Media scorecards - why are they all different?

The same can be said for the Floyd/Cotto fight. . . It could have been 120-108 Cotto if you pick and choose the different rounds, different scores had read.

This is such an analogy fail to analyze the fight, and excuse this egregious decision. . .

 

Laughable - as most who have known me since 2008 will attest, I'm a contract lawyer, specialising in M&A as well as criminal negligence within the business world.

If this went in a court of law, no one could find against Bradley beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of Ringside Report cards due to the lack of common consensus and the inability that judges (who even had the same score) had in judging the same during rounds.

Being a round by round sport, probability of "how many rounds could someone individually score for a fighter" means nothing. More so, spread of viewpoints across the rounds in which someone did score would be taken seriously.

Similar case in business would be complaint resolution, using precedents set by other incidents as the case example.

 

Huh!? Non sequitir

His point is the rounds people thought Bradley won are scattered. Is it that unbelieveable the judges would give many of those rounds to Bradley? Manny only seemed to want to fight last 1/3 of each round and then he would flail away like a mad man. Yes he landed some but it sure didn't make scoring easy for the judges.

At least this is a plausible explanation of how the result came to be.

 

Correct, difference in that fight is that no one would argue it wasn't close, competitive and hard to score.

See what we're saying here?

 

Let me guess? TS is a *****/hater

 

If you think Floyd/Cotto was hard to score, you don't deserve feet.

It simply proves that there are statistical anomalies, and if you pick, and choose "outlier scores", then you can justify a ****ing highway robbery.

 

One that scored the fight 116-112 for Pacquaio? One that also had Mayweather at 115-113 against Cotto?

Let me guess, you're an idiot who can't actually read a thread and see the thought logic within. The mere fact that 7 "respected" boxing brains who all felt a 119-110 score card was the right result had six different rounds amongst them that they scored for Bradley is a point that transcends who I am/am not a fan of.

 

and then how did we get 3 outlier scores (yes, even Roth's score was close to outlying) from the three official judges. It's incredibly improbable.

 

Floyd/Cotto was easier to score on a round by round basis, if you do a consensus of which rounds Floyd was given over Cotto, you would find a higher degree of consensus amongst those who reported on the fight.

In this case, it's not a statistical anomaly, there is nothing statistical about this - forget probabilities and focus on the actual fact - 7 different people who felt Pacquaio dominated this fight, that it wasn't even close and was a horrible decision had six different rounds they gave to Bradley.

I took the seven outliers in favour of Pacquaio and proved there was no consensus in their opinion. If anything, I'm unfair on Bradley by not including the seven outliers that had him either winning or representing a draw into this equation - chances are amongst 14 reporters, we would have 9 - 11 rounds in which they felt Bradley could potentially have taken it.

Which comes back to the initial point made, one that only an idiot would fail to see - this fight was not as close nor as much of a robbery as people like to make out based on the way in which people viewed the fight and how inaccurate/lacking in consensus rounds were for/against Bradley.

 

Wonderful posting PP

 

That defense was laughable. Pleasa just go to boxrec.com and look at the page for this fight. Out of 90 scorecards, none USA and none Filipino, 88 scored it for Pac, 1 a draw, and 1 for Bradley. That speaks volume. Seriously.

Your logic is awful and if you are a lawyer you are probably a horrible one. Stop going against the grain.

There are people out there who scored Cotto against Mayweather.

 

Congratulations for absolutely missing the point - by the way, there are four notable reporters who scored the fight for Bradley but let's just ignore your inability to collate information and look at the facts.

It doesn't matter if 88 people scored it for Pacquaio - I scored it for Pacquaio - I believe on a round by round basis Pacquaio deserved to win the fight, that's not the question here.

The question here is if the fight was apparently such a blow out, one in which Pacquaio easily dominated his opponent, why is there such a wide degree of spread in the rounds that could have gone the way of his opponent in the seven largest outliers of all "expert" opinion.

If you fail to see that point and why it impacts the consideration that this fight was one of the most terrible decisions ever made, then you probably didn't even pass elementary school - because this IS elementary to understand.

This isn't a "Bradley deserved the win" thread. This is "The fight wasn't actually that easy to score" thread. Proved by the large degree of variance in the fight card decisions.

Now, are you going to miss the point again so I feel the need once more to belittle you for being such an incompetent poster?

 

One thing that makes me laugh and is frequently evident in this discussion.

Anyone with a viewpoint that points out this fight wasn't a dominance by Pacquaio is gunned down by a bunch of people who seemingly, to quote the Mayweathers, don't know **** about boxing and how rounds are scored.

 

That is because each person has a particular way of judging which they favor things over others. For example, one might prefer counter punching than activity. One might prefer accurate power punching than high rate jabbing.

Pac was a more accurate power puncher with most of his activity was late in the rounds. Bradley was a more of jabber, some counter punching and activity rate.

But what is telling is the consistency in which Pac still IS HIGHLY FAVORED in 99% of those scores - no matter what style they preferred!

A spread out round does not mean the fight was close, it just means you might prefer a style or result than the other.

 

Or it shows that they don't share a standard way of scoring a fight, while the actual fight judges (who all come from a particular commission, have a standard set of criteria they follow and all have received training around how to score a fight under the Vegas Commission) had a lot more consensus in their scoring than the ringside reporters did.

Funny that.