What is the reason for the bad decision?

why bother with the poll?

You were hoping the poll question, which in at of itself is faulty for myriad reasons, would be answered in such a way that your position would be stronger

If this were just about your point of view then the thread would be about your point of view not some phony attempt at discourse

 

By that same argument (corruptors playing to anticipated perceptions) that's exactly what they'd do, knowing that people would view it as you have.

 

Believe it or not, people don't become blind or retarded when they hit 70.

Breyer (73), Scalia (76), Kennedy (75), and Ginsburg (79) all judge things slightly more important and taxing than a boxing match.

 

It's not the same argument, nor the same premise, nor the same logic.

 

In response to mikE, again - if those two judges had given the round the other way it would have been a Majority Draw. Still meets spec in terms of manufacturing a big rematch.

Besides, to even be a useful tactic, incentivizing judges can't be as brazen as directly ordering them to pick a winner. If Pac had done an absolute number on Timmy, KDs and all, it's in nobody's interests for the 'right' guy to get the decision. There has to be plausible deniablity. Incentives need to be structured for them to look as 'favourably' on one guy as they feel they can & no more.

 

They don't judge things as quick paced & difficult to see properly.

 

one could argue some of them perform their duties as if they were doing that:giggle:

 

[1] I don't think it does, though. There wasn't a big outcry for Whitaker Chavez 2 and that fight was very, very similar to this fight in outcome and response.

[2] Perhaps, but I think the scattershot methodology of how the judges got to where they did strongly implies that something other than corruption is responsible. This fight could have been 'fixed' far easier and the disparate scoring of people who have posted their scoring indicates that there can be potentially reasonable ways to have the fight closer than I thought it was.

 

so what's it about ? :: don't be such a pussy.

 

Here's a scenario I find plausible.

These judges might rely quite heavily on Arum cards for regular slots in big fights. They know they can be brushed right off the big time boxing teat at the extreme or at least have the frequency of their gigs drop off a cliff. He might represent 50% or upwards of their boxing related income & they know he makes it go up or down.

In the months or weeks preceding the fight, Arum sees them around, he sees people who know them and speak to them around. He happens to mention in passing that he has big hopes for Bradley. Maybe he thinks this fight fight might be so good it'll demand a rematch and that that would be really huge. And what's more that'd sure be a big relief to him because Pac is running out of marketable opponents and he's becoming concerned. Maybe he even lets it be known that gee shuck it sure would be great if Bradley could only make something happen.

It's fight time and it soon becomes clear that the pattern of the fight is such that there's 'plausible deniability' in allot of these rounds. Who doesn't wanna impress & help the boss when an opportunity arises?

It's a haphazard, 'scattershot' process, there's no great conspiracy or forethought here. Just a good old corrupt incentive structure and an opportunity.

 

Good post, it could be something as subtle and inherent as that, pleasing the boss, rather than just straight forward, cold, hard cash for results.

 

I think it probably is unspoken like that.

 

Makes sense.
In the eyes of the world, Manny won anyway.

Manny better find the eye of the tiger in the re though...

 

It's about you offering up an idiotic poll question and stating a blatantly obvious point of view and then basically saying "Anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot"

It's not a discussion... It's you being a simpleton, as always

 

Discussion would seem to indicate that you want to possibly learn something or see other points of view... Your mind was made up already

 

Whatever. This must be your own inner voice because nowhere do I call anyone an idiot. And actually, I find it plain odd that you would interpret my posting of a poll, which by definition invites and legitimizes the opinions of others, as anything other than an attempt at discussion.

At any rate, ... most seem to agree it was corruption.

 

Looks like mikE is the only one who thinks it's not corruption ::

 

:: You're mean

Not to speak for him, but I got the impression Doube's intention was for the poll to illustrate the gulf between the opinion of hardcore boxing fans and the way the discussion's weighted in the boxing press (?). rhetorical

 

Agreed, and the fact is, Double obviously has a point - look at the poll, only mikE thinks it's not corruption.

 

Yeah, he's right

We're back at incentives. Who controls whether these boxing media outlets get their wee nuggets of 'inside' info, their press conference access, their photography access, their rights to even use pictures, their interviews? Where does a large portion of the advertising income that actually funds them come from? That's the way 'corruption' works in western countries. Brown paper bags or direct threats are redundant.

 

Agreed, to be honest I didn't give it much thought, and possibly assumed they were literally bought in order to give the desired result.

But yeah, it's just the way the machine works these days I guess, people will do whatever they think the higher powers want in order to stay part of the machine, probably taking hints as you suggested.

Also the old fashioned way is so much riskier, if there ever was an investigation, and a warrant was issued to dig into their finances etc, Arum would be fucked, so would the judges.

Oh and by the way, Rios - coincidentally another Top Rank fighter - loses 9 or 10 rounds to Abril and gets the decision, was that incompetence too? ::

 

On the subject of Arum and corruption etc, how about that utter chode Mora that reffed the Agbeko Vs Mares fight? It was one of the most sickening displays of corruption I've ever seen.

Mares landed the most blatant low blow ever and he gave Agbeko a count, plus the entire fight just let Mares do whatever he wanted, land as many low blows as he wanted, and warned Agbeko for landing clean punches :atu:

That was such a blatant and sickening display, it seemed like they must have either paid him large sums of money or held his family hostage.

 

It reminds me allot of this:

A Harvard professor makes 40-80% of his income from speaking dates and consultancy fees at various New York investment houses. In large part, he became Professor at Harvard in the first place by attracting grants for his economic research from similar interests. What's more he knows once he's had a 'successful' stint at Harvard he can walk out the door on campus straight through one on Wall $treet.

When these investment houses bring out a new product, for talking sake a securitized mortgage bond or other CDO, the financial regulatory body commission papers from professors like him providing 'expert' analysis on the potential risks & benefits. Funnily enough, a large enough majority of experts come up with the 'right' answers for the products to go through (and hey, the regulators aren't gonna dig too hard because they're all due jobs on Wall Street if they play their cards right, too).

Nobody needs to give anybody a brown paper bag or threaten them, they just play the game and if they weren't 'good' at playing it they'd never have gotten high enough to play it for high stakes. Media, politics - the same type of incentive structures.

The fucked up thing is most the Professor's genuinely don't see the conflict of interest. Double think is the most marketable skill there is. I bet those judges are shaving in the mirror right now telling themselves Bradley won, too. But if they'd known Arum wanted Pacquiao to win they'd have scored it right because they respond 'rationally' to their incentives.

Unlike say Joseph Cooper who I'm willing to bet we won't be hearing much from for a while :::::shit:

 

as soon as steve_dave offered a position that was not harmonious with yours, you acted as if he was speaking Latin (WHAT'S AT STAKE FOR YOU HERE?) as if he were saying "the fight was totally on the level, it was a good decision"

You're not bright enough to have a discussion.

 

I think that's giving Double too much credit, frankly.

But I don't disagree... all signs point to it being corruption, he's not wrong on that front

 

Steve dave offered a reason for shutting down the discussion, not a position on the issue. This is what I asked him about and apparently, this offended somehow your sense of right and wrong? ::

 

not at all

the fact that there is no tangible proof is a part of the discussion (were it an actual discussion)

 

I'm not going to jump on this too much, dipstick, but I haven't voted.

While I think that corruption is absolutely not at play, I'm not going to blame incompetence, either, at least not at this point.

 

What's the 3rd option then? Accident? Butter fingers? ::

 

::

Buffer has cataracts, they all scored it 118-110 Pac