Analyzing the scoring of Pacquiao Bradley

I like mikE. He's a 35mm negative of the true spirit of 77.

 

I'm not basically saying that, I am saying that. A judge should score a round as he sees it. If that results in a 12-0 scorecard in a seemingly evenly matched fight, so be it. That is a defensible scorecard. Scoring a close round to the fighter you thought lost the round just to make your scorecard closer is not defensible. It's dishonest and a good reason to keep the judge from ever scoring a fight again.

 

Look, we are fans of a sport where most fans couldn't pass the first test in a freshman college level statistics class, nor could they last a full semester in a logic class without dropping out. Your post indicates that you are in the majority of boxing fans.

Kellerman gets this. A lot of people do.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't and it makes for some painful posts and it also makes for a lot of fans who think Teddy Atlas is correct to start whining and crying every time a decision comes down different than his. I can appreciate the confidence in your own scorecard, but there are so many other factors going on (Teddy yaps throughout a round; Teddy is listening to his colleagues; Teddy doesn't have the same angle as the judges; Teddy always has a prediction going into a fight; Teddy's there to entertain, not score...etc etc) that Teddy's confidence is misguided and ill-placed.

 

Right. And you also don't see an inherent unlikelihood that an honest judge (or even two of three) will 'see' 7 or 12 consecutive, contentious rounds one particular way. A majority of said rounds being ones most see the opposite way. Gotcha.

 

You're not only stupid but a fucking arsehole.

 

But mikE, you are a fucktard, and nothing you say makes any sense. It's just all bullshit.

 

I wanna know how qwerty scored it

 

I bet you'd get more sense out of him on the issue than mikE.

 

It depends on the nature of the rounds and the viewpoint of the judge.

You are mixing apples and oranges. Just because the masses deem a round to be close doesn't mean it was, nor does it mean that the majority are correct, nor does it mean that the minority are wrong.

You act like a judge should score the same exact round differently each time he views it because it was a contentious round that arguably could have gone either way. In my view, a judge should score that round exactly the same each time he views it.

 

Based on the offense taken, you didn't excel in math or logic in college, eh?

 

What have I said that doesn't make any sense? Find the quote, tell me why you don't think it makes any sense, and I'll elaborate.

 

Nah you just don't get it. Think through what mikE's saying then the cards make sense. Not only was everybody (and that word can be used pretty much literally) biased and distracted, but we were all biased & distracted in the same way with our error producing nearly identically biased and distracted cards. A mass synchronicity effecting the whole boxing universe except the official judges.

 

:: That's the best part about my boy mikE

 

Oh I see now, it's starting to make sense, kind of. I think it might be because we're too stupid to finish college, that's why we don't understand that the judge's extreme statistical anomalies of scorecards are perfectly justified and justifiable.

If you don't think Bradley winning 12-0 over 12 contestable rounds is a fair score, you're just a moron, who probably can't even pass a college exam!

 

:bears:

mikE :atu:

 

my annoyance comes from being among the only posters to have remained consistently civil to you, to the point of defending you at times and for you to fire back with that snidey obnoxious shit. On a point of logic you're completely embarrassing yourself on, no less. I guess I'm a delicate petal

 

I've said I don't think the cards were corrupt, certainly not in the sense that it was agreed that these two judges would score the fight for Bradley. The scoring done by the judges just doesn't make that possibility reasonable.

Certainly incompetence is still on the table, but it looks like an epidemic of incompetence hits anyone who watches the fight because a sizable percentage of people not only keep giving Bradley rounds I didn't think he won, but keep giving him different rounds between themselves. Just like the official judges did. And these people have less of an excuse because they all have the same tv-based view.

 

Logic!

 

Dude, I like you just fine. That comment that got you riled wasn't even to you.

I just think you are missing my point because you are stuck on equating a close round to a coin flip. I don't think that is an appropriate comparison despite having some superficial similarities.

 

Yup. Uh huh. 7 rounds were contentious. And people had different ideas about which ones should go which way.

Now, a man with your formidable college credentials shouldn't have much problem with this request: could you paraphrase my reasons for thinking this is an extremely weak justification for the judges awarding the fight to Bradley back to me, please? Just so I know I don't need to keep repeating it 'til doomsday.

And if you like you can actually address the thrust of it and why you think it's wrong

 

But we weren't. If we were, then I wouldn't be spending the time to debate. We have a lot of cards who have the similar final score, but as I pointed out in the OP, we didn't get there the same way. There's nothing 'identically biased or distracted' about the various cards which was basically my original point.

 

7 rounds were contentious (for me, at least) because all 3 judges agreed with me on 5 rounds (3,4,6,10, and 12)

So I'm left with 7 possible rounds. Which of those rounds were conclusively misscored by the judges because I think they got 5 absolutely correct? Whenever we start picking at these rounds, we find little unanimity once we start comparing. That is curious to me. It's not like Bradley was wobbling around and getting hurt or super tagged. He was just getting outlanded. (by a harder puncher).

Which of the remaining 7 rounds were clearly Pacquiao rounds? Lampley went with round 7, but a lot of people felt that was a stupid round for him to pick because they thought it was a close round.

 

mikE is a Jaws1216 wanna-be. Which is pretty sad.

Which also kinda makes him FreeIke's grandson.

 

If you want to make a poor "coin flip" comparison, then you are looking at landing heads 7 out of 12 times, not 7 in a row. The odds of a coin landing heads 7 or more times out of 12 flips is actually pretty high. Close to 50%.

Regardless, it's a pretty poor comparison, there around 3 or 4 consensus PACMAN rounds, and around 2-3 consensus Bradley rounds. The rest I guess you could call a "coin flip", though I hope the judges wouldn't be using that approach.

Something I thought about, is I wouldn't be surprised if some of these judges got 2:30 thorugh the round, and pencilled in Bradley... then waited to see if Pacman did anything to steal it back. Despite Lampley's screams, there were a bunch of rounds he didn't.

 

Not if only 7 rounds are contentious. In scorecards on both fightbeat and among the WBO judges there were only 7 rounds which anybody scored for Bradley.

 

Ok, I see what you are saying. So just take a step back, and think about this. Let's just say there are 4 rounds that are consensus Pac rounds and 2 rounds that are consensus Bradley rounds. So there's 6 rounds left, that are "close" in some way. Bradley gets a little lucky and wins 4 of the 6, then you've got a draw. That's about how I saw it. Definitely not a domination by Pac and HBO called it and as many posters here believed it is. This is a fight where the "decision shock" will fade away over the years.

 

Please take a moment and watch this video.

I don't expect you to change your opinions, but please understand that there is another perspective, and in my opinion a completely valid one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=riSEb-hdq8M

 

Guys. I am one that thinks that Pac should have won, but this vid DOES make a good case at LEAST for the bias of HBO. Now I'm a little bored of all the "turn the sound down" talk. I have watched the fight 3 times now, and only once with the HBO commentary.

Once I watched it with the sound off, & gave Bradley every benefit of the doubt & scored it a draw.


I'm a Manny fan. You won't find a post of mine suggesting anything different, but, I have to admit that this vid does show that a lot of the punches that I thought landed for Manny, in fact did not.

I still think that Manny won, because Bradley landed very little, & the shots Manny landed were more significant. However I have to admit that maybe at least some of those shots that I considered significant, may not have been quite as significant as I thought...

 

Good video. I'll watch the fight again some time more closely. Bradley's defense looks better than anybody realised.

 

Lederman is one of the worst human beings in the world by the way. I'd love to smother him with a pillow quietly.