Analyzing the scoring of Pacquiao Bradley

Pacquiao won, but we should all know by now that punch stats don't mean shit.

 

:wack:compubox, the most decisive argument in a discussion

 

guy's, I've never claimed that Bradley won the 9th round, just said he did far better in the last 4 but he clearly lost the 9th

 

they're useful. Limited but useful

 

Not when determining who won more rounds they aren't. Not the total numbers.

 

with your aprroch, the odds would be about,0,286% that 2 of the 3 judges gave Bradley all 5 questionnable rounds

it would be (1/32)*(1/32)*(1/32) + (1/32)*(1/32)*(31/32)*3

where the first part of the summation is the case were all 3 judges gave Bradley the 5 rounds and the last part where 2 of the judges gaves Bradley the 5 rounds

 

How can these old ass judges even see all these punches landing. It's hard for me to see sober!

 

If you think Bradley won, you know nothing about boxing.

 

If five rounds of the fight are very close (and one guy clearly takes five and the other clearly takes two), then everything between 118-110 and 113-115 is UNDERSTANDABLE. So actually it makes plenty of sense. No agenda nor rocket science needed

As most in this thread have said, this was a good and interesting analysis of trying to rationalize a decision that everybody agrees was wrong. That is, if we concentrate on the post rather than the poster

 

It wasn't a remotely a close fight, end of story. And...it is funny seeing you latch on to this topic just for the sake of taking a few shots at me.

There was a time when you were not impossibly biased for/against certain fighters and so pissy about it all the time...but now you are getting a little more like Stafford each day. Which, unfortunately....results in posts like this from you.

I'm sorry Duran isn't as sucky and Wlad (and his wretched competition) isn't as good as you would like them to be. Really, I am...since it seems to bother you this much.

 

No, as you can see I actually commented the subject of the topic, I was not targeting you or any other poster. I only quoted you because I thought your post missed the point of the topic and I couldn't agree with your take. I wasn't even in minority here, most people of this thread understood mikE's stance, while you concentrated on him as a poster and wanted to find an agenda.

Once more, I have nothing against you and I respect your knowledge, but please, accept that there are different opinions and comment posts rather than posters, then it is all good

 

yeah, i put the decimal in the wrong place. But it's 1 chance in 415, in those terms, right? Very small.

It's misleading to say 'well 7 out of 12 rounds were contestable so any score up to 7-5 is reasonable. For 2 of 3 cards to score all 7 cards one way is just extremely stinky.

 

IMO if the rounds are contestable then 7-5 is understandable, since you always have to find a winner in each round. Fair it is not, but this is how boxing scoring system works these days.

Also one point is that fights always look bit different to ringside, so it could be that to the judges Bradley has edged some rounds that look all-even from TV.

And once more; I am not justifying the decision since I can't personally see how Bradley took any more than five rounds even if you give him benefit of doubt

 

maybe it does happen every 500th fight though, but we just don't hear about it.....the question is what are the odds that it's a fight for a major title? maybe every 800,000th fight?


so propability-wise, i think we were due for something like this...but it's ok, the next time will be in about 150 years or so :bears:

 

The press all seemed to score it the same way as us so I dot think this one looked that different from ringside. But lets say that something about the view from ringside or the way judges are trained to score meant that besides two cast iron Bradley rounds the 5 remaining contestable ones were 70/30 rounds in his favour. Which stretches credulity but we'll roll with it. The chances of 2/3 random honest judges scoring all 5 for Bradley is still (1/0.7)x(1.66667) 5 times which gives you one chance in over 70.

It's just incredibly unlikely that these cards were honest, IMO. If it looks like bullshit, smells like bullshit and you need to clean your shoes when you step in it....

 

::Thats another way to look at it, I guess

 

You're a good man Punk, I KNEW you would see it if you rewatched it :bears:

And you said it brother, "Bradley hardly hit Pac even if he threw a lot".

The guys who gave more than 2 rounds to Bradley and ESPECIALLY more than 3, can't score a fight. Rounds are scored on clean punches landed.

It's a fight you need to watch closely, because yes, Bradley did throw more punches than Pacquiao, but it's not an exaggeration to say he barely landed a clean punch in the entire fight.

 

I just collected my winnings on Bradley winning so i'm pretty happy.

 

Apparently the november date for the rematch was written into the original contract

 

Again I watch boxing and get a horrible decision. I won't be watching any boxing for a while. I don't care to see Pac vs Bradley 2 as it's clear as fucking day who the better fighter is. There is nothing to look forward to and even if there was I don't want to see another guy dominate a fight and lose. This is one of the worst decisions I have ever seen in my life. Worse than Kirkland vs Molina and worse that Rios vs Abril, both of which were horrible.

 

Hut, your application of odds to this fight is misguided in the way you are doing it. Scoring a round is not a random event.

 

It makes you wonder, don't forget Bradley put his fucking hands up at the end, after basically being schooled for 12 rounds. And yeah, the non reaction of Pacquiao and even his wife etc.

But dunno, is it too weird that Pacquiao AND Bradley were somehow in on the fix?

 

How funny would it be if Bradley iced Manny in the rematch. Pactards would dismiss the outcome and say there never should have been a rematch so the KO doesn't count.

:dancingBaby:

 

:dunno:

 

Pactard has to be the worst nickname in the history of the internet.

 

Well he had 12 rounds and never once hurt Manny so I seriously doubt that would happen, and if he did who the fuck says a KO doesn't count. You're getting silly now man.