What is the reason for the bad decision?

More lately, the play for promoters and commissions when it comes to bad decisions is to write it up as incompetence on the part of the judges. We saw judges in New Jersey, for example, suspended and required to take training in the wake of the Williams/Lara fight (as if).

And now, in the wake of the Bradley/Pacquiao decision, we have agreement among Arum and Schaefer, who otherwise can't agree on anything, that the decision was due to incompetence, not corruption.

So basically, we have Arum going on the offense in a situation when he should clearly be relegated by the press to defense, and we have Schaefer saying nothing commital whatsoever on the topic, except to be clear that it was not corruption (because if it were the logical conclusion would be that he too engages in such corruption).

Not to get off topic, but when the coverage looks to Arum and Schaefer for answers, there should be little surprise that time after time things like this happen, and time after time, the public is left wondering.

At any rate, place your vote as to whether you think this obviously bad decision was due to incompetence (as Arum and Shaefer and every other part of the establishment would have us believe) or to in my view the much more likely reason, corruption.

 

Incompetence is impossible. Even Pacquiao haters are giving Pacquiao 10 out of 12 rounds.

Blatant corruption, the only thing I really wonder about now is whether Pacquiao and Bradley were in on it.

Bradley's corner telling him he was winning, as he was getting schooled, Bradley putting his hands up immediately after the fight, Pacquiao not, team Pacquiao's non-reaction to the decision, it's all a bit fucking suspect. Plus of course the big fake rematch ticket in the pre fight press conferences etc. Who knows, but it really does all point to both of them being in on the fix.

 

The fact is, no one here has any idea.

 

Yep, and probably never will.

 

Actually, as people with an ounce of reason and common sense, we do have an idea (most of us anyway). And the idea is that this was corruption.

I'm with MWS that we can only speculate as to whether or not the fighters themselves were in on it.

But yeah, the fact we're rationale beings, and the point of the thread, is that yes, despite what Arum wants us to believe, this was indeed corruption. No question about it.

 

The reason is Floyd. Floyd is the cause of all of boxing's ills.

 

Cool dawg. Can you prove it?

 

Applying Ockhams Razor, the fastest simplest and probably most accurate conclusion is that this is plain corruption with some form of complicity.........is Pacquaio involved, I don't know. Is Arum? Probably.

 

The thing is, who stands to gain the most out of this??

BOB ARUM...

Its simple. Sabotage any chance for Mayweather and Pacquiao to fight this year, while setting up another safe fight that will bring in ppv numbers....

Mayweather-Pacquiao was never going to happen.

 

Manny has to be involved in that shit somehow. He could've knocked Bradley out anytime, and then after the decision, he's just happy to fight the rematch while everybody out there is crying outrage.

 

If Arum was willing to risk pac's populatiry with a loss, why the hell would he do it against Timothy Bradley and not Mayweather? He could have made way more cashing Pac out against Mayweather.

 

Because he OWNS Bradley. And by stealing Manny of the win, Manny still looks good in the eye of the public.

 

I guess you're right, it just seems like a lame way to go about it if Arum is behind this. You'd think he'd go a less obvious route.

 

Uh, because unlike PBF, he promotes Bradley, which means when Pacquiao fights Bradley, he doesn't have to split his money with G.

 

I can't make sense of your tone. What's at stake here for you, that your first and last response to this topic is to try to shut down the discussion?

 

Discussion? :: Re-read your OP and tell me you honestly wanted to have a discussion.

The fact is, you don't know shit. I don't know shit. There are probably no more than 10 people who know if the fight was fixed or not. So you can scream until you're blue in the face. But that's all it is.

 

"Discussion"

 

I've got two options. If you don't agree with me, you're a fucking idiot.

Discuss.

 

That's a double L thread, in a nutshell

At least, the ones that make some sense

Then you have the "Hip Hoppity Hunters... List Them" type of threads where everyone just gives up on life

 

Should have just called this thead "Wild Speculation"

 

Double is awesome :bears:

 

It wasn't corruption.

You don't fix a fight needing to score the last round of the fight for the fighter who is supposed to win.

 

The scorecards were probably worked out before the fight to be honest, as long as one guy isn't being beaten from pillar to post or knocked down in every round, they work.

 

Reading some of the quotes from the judges, I think it's just a case of the judges being too old to see what is happening. How can guys over 70 be trusted to score a boxing match accurately? That's a huge problem.

 

Sorry if my opinion is so well defended as to leave you with no option but to try to derail any discussio. Otoh, if we did have facts and could decide with certainty what occurred, now then there would be no room for a discussion.

 

This is a perfectly good topic. You're just a paralyzed prick not sure what side je's supposed to be on (but nonetheless sure there are sides here to be taken). Think for yourself man.

 

The idea of it being incompetence completely and utterly defies logic.

As I said, we even have Pacquiao haters giving the guy 10 rounds.

Now, how many people do you think really, truly believe Bradley won the fight? 1 in a thousand maybe? 0.1%?

So then what are the chances that 66% of the judges, 2 out of 3, thought Bradley won the fight? I can't see it, it defies logic. Plus the remaining judge thought it was a close fight.

I don't think it's possible to be honest, as I said it defies logic, and statistics. Even if it was 1 in 100, it still doesn't seem plausible that 2 out of 3 judges would score it for Bradley.

 

Would you rather I pretended not to have a point of view?

 

You're a dope

What's the topic?

"The fight was fixed. If you aren't 100% sure of that, you are a fucking moron"

That's the topic

For the record, I "BELIEVE" that there was more than likely corruption involved here, but that's a far fucking cry from "THAT'S IT. END OF STORY. THE FIGHT WAS FIXED."

Had I known this poll question was supposed to be a matter of 100% certainty, I'd have never answered in the affirmative. After all, that makes it seem like I am a pig-headed jackass like you.

 

surely, you are kidding

Anyone playing devil's advocate could turn it into Swiss cheese