The WBO review cards by 5 Int judges are in.

[IamInuit]

[Abelardus]

I guess that about explains it

[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.

[jon09]

And they mean what to this? The decision stands and it will stay that way. I do hear John McCain is working on something to clean up the sport and decisions like this in the future. But I have heard and read stuff like this before.

[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

[fan johnny]

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

[InTheNeutralCorner]

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?

[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"