Manny Pacquiao vs Timothy Bradley

Lads this decision stunk, and the more Im thinking about it the more angry/disappointed/sick Im getting.

I cant believe lads are on here trying to say they gave the fight to Bradley, this was as clear cut as it gets and if people are saying that they see where the judges are coming from for this fight, then I give up.

Where do you draw the line? How can a fight be +/- 7 rounds depending on what way your looking at it?

and it throws up another question if this is the case, I would say at least 50% of all fights that go the distance were closer than the one last night and if you went back and reviewed them you could make a case against the result of the fight.

Im not even going to entertain going back to watch the fight again. Im disgusted.

Anyway hope I made some sense! had to get that off my chest . :pac:

Bradley clearly injured for most of this fight ......

He's going to dominate Pac in the rematch - Pac has no interest in boxing anymore in my opinion

I scored it by 8-4 to Pacman. No way Bradley took the belt there. Several rds were close and could have went either way or even. But, overall, Manny won the fight even saying that some rds were close.

BTW, horrible having to listen to that foul mouthed Diaz in Bradley's corner.

Must say Bradley came across very well in post fight interview. Not gloating, not disrespectful, and seeing it fairly.

Pighead wrote: »

You know absolutely nothing about boxing. You're the fraud. If you can't see that Pac won that you were drunk last night.

There's something about Pac and mayweather fans that brings out posters like this guy :rolleyes:

The other thing I hate about boxing forms is that some people think its a competition about who knows more about boxing.

The real fraud is is that boxing has become a business and not a sport.
And there all in on it, from promoters to the commentators - the boxers - the referees - the judges and of course the TV companies that hold multi fight contracts.

They all got an agenda to follow the money fighter and thats the fcuked up thing about boxing.

3 judges who called it how they saw it last night - and they will pay heavily in their careers for it.
You wont see any of those call a big fight again.

The only thing Bradley lacked in this fight was power, he had everything else in abundance.

If anybody watches this fight again, they will see Pac do absolutely nothing for at least 2 minutes of every round.

I've just finished watching the fight without knowing the result apart from the fact that it was controversial. I'm only a casual boxing fan so take what I have to say with a pinch of salt. I scored the fight for Bradley 115-113. I scored the rounds in the following way:

Bradley
Bradley
Pacquiao
Pacquiao
Pacquiao
Bradley
Pacquiao
Bradley
Bradley
Bradley
Bradley
Pacquiao

Personally I thought Bradley was doing a good job at blocking or dodging a lot of Pacquiao's punches. Although that wasn't the case for a couple of rounds. A big problem with Pacquiao was that he wasn't landing his punches as cleanly as he usually does.

As for Bradley, despite the fact he looked rather sloppy and shaky a lot of the time, he still wasn't getting hit a lot. Many of his punches were a bit wild and soft but I thought he did some good work with the jab and threw some nice counter punches throughout the fight.

I think that the CompuBox numbers for the entire fight might be misleading as it appeared to me that Pacquiao was landing a huge amount of punches in rounds 3, 4 & 7 but not so much in other rounds. I'm completely open to correction on this as I haven't seen a round by round breakdown of the numbers. I was personally shocked when I saw the CompuBox numbers earlier in the thread so it could be a case of me seeing things that didn't happen or failing to see things that did.

I should also point out that it is a possibility that I may have be biased in my scoring towards wanting a close fight and therefore subconsciously gave rounds to a fighter to make it feel more competitive.

As I said at the start I'm only a casual fan so tear my post to pieces if you want. The main purpose of my post was to try give people an idea of how someone might have scored it in Bradley's favour.

I've definitely seen far worse decisions in the past 12 months even. I had Manny winning 115-113. Could have been 116-112 but some of the scoring I've seen is a joke. That was in now way a shutout for Manny and The HBO team were ridiculously biased. Wasn't particularly impressed with Manny again and cant say I'd want to see what PBF would do to him now.

Jayob10 wrote: »

Happens on here quite frequently, you'll get some poster who claims we should watch it with the sound turned down or whatever.

Watching sport with a biased commentator totally warps your view of the outcome, i see it all the time in Boxing, same in MMA too, fans tend to be like sheep and just totally agree with what some commentator said who may no nothing about Boxing, I don't think it is conscious and i myself have been guilty of listening and just going along with what some commentator said, In a fight where rounds are close all it takes is a biased commentator to make you feel the fighter with commentator on his side is winning rounds he is not.

cowzerp wrote: »

Watching sport with a biased commentator totally warps your view of the outcome, i see it all the time in Boxing, same in MMA too, fans tend to be like sheep and just totally agree with what some commentator said who may no nothing about Boxing, I don't think it is conscious and i myself have been guilty of listening and just going along with what some commentator said, In a fight where rounds are close all it takes is a biased commentator to make you feel the fighter with commentator on his side is winning rounds he is not.

Wow think this is one of the very few times I've ever agreed with you but that is spot on. The HBO commentary is embarrassing at times they're so biased. It really does influence you when you're watching a fight.

Big Ears wrote: »

While you're correct that they were extremely biased, and during the fight I didn't think Bradley was really hurt at any point, other than the 4th round that is (which actually turned out to just be Bradley twisting his ankle), Bradley stated in the interview after the fight that Pacquiao had hurt him throughout the fight.

There was a few times I suppose where Bradley looked to hold on as a result of the punishment he was taking, I've no idea how shook up he really was from that, he seemed to exhibit a phenomenal chin during the bout. They did completely overplay Pacquiao's power, but in light of Bradley's comments and a few incidents during the fight, I think you could say that it did have some effect during the fight.

Bradley was verey praising and fair in the interview. I am sure he did feel them, but he was never in any danger in there, and nor did he look too troubled.

boxer.fan wrote: »

I am & always have been a big fan of Pacman. I do think he did enough to beat Bradley, however, something is just not right with Manny's boxing these days. He's not half as aggressive as he once was, against ODLH, Hatton et al for example.

He should have wiped the floor with Bradley, but didn't. I dont think its his fitness either, something is just not clicking.

If he wants to get decisions, he needs to give the judges something to score. For the majority of the second half of the fight he did little or nothing worth scoring. At least Bradley was landing shots on the gloves, so there can be no argument about the decision IMO.

Against Oscar and Hatton and Margarito and Clottey he was facing men who were there to be pummelled. Bradley is a clever and cagey and resourceful and tactical fighter. What you do against one man doesn't mean you can do it against another man. Look at the issues he had with JMM, and always had.

I actually thought that Manny looked sharper, faster, leaner, crisper and mor alive vs. Bradley than he did vs. Mosley and JMM, where he looked flat, heavy, sluggish and bloated in performance.

Henno30 wrote: »

Pacquiao threw more power shots in 5 of the last 6 rounds (Rd 10 being the only exception), so even by your half-assed criteria for scoring Pacquiao still won. Stop trying to hard to be a contrarian.

Lose a few pound did ya?

Not attempting to be contrary. I am as frustrated with the result as anyone. I am just a bit more annoyed because I think Manny could have put him away by keeping the foot on the gas.

Jayob10 wrote: »

Contradict yourself much?

No, he didn't!

Jayob10 wrote: »

i'm always baffled when I see some folk try and defend a decision like that.

Happens on here quite frequently, you'll get some poster who claims we should watch it with the sound turned down or whatever.

Anyone who had Bradley winning that fight doesn't know boxing. Either that, or they just don't want to believe the corruption that goes with it.

I'm not a big fan of Pacquiao, personally I think he is done. But he comfortably won that fight. 8 rounds to 4, and thats being generous to Bradley.

Bob Arum has alot to answer for, a rematch is the best outcome for himself. His new moneymaker Bradley was never going to lose this convincingly, it just didnt make financial sense for Arum.

Take a look at this article, the claim is that rematch posters were printed on the 29th May. Make of that what you will. Either way, something stinks. The sport has become an embarrassment and anyone not passionate about it would not entertain such nonsense decisions which scream fix.

http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2012/06/10/the-timothy-bradley-manny-pacquiao-rematch-poster-was-already-made-two-weeks-ago/

for unexplainable boxing decisions just watch the olympic boxing this year