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

Could be perfectly viable explanation for that, no? The stench was pretty thick afterwards...

 

And, obviously, if there's an advantage to being as close to the ring as a judge, it's getting a feel for what's landing and what isn't.

 

Sure. Another reason going the robbery route doesn't make any sense to me.

 

If it's already set in motion, how it looks in the end is down to the guys in the ring... I keep hearing the Lampley thing used as an excuse... What about all the people who didn't hear a word said by Jim Lampley all night because they were either watching an international feed or sitting in the arena itself? What about the landslide in favor of Pacquaio by the writers covering the bout?

 

I've watched thousands of prizefights, my score is relatable to Harold Lederman's about as often as the Cubs win the World Series and I generally spend the fights where I'm stuck with Jim Lampley cringing at his every word wishing harm upon him and I scored it easily for Pacquaio on the basis of landing vastly superior punches in superior numbers and continuously getting home hard body shots

 

I haven't mentioned Lampley.

I thought Pacquiao won too. I don't know what else I can say. I don't think it was fixed. Doesn't add up to me.

 

Bradley's offense was putrid in the bout

 

It was either fixed or judged at a level of scarcely believable incompetence ... One or the other... I just don't see there being any less evidence of a fix here than for any other obviously wrong decision or more evidence for those

 

At the core, I think we disagree because I thought it was a close fight.

 

I can't even fathom a case for a draw, honestly

 

I like this point.

 

Unless you are in a spot where you can't see what's being landed or what isn't

That's been used as a justification for lots of weird cards over the years

 

And maybe it's as simple as that sometimes. Even when we universally agree on a decision, judges score different rounds for different fighters.

 

It's a good point, but doesn't explain how multiple times one official can come up with such a different card compared to the other two judges watching from the same vantage point.

"Subjectiveness" isn't satisfactory for such wild variation.

 

Besides, aren't the punch stat guys, the broadcasters and a lot if the writers at ringside, too?

 

It varies depending on venue and so on but they're typically not going to be in a broadcast booth behind glass.

 

I had Bradley pacquiao closer than most, but still, even a draw was a stretch. I don't see any other reason than corruption for this verdict. I don't see it as unlikely that they manage to hide such small scale bribery, which would only involves four to ten persons maximum . In QC, it took extraordinary circomstance to unveil a system involving billion of dollars, that operated for years (if not decades), and included numerous persons with high political power and large corporations. I think it takes a lot of voluntary blindess to impute these kind of decisions to incompetence.

 

To use a not so perfect but pretty dope analogy... Ideally, there's seems to be no better place in a baseball park to call balls and strikes than right behind the catcher at home plate, right where the umpire does his business ... He can see better than anybody if that slider caught the outside corner or if it was well off the mark... Nobody sees it more clearly than the umpire... Except for one guy... The centerfield camera man for whatever TV station is broadcasting the ballgame... He's got a perfect view of home plate, instant replay and a nifty little strike zone graphic he can superimpose on the picture and it'll turn out the same slider the umpire called a strike actually missed the real strike zone by a couple of inches ... Fact is, the camera can see fractions of time that we can't ... Now, the umpire is probably dead certain it was a strike... He saw it with his own eyes and he's called 100,000 of these pitches in his life ... He KNOWS... He's still wrong though... The strike zone simply IS and the pitch simply was a ball. The credit I'd give that umpire is the absolute limit I could possibly muster for the judges that scored that fight for Tim. Sometimes the cameras, whether they say HBO on them or Showtime on them, see things the judges either didn't see or could not have seen. That's the limit I'm willing to go to cut slack

 

To add to it there is a lot of incompetence which it makes it more difficult to differentiate between that and direct corruption. Virtually every bad decision can be explained away easily enough.

 

yes, I don't say that every bad decisions is due to corruption, some, if not most, of them are surely due to incomptence. Still, their is some case where it is not possible to gives the benefit of the doubt.

 

I agree with pretty much everything you guys are saying. I'm not convinced when it comes to this particular bout :dunno:

 

I'm not convinced myself, it's just that's it one of the more recent high profile fights ending in a highly dubious decision.

 

Not only is it hard to prove, but how bad does a decision have to be before a case for corruption can be made? Would Tex Cobb have needed to get awarded the win over Larry Holmes? Does it take that kind of extreme before the idea something crooked happened is entertained? Roy Jones still has a silver medal even though it's about a clear case of bribery as can ever has been made. If it was professional boxing the judges could simply have said "well that's what we saw at the time". </SPAN>

Take out the video footage of somebody accepting money and we don't even need to call it incompetence. We weren't at ringside to hear the sounds of those punches impacted so they probably got it right.</SPAN>

 

Fair enough. Personally, I thought the decision was surreal, just like Rios Vs Abril. They are two of the worst decisions I've ever seen, and both recent funnily enough, and both Top Rank fighters.

It's not like Pacquiao was battering him from pillar to post, again it was a boring fight, but he did win almost every round clear enough IMO.

 

You're Underestimating just How SHITTY & UNfuckingREGULATED the Business of Boxing is, Bro...

Most of those Affiliated w/a Particular Commission KNOW Each Other Intimately...KNOW Where Each Other Resides, their Significant Others, Children, What Car they Drive, Financial Situation, etc...

It'd Be VERY Easy to Decipher that a Judge you KNOW Could Use the Extra Money...Let's Face it, You're NOT Going to Be Able to Co-Exist Strictly on the Pay of Being a Licensed Member of ANY Boxing Commission (Other than Commissioner)....That's a Lesson REED Learned the Hard Way....

Beyond that, a Commission May Select MULTIPLE Judges that are "Pliable" to the Wishes of a Promoter...& Nobody Would EVER Know...If there's Some Holier than Thou, By-the-Book Judge in a Commission, they Simply WON'T Allow him to Work Certain Big Fights, Period...The Scheduling of Judging Assignments is RANDOM Anyways...No Rhyme or Reason, Other than the Commission's Discretion...

It'd Be VERY Easy for Bob Arum, or Somebody KNOWN to Be Affiliated w/Him, to Get to Judges...Fuuuuurthermore, it'd Be VERY Easy for the Nevada Commission to Assign Pliable Judges, so a Promoter like Arum Could Get to Them...





REED:mj:

 

Man, I don't doubt any of that. But isn't it fucking crazy that nothing ever leaks?

 

Just wait until Dalby Shirley spills his guts Tim donaghy style

 

What's to leak?

 

I'm NOT going to watch it again to check, but at the time I thought it was a close fight.

 

Exactly. Does a single incriminating conversation even have to take place in all that?