Analyzing the scoring of Pacquiao Bradley

Same. It's even worse than Flomo.

Plus I'm not entirely sure what Musze's recent crusade is all about, I think he is deeply offended by Pacquiao's creepy new god boy stuff.

 

I'm sure Manny asked God why and was told this is a test for his newest disciple. A test of faith.

 

for cdogg, hut & Irish

http://www.fightersonlymag.com/cont...ker-gives-back-money-to-fans-who-bet-pacquiao

gotta love the Irish

 

Holy fuck, I can't believe it. Business is business, you wouldn't have thought anyone would do this.

Then again I guess it would make you want to use them again, you know you'd get a fair deal.

 

It's naive and idiotic. Did they not pay the people who bet on Bradley?

 

Hopefully not :kidcool:

 

I'm guessing most of the money on Pac came in for Pac by KO, and they didn't have a lot of betting on Bradley. So they probably broke even or came out just a little bit ahead or behind.. if they were a bit in the red on this one, I'm guessing the PR will more than make up for it.

 

it would be about 1 in 350

 

it's no more idiotic than big corporation giving shit load of money in sponsorship deals or any marketing endeavor

 

I thought mikE's initial post was interesting.

Haven't seen the fight yet, so not going to comment one way or the other.

 

Watch it like you're the biggest Bradley fan on earth, give him every benifit of the doubt and I still don't think you'll have a close card.

 

yeh....it just stinks of a geek trying to be cool to fit in...then everyone walks away and he's like "hey guys wait for me" :dunno:

 

Yep. People should start showing some respect for themselves and drop that stupid name.

 

Per ESPN Ticker:

Duane Ford, who gave Bradley the fight, stated that "Bradley gave Pacquiao a boxing lesson"

 

This is what you get when you have senior citizens as judges. There should be a cut off of about 50 for judges. Two judges were over 70 fucking years old.

 

They're not meant as anything more meaningful than a finger at the moon of just how improbable & stinky those cards were. Just a response to the logic of the op which was seductive but faulty

 

From fightnews.com:
WBO judges score it for Pacquiao

By Gabriel F. Cordero
Five WBO international judges reviewed video of the bout between Manny Pacquiao and Timothy Bradley Jr. and all scored the bout in favor of the Filipino former champion. The WBO judges scored it 118-110, 117-111, 117-111, 116-112 and 115-113, all for Pacman. In the actual fight, judges Duane Ford and C.J. Ross scored it 115-113 for Bradley and Jerry Roth had it 115-113 for Pacquiao. Since boxing commissions in the United States are autonomous, the WBO can’t change the official result of the fight.



Again, we have 7 rounds that could have gone to Bradley based upon these 5 judges' cards and they don't even have round 1 as a possibility which I think most believe was somewhat arguable.

And these judges knew the outcome and the outrage over the fight.

 

Again, I think the fact that 7 rounds are potentially arguable is an extremely weak justification for 2 of 3 judges giving them ALL one way.

 

Only 3 of the rounds were majority Bradley rounds. Only 5 were rounds that 2 of 5 scored for Bradley. Those cards closely mirror majority opinion. Yet 2 of 3 judges gave 7 to Bradley.

We both agree that working out a precise statistical likelihood of that happening is impossible without knowing all the variables but we know enough to know that the blind odds of it happening by chance are llooonngg.

 

More telling than anything else is there was only one round where all five judges gave it to Bradley. ONE ROUND.

 

Very telling, and pretty much supports my claim there is literally only 1 clear Bradley round in the entire fight, round 10. No surprise that's the only round all the judges gave to Bradley.

I actually think that's the only round in the entire fight where Bradley landed more punches.

 

Bad judging is primarily about having unjustifiable scoring on specific rounds. It's not about coming up on one side or the other of close rounds.

It isn't about chance at all. There is no reason to believe that rounds the public is split on couldn't justifiably and correctly all be scored to one fighter over the other by a competent judge. An equally competent judge could potentially score all of the same rounds to the other fighter. That has nothing to do with chance or anything like that. This isn't about chance, but rather a subjective determination based upon many factors, some of which are pretty vague.

 

But mikE, Pacquiao won 10 rounds and got jobbed, I'm not even sure what you're arguing about. No sane person thinks Scrubby Timmy won that fight.

 

You're really missing the point. You're basically saying that in a close fight with 12 potentially contestable rounds that 120-108 on two cards is a reasonable outcome. 'Hey they were contestable rounds, where's the problem?'

 

'If Oscar-Mosley 1 had come back 120-108 Oscar on two cards I wouldn't have had any misgivings' - mikE, 21/6/2012

 

Precisely, it's nonsensical.

By mikE's rational there's almost no such thing as a bad decision or a bad card.

 

Might make sense if the judges scored it a lopsided win for Bradley. But they didn't, they scored it an extremely close fight, giving a debatable win to Bradley. Many of the rounds weren't agreed upon by the judges, just as many of the rounds aren't agreed upon by fightbeat.

Lots of close rounds = close fight is not the same as saying lots of close rounds = lopsided victory.

 

Hey, a coin either lands heads or tails, nothing amazing about it landing heads 7 times in a row. 2 out of 3 times, no less. Could have gone either way, really.

 

You're not suggesting mikE is retarded, are you?!