I'll try to explain what the judges saw in Layman's terms.

Clearly the judges were under orders to count punches to the gloves, because that's the only thing Bradley was hitting all night.

 

:yep:yep

:happy

 

The OP didn't understand why you posted that based on the response they gave, we need to break it down in Layman's terms lol


Right, if you are going to use outside observations as your evidence (the judges) rather than your own two eyes, than you can't simply throw out oustide observations you are uncomfortable with (compubox) and dilute observations other than your own, to fit your own agenda.

Its the same as saying, "everyone that agrees with me by doing so has validated themsevlesand everyone that disagrees by doing so proves that they are suspect"

 

Time for whipdatass to get on the short bus, field trip is over, back to the institution.

 

your probably right. i'll get out this week and try to find a new one. but seriously, this **** was not right. i understand loyalty to a fighter. i also know how it can color our perceptions. i just cannot understand how anyone can objectively believe Bradley won that fight.
Remember after the fight Bradley said he would have to see the fight to see if he won/lost? Yes, i know how after a fight you do need to see it to know how you really did. I just really think Bradley didn't really think he won it, in his heart or gut. Don't think his corner thought so either.

 

" I'll try to explain what the judges saw in Layman's terms."

Christ on stick, why is it so hard for some fans to understand / accept that the fight was simply fixed?

 

We're going to go by a fighters inclination to cut or mark up in the face now to display getting hit or not getting hit?

 

Oh idiot. atsch