Pacquiao vs. Bradley....Who ya got?

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

I knew Bradley would dog this pretender

That ain't what happened, the utterly absurd opinion of two judges aside.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

How about they publically have their score shown after the first 5 or 6 rounds. Then they have to put their scores in to a 3rd party system so they can't change it later like what happened about 10 years or so ago in NY/NJ. Those two judges were everyday people that didnt know sheat about boxing. THe even saw the eraser marks of a round changed to have the outcome come to their "fixed liking". Problem was that round changed score of 8-10 was actually a knockdown by the other opponent...OOps, should at least know what round you are going to change after the bout. Boxing = fraud.

The WBC - one of the governing bodies - actually has a system they use in foreign countries where the official scores are read aloud after the 8th round. It's a bad idea, though. In a lot of these fights, one fighter will learn he's ahead and just dance around for the last four rounds, knowing he's got the fight in the bag. It's better for action in the ring that the fighters not know the scores, IMHO.

[El Minion]

Originally Posted by Jason in LA

I can see the point about not putting too much stock in compubox numbers. It doesn't always say who won the fight, but I think it is a measuring tool... but not for the judges. For the judges it is not a factor because they don't see the numbers, which is why it can't be totally relied on to tell the story of the fight.

Even by tossing out the compubox numbers, from what I read about the scores from press row, who I assume do not see the compubox numbers as they are filling in their scorecard, or hear the television commentators, they all had Manny winning the fight easy. From the range of 9-3 to 11-1. When I was watching it, there was only one round that I really thought Bradley could have won. But if a judge gave him a few rounds, I could see that. But to give the guy 7 rounds? Based on what?

I'd say that compubox numbers don't make the argument for Manny winning, it just strengthens the argument. Compubox numbers in this case backs up what most people saw.

This, I can see giving Bradley 1 to 2, shít even 3 rounds, 4 if you really twist my arm BUT SEVEN ROUNDS?! WTF!? All three judges had the same close fight so if Roth had just flipped one more round for Bradley then it would have been unanimous trifecta of collective judging fail in the last 20 years.

Bob Arum and his enablers and lackeys are bleeding boxing into oblivion and this decision just opened another vein on already comatose sport. The days of great boxing are over, no more Wilfred Benítez, Pipino Cuevas, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Durán, Sugar Ray Leonard and Marvin Hagler. Instead we get this garbage, Bradley decision over Pacquiao, and not Pacquiao vs. Mayweather. After those two retire in a couple of years what does boxing have for its next star? Singular because their sure isn't going to be plural. Just a matter time before the Middleweight, Welterweight and Lightweight divisions go the way of the Heavyweight division, which has been dead for years.

[broncocalijohn]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

The WBC - one of the governing bodies - actually has a system they use in foreign countries where the official scores are read aloud after the 8th round. It's a bad idea, though. In a lot of these fights, one fighter will learn he's ahead and just dance around for the last four rounds, knowing he's got the fight in the bag. It's better for action in the ring that the fighters not know the scores, IMHO.

Why I said 5 or 6 rounds and then lock up the scores until the end of the fight. I don't want to know the outcome before hand but if we know which way the beginning is going, it will be tough for the judges to commit fraud if the fight doesn't change much since the first 5 or 6 rounds.

[OrangeSe7en]

Originally Posted by El Minion

This, I can see giving Bradley 1 to 2, shít even 3 rounds, 4 if you really twist my arm BUT SEVEN ROUNDS?! WTF!? All three judges had the same close fight so if Roth had just flipped one more round for Bradley then it would have been unanimous trifecta of collective judging fail in the last 20 years.

Bob Arum and his enablers and lackeys are bleeding boxing into oblivion and this decision just opened another vein on already comatose sport. The days of great boxing are over, no more Wilfred Benítez, Pipino Cuevas, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Durán, Sugar Ray Leonard and Marvin Hagler. Instead we get this garbage, Bradley decision over Pacquiao, and not Pacquiao vs. Mayweather. After those two retire in a couple of years what does boxing have for its next star? Singular because their sure isn't going to be plural. Just a matter time before the Middleweight, Welterweight and Lightweight divisions go the way of the Heavyweight division, which has been dead for years.

If boxing is lucky, stars will emerge in other countries. Boxing has always been corrupt. But part of the problem is that no one feels compelled to take up boxing anymore. The best boxers have seemed to typically come out of poverty. At the rate the US is going, a new era might re-emerge for that simple reason. But more likely, you might get foreign talent, namely Asia, emerging. The good thing about this is that it can potentially cut guys like Arum out.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

That ain't what happened, the utterly absurd opinion of two judges aside.

What??! Judges wouldn't lie....if Pacman wanted a win he should've knocked him out, but he couldn't...because Bradley was the better fighter.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by OrangeSe7en

If boxing is lucky, stars will emerge in other countries. Boxing has always been corrupt. But part of the problem is that no one feels compelled to take up boxing anymore. The best boxers have seemed to typically come out of poverty. At the rate the US is going, a new era might re-emerge for that simple reason. But more likely, you might get foreign talent, namely Asia, emerging. The good thing about this is that it can potentially cut guys like Arum out.

The scenario you described is already happening. Boxing may have lost its mainstream appeal in the US, but it is still a massive sport overseas, which is why I have to shake my head at the abject ignorance when people say that boxing is a dying sport. It's bigger than ever in most of the world. It's still big across Latin America, Europe and Asia. The Klitschko brothers regularly sell out 50,000 seat arenas in Germany even against modest opposition. The super middleweight title fight from a few weeks ago in Nottingham, England between Carl Froch and Lucian Bute drew 20,000 raucous maniacs even though the hometown hero (Froch) was coming off a decisive loss to Andre Ward. Those are just a couple of recent examples. Even in the US, fights on HBO and Showtime still do similar or better rating than they hauled in during the 80s and 90s, and pay per view buys are still strong for major fights. It just doesn't get the mainstream coverage in the US that it used to (for the most part).

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

What??! Judges wouldn't lie....if Pacman wanted a win he should've knocked him out, but he couldn't...because Bradley was the better fighter.

I'll assume you are joking and not retarded.

[RhymesayersDU]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

I'll assume you are joking and not retarded.

You've never read a Garcia post before, have you?

[broncocalijohn]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

I'll assume you are joking and not retarded.

actually it is "yes" to both. Best retard with a sense of humor!

[R-Mac]

Boxers should fight for the knockout, not points. The final round should have unlimited time and last until one of the boxers goes down. I am sure boxers would not even try to manage a fight if there were no judges to make a decision based on points. It's a fight. Someone must be standing, someone must go down. Let them fight until the end, with a referee in the ring but no judges. No need to count who landed how many punches. No need to judge who won which round. One of the boxers must win by KO or TKO. Judges distributing points will always be a subjective way of creating controversy.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Rod-BR

Boxers should fight for the knockout, not points. The final round should have unlimited time and last until one of the boxers goes down. I am sure boxers would not even try to manage a fight if there were no judges to make a decision based on points. It's a fight. Someone must be standing, someone must go down. Let them fight until the end, with a referee in the ring but no judges. No need to count who landed how many punches. No need to judge who won which round. One of the boxers must win by KO or TKO. Judges distributing points will always be a subjective way of creating controversy.

Back in the early days of boxing up through the early 1920s, fights often had an unlimited number of rounds until someone got knocked out. There are reports of fights from that era going as long as 45 rounds. With increased emphasis in all sports towards safety, you'll never see that sort of thing again. I would settle for going back to 15 rounds for a championship fight. Think of how boxing history would be different if fights had always been 12 round. Hearns beats Leonard in their first fight, as he was way ahead on the cards til he got stopped in the 14th. Alexis Arguello beats Aaron Pryor in their first fight (Pryor got a 14th round knockout). Etc.

[El Minion]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

The scenario you described is already happening. Boxing may have lost its mainstream appeal in the US, but it is still a massive sport overseas, which is why I have to shake my head at the abject ignorance when people say that boxing is a dying sport. It's bigger than ever in most of the world. It's still big across Latin America, Europe and Asia. The Klitschko brothers regularly sell out 50,000 seat arenas in Germany even against modest opposition. The super middleweight title fight from a few weeks ago in Nottingham, England between Carl Froch and Lucian Bute drew 20,000 raucous maniacs even though the hometown hero (Froch) was coming off a decisive loss to Andre Ward. Those are just a couple of recent examples. Even in the US, fights on HBO and Showtime still do similar or better rating than they hauled in during the 80s and 90s, and pay per view buys are still strong for major fights. It just doesn't get the mainstream coverage in the US that it used to (for the most part).

Rugby is big overseas, so is tennis (another fading sport, really miss the rivalries between John McEnroe, Björn Borg, Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl) and NASCAR is big in the south with 100k plus fans attending races. But those are regional sports that don't have the national and international following that Boxing once had. What other sport could hold a title event on any continent and still get the same if not more sport following from average people around the world; Thrilla in Manila, The Rumble in the Jungle, e.g. Maybe it's an American bias, but other than soccer, if you lose the average American sports fan then the quality of play of that diminished sport will decline inevitably because the American fan money will not be there to support it.

[spdirty]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

The WBC - one of the governing bodies - actually has a system they use in foreign countries where the official scores are read aloud after the 8th round. It's a bad idea, though. In a lot of these fights, one fighter will learn he's ahead and just dance around for the last four rounds, knowing he's got the fight in the bag. It's better for action in the ring that the fighters not know the scores, IMHO.

I'd like to see the scorecard be made public after every round. I think it would have changed the dynamic of this fight. The problem you present is the same as in football, basketball, etc. where the winning team typically goes conservative, run clock, get out with the win. I believe that had Manny known during the fight that he was getting screwed he'd have gone for a knockout, ending all doubt. Would Bradley have fought differently? Yeah, maybe. But I never have liked the scores of these fights being a closely guarded secret until the fight is over.

Just me, but in any sporting event I like to know who is "officially" winning at the beginning, middle, and end of each sporting event.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by El Minion

Rugby is big overseas, so is tennis (another fading sport, really miss the rivalries between John McEnroe, Björn Borg, Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl) and NASCAR is big in the south with 100k plus fans attending races. But those are regional sports that don't have the national and international following that Boxing once had. What other sport could hold a title event on any continent and still get the same if not more sport following from average people around the world; Thrilla in Manila, The Rumble in the Jungle, e.g. Maybe it's an American bias, but other than soccer, if you lose the average American sports fan then the quality of play of that diminished sport will decline inevitably because the American fan money will not be there to support it.

It is.

[El Minion]

Five judges reduces the possibility of this judging fail from recurring again.

WBO assigns five judges to re-score Pacquiao-Bradley fight



Although many at ringside gave Manny Pacquiao between nine and 11 rounds in Saturday night title fight, he lost by split decision to Timothy Bradley.
(Joe Klamar / AFP/Getty Images / June 13, 2012)

By Lance Pugmire June 13, 2012, 12:52 p.m.

The World Boxing Organization on Wednesday announced it has assigned five judges to re-score Manny Pacquiao's controversial loss by decision to Palm Springs' Timothy Bradley in an effort to convince state commissions to widen the pool of judges for major fights.

Although many at ringside for Saturday's fight gave Pacquiao between nine and 11 rounds, judges Duane Ford and C.J. Ross scored the bout 115-113 (seven rounds to five) in Bradley's favor, and a third Nevada judge, Jerry Roth, had it 115-113 for Pacquiao in the WBO welterweight title contest.

WBO President Francisco "Paco" Valcarcel said five judges, from New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico, will re-score the bout and submit their work confidentially to the WBO, with the scores to be gathered by Monday.

Valcarcel said that armed with that information, he will submit to the Assn. of Boxing Commissions by its July meeting a request that state commissions such as Nevada's work more diligently to bring in judges from outside their states for fights of the magnitude of a world title contest.

Before the Pacquiao-Bradley judges were assigned by the Nevada State Athletic Commission, Valcarcel said he submitted a list of 20 judges from elsewhere who could be assigned to the bout. None were chosen.

"We're asking the ABC to make recommendations how a sanctioning body like ours can work better with a state commission, to use this experience to have better scoring in the future," Valcarcel said.

Valcarcel said he is not considering stripping the WBO belt from Bradley, and will not order a mandatory rematch, because Pacquiao's contract stipulates he would get a rematch if he lost the bout. In promoting the fight, Bradley had printed up a poster and ticket hyping Bradley-Pacquiao II on Nov. 10.

"This wasn't Bradley's fault, and we're not saying there was any evidence of fraud or corruption here," Valcarcel said. "That's outside the scope of what we're doing."

He said he's also not questioning the integrity of Ford or Ross.

"There are excellent judges available internationally, and they should be considered," Valcarcel said. "We've done it here in Puerto Rico, bringing in judges from Nevada."

[gunns]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

What??! Judges wouldn't lie....if Pacman wanted a win he should've knocked him out, but he couldn't...because Bradley was the better fighter.

You obviously did not see the fight.

Arum has said he will not promote the November rematch unless the WBO looks into the scoring decision and they've agreed to. Yeah I trust them to do an honest job.

Me, I'm so anti Mayweather I can't help but feel this was his way of avoiding a fight with Pac. I know, I'm biased that way.

[El Minion]

Unofficial Scorecards

• Danny Flexen, Boxing News: 115-113 Bradley
• Cameron Sharpe, Boxing Fancast: 115-115 Draw
• Dave Cokin, Lotus Broadcasting Las Vegas: 114-114 Draw
• Chris Manix, Sports Illustrated: 115-113 Pacquiao
• Lem Satterfield, Ring Magazine: 115-113 Pacquiao
• Gordon Marino, The Wall Street Journal: 115-113 Pacquiao
• Armando Alvarez, Telemundo: 115-113 Pacquiao
• Jake Donovan, BoxingScene.com: 115-113 Pacquiao
• Terry Dooley, BoxingScene.com: 115-113 Pacquiao
• Franklin McNeil, Newark Star-Ledger: 116-112 Pacquiao
• Brett Okamoto, ESPN: 116-112 Pacquiao
• Steve Bunce, BoxNation.com/BBC: 116-112 Pacquiao
• Andreas Hale, FightNews.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
• Brian Arman Graham, Sports Illustrated: 116-112 Pacquiao
• George Willis, The New York Post: 116-112 Pacquiao
• Rick Reeno, BoxingScene.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
• Robert Morales, Los Angeles Daily News: 116-112 Pacquiao
• Ben Thompson, FightHype.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
• Tim Smith, New York Daily News: 116-112 Pacquiao
• Suge Green, On the Grind Boxing Radio: 116-112 Pacquiao
• Steve Zemach, The Queensbury Rules.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
• Michael Nelson, TheCruelestSport.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
• Tom Gray, SecondsOut.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
• Joel Sebastionelli, LIITR Box Radio: 116-112 Pacquiao
• CheckHook.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
• BoxingSocialist.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
• Ricky Hatton: 116-112 Pacquiao
• Wayne McCullough: 116-112 Pacquiao
• Ken Hissner, DogHouseBoxing.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
• Alexander Belenky, Sport-Express.ru: 116-112 Pacquiao
• Rob Day, RingNews24.com: 117-112 Pacquiao
• Ryan Burton, BoxingScene.com: 117-112 Pacquiao
• Matt Youmans, Las Vegas Review-Journal: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Graham Houston, FightWriter.com/FightNews.com/ESPN: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Stephen Edwards, BoxingTalk.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Kieran Mulvaney, ESPN: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Tim Dahlberg, Associated Press: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Ron Borges, Boston Herald: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Cliff Rold, BoxingScene.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Chris Robinson, BoxingScene.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Steve Carp, Las Vegas Review-Journal: 117-111 Pacquiao
• David Mayo, The Grand Rapids Press: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Robert Little, BlackSportsOnline.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Jorge Hernandez, The Low Blow.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
• David Greisman, BoxingScene.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Benny Henderson, DogHouseBoxing.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Ryan Phillips, BleacherReport.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Graham Parker, The Guardian (UK): 117-111 Pacquiao
• Ed Graney, Las Vegas Review-Journal: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Luis Sandoval, BoxingScene.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Jonathan Sakti, Comcast Sports Net Bay Area: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Richie Tomasini, Comcast Sports Net Bay Area: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Tim Starks, The Queensbury Rules: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Champ Ross, DaTruthBoxing.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Lance Pugmire, Los Angeles Times: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Darren Velasco, 8CountNews.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Ryan Maquinana, Comcast Sports Net Bay Area: 117-111 Pacquiao
• George Diaz, The Orlando Sentinel: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Steve Kim, MaxBoxing.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Doug Fischer, Ring Magazine: 117-111 Pacquiao
• FightersRated.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Luke Thomas, MMAFighting.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Scott Christ, BadLeftHook.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Kevin Iole, Yahoo! Sports: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Tommy Gunn, BoxingAsylum.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Charles Farrell, No Holds Barred Radio Show: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Gareth Davies, London Telegraph: 117-111 Pacquiao
• John Perretti, No Holds Barred Radio Show: 117-111 Pacquiao
• John Raspanti, DogHouseBoxing.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Ron Lewis, Primetime/BBC: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Brent Brookhouse, SBNation.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Jake Emen, ProBoxing-Fans.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Alexey Sukachev, Sports.ru: 117-111 Pacquiao
• Kevin Mitchell, The Guardian (UK): 118-112 Pacquiao
• Steve Lillis, BoxNation: 118-111 Pacquiao
• Nick Xouris, FightHype.com: 118-111 Pacquiao
• Brett Newton, Pound4Pound.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Joseph Herron, FightSaga.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Mark Lyons, 8CountNews.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Danny "Swift" Garcia: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Mike Koppinger, Ring Magazine: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Gabriel Montoya, MaxBoxing.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Ryan Songalia, Ring Magazine: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Robert Ecksel, Boxing.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Pete O'Brien, USA Today: 118-110 Pacquiao
• John McCormick, BoxingTalk.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Victor Contreras, The Sacramento Bee: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Eric Raskin, HBO/TheSweetScience.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Chuck Giampa, Showtime: 118-110 Pacquiao
• John Russell, boxing trainer (Buster Douglas trainer): 118-110 Pacquiao
• Rich Marotta, KFI Los Angeles: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Jeff Mayweather: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Ace Freeman, FightFan.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Kelsey McCarson, TheSweetScience.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Mario Cabrera, The Boxing Republic: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Ramon Aranda, 3MoreRounds.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Colin Seymour, Examiner.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Nigel Collins, Espn.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Paddy Cronan, On the Grind Boxing Radio: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Denzil Stone, OnTheBreak.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Phil Jay, WorldBoxingNews.net: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Geoffrey Ciani, EastSideBoxing.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Michael Rosenthal, Ring Magazine: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Eugeny Pilipenko, Vringe.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Vadim Zhuk, Championat.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Ken Pollitt, the13thround.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
• Ted Sares, Boxing.com: 119-111 Pacquiao
• Allen Barra, The Atlantic: 119-110 Pacquiao
• Barry Tompkins, Showtime: 119-110 Pacquiao
• Vittorio Tafur, The San Francisco Chronicle: 119-109 Pacquiao
• Ray Markarian, TheSweetScience.com: 119-109 Pacquiao
• Harold Lederman, HBO: 119-109 Pacquiao
• Dan Rafael, ESPN: 119-109 Pacquiao
• Max Parker, BoxingWatchers.com: 119-109 Pacquiao
• Scott Sawitz, Fox Sports/Inside Fights: 119-109 Pacquiao
• Leroy Cleveland, FightSaga.com: 119-109 Pacquiao
• Michael Woods, ESPN: 119-109 Pacquiao
• Michael Marley, BoxingConfidential.com/Examiner.com: 119-109 Pacquiao
• Skip Bayless, ESPN: 119-109 Pacquiao
• Among the experts above, 116 scored the bout for Pacquiao, 2 scored the bout a draw, and 1 scored the bout for Bradley.
• None of the scores for Pacquiao were offered by Philippine media.
• The score for Bradley was not provided by American media.

[Beantown Bronco]

The scores of the 5 independent judges are in:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/boxing...7957--box.html

[canadianbroncosfan]

Originally Posted by Beantown Bronco

The scores of the 5 independent judges are in:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/boxing...7957--box.html

Glad there's the rematch clause in the contract. This is one of the biggest atrocities in sports history.