|||THE OFFICIAL||| Discussion thread: Floyd Mayweather vs. Manny Pacquiao

Yeah, it's a bullshit system to begin with.

 

:bears:

 

So what do you want from me???!

 

Nothing. :nono:

 

Or when somebody knows what's expected of them. Fight judges aren't picked out like members of a jury. Many of the same ones are used routinely for big fights. I think most of them have a good idea of what's expected of them and it doesn't have to be explicity stated, so right there they can't prove collusion. If a judge or ref came forward claiming they fixed a fight they would be implicating themself. Probably not going to happen unless they have something to gain and at the same time can make a deal to get out of hot water. If they are asked why they did it and said "because i had to in order to keep my job". Followup question would be "Were you told directly in no uncertain terms you had to do something illegal?"

The answer most likely is going to be "No ... but".

So they have nothing.

Of course that's just one scenario. I'm sure brown envelopes and bets made by proxy still happen too.

 

But Bradley over Pacquiao? In that case, surely you'd have to tell the judges that's what you want. ::

 

True.

 

What makes you think you'd hear something from anyone in the relatively short time since that fight?

 

If Top Rank fixed Pacquaio/Bradley to sell a possible rematch, I'd guess that wasn't their first rodeo, you know?

 

Yeah so what? What makes you think anyone would come forward and admit anything? How many instances of this happening can we name ever? I think we can all agree that fixes and dives, "favors", "suggestions" have happening since the earliest days of the sport... Outside of the all out federal probe of the early 60s (itself not really about BOXING to begin with) how many instances of a confession or a whistle blower do we have?

Say you were a judge for that bout and you came out and said "I was encouraged by TR/Bob Arum to be extra kind to Tim Bradley on my card" ... You better have concrete proof or you will be sued into Bolivian for libel... Not only that, you will be frozen out, nobody will work with you... How likely is it that someone will risk that? How likely are they to have evidence that proves their story?

 

There's got to be a dozen big fights, championship fights we could name that we all "know" were crooked in some way but for which we have not a single shred of tangible evidence

 

I don't even mean a judge who was involved. How about a judge who was approached but didn't do it? How about some minion at the commission?

A retired person? Someone who doesn't need to work anymore?

How many fights are fixed? How do they get word out that Bradley has to beat Pacquiao?

I don't think I'm being unreasonable.

 

Sure. Bradley/Pacquiao, to me, isn't one of those fights.

 

We're talking about a sport that can't help screwing itself at every turn. So often, it's amateur hour. All of a sudden it's Fort Knox when it comes to match fixing?

 

:bears:

Ledermans comments btw ...groan.

 

Right? Bradley clowned him!

 

Pacquiao Bradley was boring and uneventful, but it was also easy to score. It was too one sided to be incompetence. To have Bradley actually winning? Not even talking a draw. It's just too unlikely that 2 out of 3 judges would be just as stupid as that retarded cunt mikE, nigh on impossible.

 

I'd be willing to wager that however it happens, there's no direct acknowledgement between the top guy and the judges, so it would never be cut and dry

 

I'd say it holds up with pretty much any outrageous decision you'd care to name ... On this site, one guy scored it for Bradley after watching that video of course

 

Then how do you explain the semi frequent blatant robberies like Rios Vs Abril, that 90% of the time go in favour of the house/name fighter?

It's too consistent and obvious to not be corruption. How does it not come out? Well as others have suggested, it's probably more implicit than explicit.

 

I think my explanation was good.

 

Bradley won 2 rounds. I mean, a draw would have been bad enough, but to actually score it for Bradley? It's one of the worst decisions I've seen.

So yeah I agree, it holds up to any outrageous decision.

 

That's right.

 

I'm in no way suggesting there isn't corruption in boxing. Of course there is. I'm not buying the Pacquiao/Bradley stuff, is all.

 

They didn't even fucking make the rematch right away. ::

 

Excellent video. Bradley's slick in a really messy, ugly way.

 

Yeah, I enjoyed it. I'd have to look closer to see how much is taken out of context, but I don't remember noticing any of that stuff when I watched live.

 

i guess since i didnt have limpley squealing in my ear during the fight i found it to be more competitive

 

I'm not understanding what separates this fight from any other hideously judged bout that requires it to have a higher standard of proof than those... There's no more evidence for this being a fix than there was for Lewis/Holyfield, Whitaker/Chavez, Ramirez/Whitaker, Lockridge/Gomez, Escalera/Everett and any other outrageous robbery you'd care to mention... Double L's theoretical take makes no less sense than ones you could toss out for all of those fights

It's maybe the most agreed-upon bad decision I've seen in my lifetime

 

Yeah allot of what looked like telling hooks by Pacquiao is Bradley falling off balance with his own wild swings. You see things like that and you think Braddles is kinda wild but his defense is actually remarkable

And the video is yet more evidence that lederman is quarter downy.