Analyzing the scoring of Pacquiao Bradley

I started watching, and to be honest it didn't do anything to change my opinion, the first few examples they showed, in round 2, I knew those punches didn't land clean anyway, I didn't need a slow motion replay to tell me that.

I also knew Bradley wasn't that easy to hit. What the fight did show me is Bradley's offense is much worse than I thought.

The reason this video is meaningless, is it doesn't show Bradley landing anything clean either, and though Manny didn't land a huge amount of clean shots, he landed way more clean shots than Bradley.

 

Bradley punches from the elbow an awful lot.

 

Also the whole "Watch with the sound off" is a preposterous angle to begin with, not only would I give enough credit to most of the FB posters to NOT be influenced by cheerleaders like Jim and retards like Kellerchode, but the fact is, out of the entire press row scoring, only 1 idiot scored it for Bradley.

Were press row in earshot of Jim too and being brainwashed by HBO? ::

 

They're no real meat (mustard?) on his punches. He punchees in bunchees but there's no natural explosion of energy there, and not much inate power.

 

I think he arm punches, pretty badly. Not even in the deliberate pity pat Calzaghe way either - he winds up but he doesn't get his hips and shoulders lined up behind them. That jab especially is like a perfect demonstration of how NOT to throw one, side on from the elbow. Wax on, wax off.

 

Maybe there's method to all this that goes over my head.

 

I'm not sure there is actually. His punching technique and power is just not very good, there's no method to it, because he doesn't even overwhelm you with slaps like Calzaghe does.

He has SOME skill and natural fighting instinct, but he doesn't have good punching technique, and never shall.

And yeah you're right, as well as lacking that explosion of energy that true punchers have, there's no torque in his shots, or weight shift, they are basically arm punches, and occassional dead weight retard punch.

 

Yeah but he landed some of those dead weight retard punches in a few of the wild exchanges where Pacman was hitting air as Lampley cheered him on.

 

The video, while well done, doesn't show me anything I didn't already consider when scoring the fight the first time

Like I said... no matter what I do, 116-112 Pac is the score I get... He clearly won... Bradley fought his best and did alright, but he lost as clear as could be

 

At the end of the vid, it shows Bradley landing shots (with no acknowledgement from the crowd, or judges).

What it meant for me, (besides the ridiculously biased commentary, which is not that surprising), is that although Bradley didn't land much of great significance, Manny didn't land as many significant shots as I first thought.

I have to be honest here. There were shots that looked (to me) as though they landed, (ostensibly forcing Bradley backwards, & that illicited big responses from the crowd & commentary), which in fact did not.

If you knew at the time that those shots didn't land MWS, then you are a more astute observer than I.

 

It's difficult to say as I haven't seen the whole vid, but I did watch the fight INTENTLY, a high definition 60fps copy viewed on a plasma, and I think that's as good a view of the fight as is possible.

And the first view examples they showed, I remember thinking they didn't land clean at the time, and were grazing shots.

Both times I watched I realised Manny didn't land a huge amount clean, and Bradley's face was evident of that after the fight. It was as non violent as the Mosley and Marquez fights, perhaps even more so.

But quite simply, in a round where Bradley lands 1 clean punch, and Manny lands 3, it's a Pacquiao round beyond dispute.

 

He's a friendly guy.

 

BRADLEY REALLY landed nothing in the fight. That's the bottom line. Yeah, Pac looked like shit, but Bradley did nothing. His punches hit gloves all night long. He rarely landed at all.

 

Which rounds did you score for Bradley?

 

each time, I get the same ones... 2, 10, 11, 12

 

I posted one time on this subject, right after the fight. Said I gave Tim Bradley 4 rounds. Also commented that this was nothing even remotely resembling the "robbery of the century" or even the "robbery of the week" for that matter.

I stand by that, and I think that with pages and pages of people posting over and over the same shit trying to justify their scoring where Pac shut out Bradley, or won all but one round, is ridiculous. If you need to keep doing that, you are internally conflicted about your own score or you have an agenda.

If you watched this fight like I know most on this site are capable of doing.... watching the BOXING and not worrying about who was fighting, or what so-and-so was saying, or which broadcaster was climaxing when Pac punched... you know that the fight was a 116-112 type of fight that Pac won. Case closed.

Pac should have been given the decision, but I entertain anything from 3-5 rounds for Bradley as reasonable and not worth much discussion. 2 rounds or less to Bradley and you were a fucking rube for HypnoBO sports, and anything more than 5 rounds for Bradley and you are an out of your mind Bradley fan or Pac hater. Simple.

The telecast was warped, biased, and as usual hyped shit for one fighter and ignored decent boxing by the other at many occasions. But we all know this already. What gets me is that you have otherwise experienced posters on here spouting off about how offended they are when someone says they were swayed by the commentary, yet it is painfully obvious they were.

People can, will, and SHOULD disagree on the scoring of this fight. Everyone should agree Pac won, though. I am trying to understand how this fight is any different than any other fight where the general consensus it that the wrong guy got the decision, but there is a lot of disagreement about the actual scoring. Is it just because it's Pac? So fucking what? IMO the 3rd JMM fight was FAR, FAR more offensively scored than this fight. What is generating so much offense about THIS fight as opposed to a myriad of others?

Lot of money on Pac out there amongst the Fightbeat crowd?

 

Count the punches landed, there were only 2 rounds where Bradley landed more, and only ONE round where he clearly landed more, that was round 10, the only clear Bradley round in the entire fight.

10 - 2 really is the fairest score.

 

mvs i culd c pac wining 161-112 i neva ceen paqwao get tired so fast

 

loock dog jones #ujcking bich pacuwao beeted bradlys 193 - 105 and cemanted as teh gratist fightar of are times

 

Outlander, first

- I had Marquez 2 & 3 for Marquez, 3 being a clear victory imo. But they were close fights.

- I wanted to see Pac get his diva ass schooled and knocked out in this fight by Bradley.

- Bradley looked like a scrub and won maybe 3 rounds at most. I don't object to 4 rounds.

But to your main point, the reason there is outrage and shock over this is not because people had money on Pac, or are Pac fans, or whatever. It's because

a) it WAS NOT a close fight, and

b) The marquee fighter was the one who got robbed. We see B-sides get robbed all the time, we're used to it and the motive is immediate and obvious. It's a shitty part of the game, but a part of it we're all used to. Did anyone scream bloody murder when Sturm lost to De La Hoya? No. People said "robbery," but nobody was surprised. When that happens, some even say things like "well, Sturm knew what he was up against and had DLH there for the KO.. he should have thought better and finished him."

But when one of the two biggest stars in the sport gets robbed, it's only natural that people are going to sit up, take notice, and wonder about what's going on..

 

I agree with this 100%. There's no doubt Pac won the fight but it's not as though he beat the shit out of Bradley in the process. i didn't see the fight live and after a week of reading the vitrol surrounding the fight I was surprised to see it wasn't a beatdown.

I also had Bradley winning four rounds, but it wasn't the robbery as described. It's simply the ramblings and ranting of upset Pac fans blowing the fight out of proportion.

As you said...guys who scored the fight 11-1 or 10-2 simply should put down their pens or turn in their scorecards before the first bell rings.

The decision Tavoris Cloud was given against Campillo should have generated this kind of outrage.

 

Interesting that the dissenting position in this debate is exclusively presented in posts containing the qualifier 'there's no doubt Pac won, but.....'

 

Uh huh. You can't make an argument and start it that way. If people can sit here trying to justify a close fight, they damn sure can accept a 10-2 score card.

 

The point is the decision didn't/doesn't warrant the level of outrage it received. There are other decisions within the last couple months that make Bradley-Pac look like a close fight.

That's my point.

I'm sure most of the folks making the most noise are PacTards.

 

Of opinions I've seen, 99%+ think Pac won. Including all those justifying the decision.

 

Oh really, like loadedgloves, who correctly scored the fight 10-2?

 

Absolutely, regardless if you think it's a 10-2 fight or not, I don't think I've ever seen the official loser of the fight be considered the winner by QUITE such a high percentage. Even in other extreme robberies like Pea - Chavez etc, there's always a few more people that think the other guy won than here.

It is indeed justified, there's simply no case to be made for Bradley winning, the definition of a robbery.

 

I had Bradley winning

 

Reality bends to your will, LOK:bears:

 

The question is....was it the robbery of the year? Was the decision so bad that boxing will never recover?

That's what youre supposed to believe. Truth of the matter is it fails on both those fronts. "Like i said before" the Cloud decision was far worse. The Brandon Rios fight was far worse. Williams - Lara was far worse.

That's the point.