Media scorecards - why are they all different?

You're right, passing elementary school isn't qualified to go to law school like I am.

This fight was easy to score. You know why? Because JUST ABOUT EVERYONE scored it for Pacquiao, convincingly. Bradley didn't win but 3 rounds. When a guy is getting beaten by another GREAT fighter, you find it easier to give the losers rounds. Just like Cotto-Mayweather, a lot of people scored it 115-113 or 116-112 for Mayweather. Sure Cotto showed something, but he got outboxed and lost convincingly.

 

/thread

 

Hmmmmmmm.. maybe, just maybe because each person has his own subjective criteria for scoring? /thread

 

The only morons doing that are people like you who love to throw around your sarcastic comments. There will be a variance amongst scorecards when lowlifes score the fight 115-113 for Pacquiao, even 116-112.

How much did you pay the broad in your picture?

 

(from another thread)

Pac won 3,4,6,8 no doubt and by a big margin, but he didn't clearly win any other round...and he never hit Bradley in the 7-9-10-12 and hit him one or twice in 1 and 11....Hence, by round to round scoring, it becomes a close fight.

(for the record, i wasn't rooting for anybody and had it 6-6 but thought the announcers stopped watching the fight.)

 

I respect your opinion about the 115-113 Mayweather/Cotto score but I must ask, what were you smoking?

 

You think commission judges are some special judges and any experience and training they have cannot be achieved by reporters and analyst covering the sport often longer than some of these judges?

Come on now. You are positioning your argument based on Holier Than Thou for the judges.
You do know that on those THREE judges, they had SIX rounds of discrepancy right?
So your argument about consistency goes out.

 

I can agree, but does this mean you're trying to establish credibility with the scoring of the judges? Because for one thing, theres only 3 judges which can really make it hit/miss, and secondly if such credibility is established on the sole basis of job training specificity then what about the judging of the multitude of other such "robberies"?

 

Haha there it is. That patented, "you go to this school" argument. It's funny. I love people who go to schools like U of M and get an English degree, yet make fun of someone else who gets an Accounting degree from MSU let's say.

Anyway, I know you scored it for Pacquiao, not saying that. I'm saying the variance in scoring is from people who scored it 115-113 and what not.

Here is my point, distanced from other lines, in caps, in bold, italicized; even threw in a semicolon.

THE REASON THERE IS VARIANCE IN SCORING IS BECAUSE PEOPLE TEND TO FAVOR A FIGHTER WHEN HE IS CLEARLY LOSING.

That happens all the time man. Cotto Mayweather is a perfect example.

Go back to your office and be a keyboard warrior. Also, go back to your hot wife, maybe sister or mother (that would be awesome), possible even daughter (which would rule) and stop trolling me. You have to be a troll.

 

I'm telling you that a LOT of people were "pulling" for TIM to be that guy who knocked Pac off his #1 spot.... People were looking to give TIM the benefit of the doubt.....the only problem was Pac completely dominated and it was hard to find anything to credit TIM with on Saturday.