All five WBO special judges say Pac beat Bradley (scores inside) - rematch inevitable

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by horst, Jun 21, 2012.


Page 1 of 2
  1. horst

    horst Guest

    From http://ringtv.craveonline.com/blog/173455-wbos-five-judges-score-for-pacquiao-over-bradley:


    A five-member panel of judges convened by WBO President Francisco "Paco" Valcarcel has unanimously scored in favor of Manny Pacquiao after watching video of Tim Bradley's disputed split-decision victory that dethroned Pacquiao as welterweight titleholder on June 9 at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas.

    The results were released to RingTV.com on Wednesday.

    "That's a Solomon-like conclusion. Paco is a good man, he really is. I have great respect for him and what he says," said Top Rank CEO Bob Arum, who promotes both Pacquiao and Bradley. "It's appropriate for him to make that final conclusion."

    On the night of the fight, Bradley (29-0, 12 knockouts) defeated Pacquiao (54-4-2, 38 KOs) by scores of 115-113 on the cards of official judges C.J. Ross and Duane Ford, while Jerry Roth had it the same way for Pacquiao. An informal poll of 51 writers favored Pacquiao over Bradley, 48-3.

    Valcarcel, who was at ringside, concluded, however, that Bradley-Pacquiao "ended in a controversial result," and decided to "take measures in accordance with the rules of procedure," by which his Championship Committee would "examine with five recognized international judges and evaluate the video of the match."

    This content is protected


    Valcarcel, who said he thought Pacquiao won eight rounds to four, said that the organization's rules do not allow for the bout being overturned, but that "the only thing that we can do is authorize a rematch."

    The Bradley-Pacquiao contract already had contained a clause calling for a rematch on Nov. 10, although Pacquiao is reportedly considering a fourth bout with Juan Manuel Marquez in Mexico for that date.

    Under the circumstances, Valcarcel said he would leave the scenario regarding a rematch to Arum, Marquez's Mexican-based co-promoter, Fernando Beltran, who often works with Top Rank, and Bradley's manager, Cameron Dunkin.

    "Cameron Dunkin and Top Rank, they have all received the information," said id Valcarcel. "Since they all work with the same promoter, they are working on that and we will leave that to them."

    Arum agreed.

    "Paco's not a dictator. He's saying that it's up to the fighters and the promoter, as well it should be. My first stop on any quest to determine what to do next is that I have to talk to the guy who is the money generator, and that's Manny Pacquiao," said Arum.

    "And I have to then determine after dicussions with him what he wants to do next and we'll go from there. Until Manny makes a determination, then I'm like a dog chasing its tail."

    According to CompuBox stats,
    This content is protected
    ,
    This content is protected
    .
    This content is protected
    . Bradley out-landed Pacquiao in only the ninth round, while the 10th was even in punches connected with each landing 14.

    Arum has requested that Nevada attorney general Catherine Cortez Masto investigate the results of the bout. Nevada State Athletic Commission director, Keith Kizer, told RingTV.com that he will also review the video with the three judges.



    I'm looking forward to the rematch. Should be good. :bbb
     
    horst, Jun 21, 2012
    horst, Jun 21, 2012
    #1
  2. Uncle Rico

    Uncle Rico Loyal Member Full Member

    39,748
    3
    Jun 28, 2009
    Didn’t really need a WBO panel to tell us something we already know.

    But I suppose its purpose is to just stoke the fire up for a rematch. Great :roll:. A pretty decent win and performance is taken away and overshadowed, all so that a rematch that nobody wants to see can take place. ****ing pathetic.
     
    Uncle Rico, Jun 21, 2012
    Uncle Rico, Jun 21, 2012
    #2
  3. Prince.

    Prince. 24/7 365 Full Member

    12,310
    0
    Jul 26, 2011
    ^^

    true
     
    Prince., Jun 21, 2012
    Prince., Jun 21, 2012
    #3
  4. hmi

    hmi Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,257
    0
    Sep 14, 2007
    That rescoring is just to satisfy the frustration of most of the people who watched the fight. The result will not be officially changed anyway. Bad news for JMM. No 4th fight in Mexico then.
     
    hmi, Jun 21, 2012
    hmi, Jun 21, 2012
    #4
  5. puga_ni_nana

    puga_ni_nana Dempsey Roll Full Member

    41,814
    5
    Apr 14, 2007
    Who other than the hardcore *****s and haters had changed their scores and actually has bradley winning btw?
     
    puga_ni_nana, Jun 21, 2012
    puga_ni_nana, Jun 21, 2012
    #5
  6. jawbreaker

    jawbreaker Active Member Full Member

    854
    13
    May 12, 2006
    Why has no one mentioned the fact that one of the reviewing judges saw the fight 115-113?

    Doesn't this legitamize the orginal judges' scorecard? If the fight was that close then it is concievable that the two judges saw it 115-113 for Bradley.
     
    jawbreaker, Jun 21, 2012
    jawbreaker, Jun 21, 2012
    #6
  7. Uncle Rico

    Uncle Rico Loyal Member Full Member

    39,748
    3
    Jun 28, 2009
    Not really. You don't know what his criteria may have been for giving it 115-113 to Pac. That 115-113 could well be a dominant 115-113 (as in - the seven rounds given to Pac could have been clear rounds, whilst the five for Bradley could have been generous, could-have-gone-either-way rounds).
     
    Uncle Rico, Jun 21, 2012
    Uncle Rico, Jun 21, 2012
    #7
  8. jawbreaker

    jawbreaker Active Member Full Member

    854
    13
    May 12, 2006
    His criteria is the same as used to score any round: Ring Generalship, Clean Punching, and Effective Aggression
    It also does not matter whether he thought the rounds were dominant either way. What does matter is he gave Pac 7 rounds and Bradley 5.


    Here is what I do know...8 judges scored this fight. And a full half of those judges saw the fight 115-113. Which suggest that the fight was a close fight and not a robbery by any stretch. And if the fight was close then 115-113 for Timmeh is very possible.
     
    jawbreaker, Jun 21, 2012
    jawbreaker, Jun 21, 2012
    #8
  9. Hattons Hook

    Hattons Hook Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,783
    10
    Nov 15, 2009
    Why do i keep hearing people saying they dont want/wouldnt watch a rematch ? A rematch is a must IMO.
     
    Hattons Hook, Jun 21, 2012
    Hattons Hook, Jun 21, 2012
    #9
  10. Uncle Rico

    Uncle Rico Loyal Member Full Member

    39,748
    3
    Jun 28, 2009
    Except that with those half of the judges that scored it 115-113, two of them are the ones that are looked upon with suspicion (the ones that scored it in favour of Bradders).

    Looking just at numbers, is too simplistic. You need to look at the quality of the rounds, too.

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRP9Geca45M&feature=related[/ame]
     
    Uncle Rico, Jun 21, 2012
    Uncle Rico, Jun 21, 2012
    #10
  11. DanishFightfan

    DanishFightfan Boxing Junkie banned

    7,546
    4
    Mar 7, 2011
    117-111 and 118-110? Really?
     
    DanishFightfan, Jun 21, 2012
    DanishFightfan, Jun 21, 2012
    #11
  12. Uncle Rico

    Uncle Rico Loyal Member Full Member

    39,748
    3
    Jun 28, 2009
    You're missing the point. Because you're just looking at numbers on the surface.

    Bascially, would you say it is fair scoring if the judges had the mindset of:

    Pacquiao can take a round only if he dominates, whilst Bradley can take a round if he dominates and if the rounds are close that can go either way.

    Because even if the scoring criteria was set up like that in Bradley's advantage, the most you could give it in Bradley's favour would still only be a 6-6 draw or a 7-5 win to Pac. So, for it to then be another 2 or so rounds further than that (going in Bradley's favour for a 7-5 win), you'd have to go beyond just giving Bradley all of the close rounds (which is bad enough as it is!), you'd have to also give him one or two rounds which he clearly lost, too. That is a robbery.
     
    Uncle Rico, Jun 21, 2012
    Uncle Rico, Jun 21, 2012
    #12
  13. jawbreaker

    jawbreaker Active Member Full Member

    854
    13
    May 12, 2006
    I don't need to look at that. Because, that is not the issue at hand. The controversy is that People feel Pac was robbed, and that there was no way those judges could have come up with those scores, short of a conspiracy. Even the judge who scored it in Pacquiao's favor was said to be in on the fix.

    Well if one of your review board comes up with an indentical score, how can you still call into question the integrity of the original judges?

    Shouldn't the WBO have come to the conclusion it was a close match and they found no wrong doing by those judges?
     
    jawbreaker, Jun 21, 2012
    jawbreaker, Jun 21, 2012
    #13
  14. jawbreaker

    jawbreaker Active Member Full Member

    854
    13
    May 12, 2006
    My view is simple. I think you are over thinking this. There is no way to know what someone is thinking, and unrealistic to make conclusion based on unknown factors. 4/8 judges reviewing this fight saw it a two point fight, which suggest this was anything but a robbery.
     
    jawbreaker, Jun 21, 2012
    jawbreaker, Jun 21, 2012
    #14
  15. PBFred

    PBFred Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,057
    0
    Dec 12, 2009
    Did the 5 judges watch the HBO feed?

    :stir
     
    PBFred, Jun 21, 2012
    PBFred, Jun 21, 2012
    #15
Page 1 of 2