Kinda would like to see Bradley beat Pac convincingly this time

Bradley lost, but it was close.

Flurrying into the air making very little contact and getting tapped lightly with jabs and body shots is a way to lose rounds - or at least open yourself up to the possibility of losing some.

Pacquiao did enough in enough rounds to edge it, 7-5, but he didn't have eight clear rounds. You can't realistically argue for too much wider than Jerry Roth's card unless you are completely disregarding Bradley's jabs and body work (indicating that you shouldn't be scoring in the first place, because such things do count - while ineffective aggression never does) - although, on the other hand, you can't really argue for a draw or Bradley win because then you would be showing blatant disregard for the several rounds in which Pacquiao did get a fair amount past Bradley's defense and keep his jab & body output quiet.

 

it's a good thing you're a mule and can't breed.

 

I hope, with that thread title, you're not suggesting that he beat him the first time.

 

It didn't suggest any such thing.

 

*****s see ufos, what do you expect.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

There was one… ONE clear Bradley round in that fight. And on my last viewing at least six or seven clear Pacquiao rounds. To find seven, or even six Bradley rounds in that fight you have to transcend all probabilistic leeway.

That said, I thought Jerry Roth's card was actually somewhat reasonable. He gave Bradley 2, 10, 11 and 12, all which you could make an argument for. The only bad round he scored was the seventh.

 

You're right. Pacquiao had six or seven clear rounds...and the rest could be argued for Bradley. So people who dismiss the closeness of the match do so at the peril of their own credibility (as do those who claim they saw it for Bradley...)

 

You'd have to be fairly biased to give every close round to Bradley though.

I had it 8-4.

 

Sorry, but that's a really stupid comment and you see crap like that spouted too often.

If there happen to be five close rounds, and you happen to see all five of them as being close-but-clear for Bradley, then it is what it is.

It's absolutely ******ed for people to suggest that when encountered with a handful of close rounds they should be divvied up some for this guy and some for the other. EACH ONE IS SCORED INDIVIDUALLY, IN A VACUUM. If every close round happens to be edged by one guy happening to do the slightly better work time and again, then yes, it's perfectly reasonable to, without the least bit of bias, give that person all the close rounds.

I really don't understand what goes through the minds of people who say things like that. "Oh, it's been a while, the last few have been close and I've given them to Boxer B...so I guess Boxer A is due to be randomly awarded the next close one (even though B might've edged it, too) so I don't appear biased for B..." - seriously??? WTF.

 

I'm talking about this fight. I wouldn't give someone a round based on doing slightly better than the earlier rounds., or because the fight was close yet is being swept. I just can't see it for this fight.

There where some close rounds, that could be scored either way. They wheren't close but clear rounds to either though.

There wasn't 4 close but clear rounds to Bradley anyway. There were close rounds, but you'd have to have you're tinted glasses on to see 5 clear rounds to Bradley imo, close or not.

I agree with what you're saying. A fighter can win 12 close but clear rounds to sweep a fight. Didn't happen in this fight though.

If anything most where close but clear to Pac.

 

:deal

*******s can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that most of the rounds were close and this was a competitive fight. Each round stands on it's own and should be judged individually...

 

Here's an idea why doesn't someone post the fight in its entirety instead of the highlight videos for either fighter, do a RBR and compare notes atleast that way you could have the whole video to base your argument to.

Fyi got caught up in Pac's flurries fight night and thought it was 8-4 Pac seen it quite a few times sincs and have scored it 7-5 Bradley every other time Pac landed some good potshots in every round but Bradley's defense, bodywork, & pressue took the fight in a close but non competitive fight

 

Despite some groaning about how boring the first fight was (it wasn't), this is the kind of fight that should be made and I look forward to it. I also want whoever deserves it to win. That didn't happen last time.