Re-watched Pacquiao vs. Bradley

revisionist crap.

did you count those pitty pat jabs that bradley landed on pac's arm? 11pct jab connection rate, that tells you everything you need to know. yeah, it;s compubox or you can count them yourself.

even floyd doesnt jab against southpaws as much as he does againt ortho.

 

10 to 2 Pacman I had. A few close rounds when Manny took his foot off the gas
pedal. 8 to 4 Pac would be acceptable. We always have to remember three
judges, three different viewing angles, three different fights.

 

Same here .

I also scored it 116-112 for PAC .

Bradley manager ALSO scored it 116-112 for PAC................

Bradley lost his "0" badly that night .

 

And I agree in that if anyone won the fight, it was Pac. All I've been saying about this fight is that it was competitive. When I score it, I have it either 7-5 Pac or a draw, depending on how i'm feeling that day. What I can't stand is people saying it was a whitewash. It wasn't. I think those are the people who only saw it live and never bothered to watch it again.

 

I think I gave Pacquaio like ten rounds. Pac landed more and way way harder throughout the fight.

 

Tim is the same guy who couldn't even come close to filling a 3,000 seat stadium in his hometown. Why would Arum choose this guy?

 

Ignorant post .

Lennox Lewis , Roy Jones , Andre Ward all said Timothy clearly lost . Do you consider them to be racist ??

 

Compubox numbers are meaningless in fights like this where the vast majority of shots didn't even land. Compubox is nothing but a guy pushing a button when he thinks a punch landed. Given the bias crowd, I would say it is meaningless in this fight.

Also, did you watch round 7? If so, I dare you to watch it again and tell me you didn't think Tim didn't win that round.

 

Well, he did, just not the same kind of impression-making stuff as Pac. Light jabs count. So do body shots. Most fans ignore these even under ordinary circumstances - and when you have a revisionist view of the injustice done to a global darling then, yeah, rose-tinted glasses are going to see what they want to see and that probably won't include light jabs and body shots.

That said, there were several rounds - the majority of them, in fact, as I did have Pac edging it - in which Pac's output of connected power shots even amongst the many wild misses did swamp the work of Bradley. In some of the less busy rounds for Pac, it didn't. You have to score RBR.

If for example Pac lands 10 eye-catching power punches of 30 in one round flush on the chin of Bradley, while only a couple of light jabs and body shots (we'll say five or six altogether) land for Bradley - you don't then give him the subsequent round in which he lands four power shots of thirty and Bradley lands roughly the same half dozen as before. That's a trap people fall into, blurring the lines and ignoring the bells, lumping rounds together and scoring on 'momentum'. "In the last two rounds he landed fourteen flush power punches on the chin!" - OK, but that doesn't mean he won both rounds. The distribution of those punches matters. If ten were scored in the preceding round and four in the following, the earlier round is a much better one for Pac. They are not interchangeable and both automatic rounds for him just because he scored flush power punches in both, while Bradley didn't really score any flush power head shots in either.

 

115-114 Bradley..

 

why are you giving hypothetical examples? fight is over. cite what round you thought bradley edged pac outside of round 10, iirc, where bradley clearly won the round.

cite the round and we can all look at it.

you mention light jabs, did you count bradleys jabs to pac's armss?

 

I'm not wasting time on you to invest time combing over every round to prove a point that's going to be lost on you no matter what and which effort would be redundant anyhow. If you want detailed round by round descriptions and my live call of the action with how I gave each round and why, look in the RBR thread.

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=407858&page=140


However, for a quickly accessible example, if you Google the "smoking gun round" - 6th or 7th, whichever it was - that Jim Lampley used on the Fight Game to supposedly prove the incompetence or corruption of the judging for Bradley - that is a perfect example of a very close round that you can very well argue for Bradley. Calling it dominant for Pacquiao is anything but objective as that simply isn't what unfolds when you watch it unfettered by the commentary audio track - which backfired epically on Lampley as his intention was to show that it came across being a dominant Pac round even without the biased commentary (and it doesn't)

 

:deal

*******s know sh1t about how to score a fight. The two main objectives are Clean Punching and Effective Aggression. If you're coming forward and missing lots of punches then you're not accomplishing these objectives. Such was the case with Pacquaio who was made to miss a LOT and only wanted to fight the last minute of many rounds...

 

How can 117-111 be ridiculous if that was the average ringside score:

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Manny_Pacquiao_vs._Timothy_Bradley

You see a lot more 11-1, 10-2 there than 8-4, 7-5. 10-2 biased for Pac? That's how Jeff Mayweather and Danny Garcia scored it

 

It's not *******s, it's everybody. See that link above