my RBR at the time, noting rounds that I could see going either way. i said at the time that you could legitimately score that fight as wide as 116-112 either way -- therefore not a robbery. Even less so than this one.

So I am being consistent here.

[Enthusiast]

7-5? I thought it's Pacquiao winning 9 rounds in the WBO review?

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.

[shza]

7-5? I thought it's Pacquiao winning 9 rounds in the WBO review?

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.

re-read my post

[IamInuit]

43 rds to 18 on 5 judges score cards.

That’s pretty much a shit kicking.

Any questions?

[arcanum26]

I think the volume was turned off and this is a complete waste of time. The decision cannot be over turned now, all it does is embarrass the judges even further and just serves no interest. There have been worse decisions and no where near the same fuss is made as they have for this fight.

Don't think it's a complete waste of time if the unintended side effect would be to humiliate the judges whose incompetence leads to outright robberies. Hey, who knows, maybe it'll lead to these 80 yr olds retiring and passing the torch to more capable judges. I know, embarrassing them is wrong if the only reason for their error in judgement (according to the majority of those who watched the bout) is ineptness but enough is enough. Shame them if need be, it's not like they didn't deserve it. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but how can Ford even think Tim was "schooling" Pac in that fight, it beggars belief.