Analyzing the scoring of Pacquiao Bradley

[Punk]

[steve_dave]

Pacquiao won, but we should all know by now that punch stats don't mean shit.

[Jesus of montreal]

compubox, the most decisive argument in a discussion

[Punk]

Pacquiao won, but we should all know by now that punch stats don't mean shit.

Sure, I was just showing off that I found it.

[Azazel]

guy's, I've never claimed that Bradley won the 9th round, just said he did far better in the last 4 but he clearly lost the 9th

[Hut*Hut]

Pacquiao won, but we should all know by now that punch stats don't mean shit.

they're useful. Limited but useful

[steve_dave]

they're useful. Limited but useful

Not when determining who won more rounds they aren't. Not the total numbers.

[Azazel]

I went back and did the sums (no that isn't all I've done for the last 2 hours )

In your OP you said the fightbeat collective felt 7 rounds were contestable.

For talking's sake, lets write two off as not only contestable but cast iron Bradley rounds.

That leaves 5. And Bradley needs them all to win. Lets take the most generous possible interpretation and say the remaining 5 were 50/50 rounds among our sample of honest scorers.

The chances of 50/50 rounds going to a given guy 5 consecutive times are just over 3%. The chances of them going the same way in 2 out of 3 randomized 'sample cards' would be 1 in 415, if my maths are right. 0.025%

Obviously there are some problems with this simplistic approach, but it's a response to the logic of your OP. And it hints at just how unlikely it is that these cards were honest, IMO. They were stinky.

with your aprroch, the odds would be about,0,286% that 2 of the 3 judges gave Bradley all 5 questionnable rounds

it would be (1/32)*(1/32)*(1/32) + (1/32)*(1/32)*(31/32)*3

where the first part of the summation is the case were all 3 judges gave Bradley the 5 rounds and the last part where 2 of the judges gaves Bradley the 5 rounds

[TraZ]

How can these old ass judges even see all these punches landing. It's hard for me to see sober!

[Free Ike]

If you think Bradley won, you know nothing about boxing.

[Ugotabe Kidding]

Yep. I don't get how someone can say they gave one fighter only 2 rounds and then basically claim he can understand how the fight was scored for the other fighter.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me...until I reminded myself who created this topic.

If five rounds of the fight are very close (and one guy clearly takes five and the other clearly takes two), then everything between 118-110 and 113-115 is UNDERSTANDABLE. So actually it makes plenty of sense. No agenda nor rocket science needed

As most in this thread have said, this was a good and interesting analysis of trying to rationalize a decision that everybody agrees was wrong. That is, if we concentrate on the post rather than the poster

[broadwayjoe]

If five rounds of the fight are very close (and one guy clearly takes five and the other clearly takes two), then everything between 118-110 and 113-115 is UNDERSTANDABLE. So actually it makes plenty of sense. No agenda nor rocket science needed

As most in this thread have said, this was a good and interesting analysis of trying to rationalize a decision that everybody agrees was wrong. That is, if we concentrate on the post rather than the poster

It wasn't a remotely a close fight, end of story. And...it is funny seeing you latch on to this topic just for the sake of taking a few shots at me.

There was a time when you were not impossibly biased for/against certain fighters and so pissy about it all the time...but now you are getting a little more like Stafford each day. Which, unfortunately....results in posts like this from you.

I'm sorry Duran isn't as sucky and Wlad (and his wretched competition) isn't as good as you would like them to be. Really, I am...since it seems to bother you this much.

[Ugotabe Kidding]

It wasn't a remotely a close fight, end of story. And...it is funny seeing you latch on to this topic just for the sake of taking a few shots at me.

There was a time when you were not impossibly biased for/against certain fighters and so pissy about it all the time...but now you are getting a little more like Stafford each day. Which, unfortunately....results in posts like this from you.

I'm sorry Duran isn't as sucky and Wlad (and his wretched competition) isn't as good as you would like them to be. Really, I am...since it seems to bother you this much.

No, as you can see I actually commented the subject of the topic, I was not targeting you or any other poster. I only quoted you because I thought your post missed the point of the topic and I couldn't agree with your take. I wasn't even in minority here, most people of this thread understood mikE's stance, while you concentrated on him as a poster and wanted to find an agenda.

Once more, I have nothing against you and I respect your knowledge, but please, accept that there are different opinions and comment posts rather than posters, then it is all good

[Hut*Hut]

with your aprroch, the odds would be about,0,286% that 2 of the 3 judges gave Bradley all 5 questionnable rounds

it would be (1/32)*(1/32)*(1/32) + (1/32)*(1/32)*(31/32)*3

where the first part of the summation is the case were all 3 judges gave Bradley the 5 rounds and the last part where 2 of the judges gaves Bradley the 5 rounds

yeah, i put the decimal in the wrong place. But it's 1 chance in 415, in those terms, right? Very small.

It's misleading to say 'well 7 out of 12 rounds were contestable so any score up to 7-5 is reasonable. For 2 of 3 cards to score all 7 cards one way is just extremely stinky.

[Ugotabe Kidding]

It's misleading to say 'well 7 out of 12 rounds were contestable so any score up to 7-5 is reasonable. For 2 of 3 cards to score all 7 cards one way is just extremely stinky.

IMO if the rounds are contestable then 7-5 is understandable, since you always have to find a winner in each round. Fair it is not, but this is how boxing scoring system works these days.

Also one point is that fights always look bit different to ringside, so it could be that to the judges Bradley has edged some rounds that look all-even from TV.

And once more; I am not justifying the decision since I can't personally see how Bradley took any more than five rounds even if you give him benefit of doubt