my first post as i am new to boxing but my thoughts are fight was even until bradley done his calf and couldnt move right....A he complained at 4 or 5 and his trainer said "u want to go home" B he couldnt launch after round 5 or 6 went on the back foot until last couple rounds when trainer told him it hurts when you go back doesnt it so just ****in go forward ...arguably he could have beat P but was immobilized. I want P to win all night but i think B would have ran him very close or even beat him, but for the calf....so ****in obvious and i think most of u guys are a bunch of ******s not to just say it how it was....tell me why my view is wrong?
I'm not following. Is your point that Pacquiao's victory shouldn't count and fight should be re-scored on a handicap?
If Bradley hurt his calf it is only because of his wild style and terrible balance. It only shows that his endurance is lacking. Less excuses. More skills.
Isn't it a coincidence Bradley has nvr hurt/injured his calves or ankles in any of the 29 other professional fight he has had? Yet he does in both of his fights with PAC where he was beaten around the ring for 24 rounds? He should be ridiculed in the same way has David Haye and broken pinky toe! Did anyone else notice no swelling on his broken ankles when he took his boots off after the first fight on 24/7? The so called injury changed nothing, he is a limited fighter who's best attribute is his physical conditioning, he was beaten by a guy who is far far far from his best and far from his prime.
More like a bit of *****ism. Bradley went all out for the knock out and gassed. Let's see ***** fight someone that good.
he immobilized himself. even when pacquiao missed punches he forced bradley to stay on the move. the way bradley weaves around so wildly im not surprised he hurt himself in both fights.
Meh. It is what it is. A Pacquiao victory. Just like the 1st fight was what it was: a Bradley victory. Regardless of extenuating circumstances or personal feelings. These things need to be overcome in order to win fights. In my mind, it simply sets up the 3rd fight in the trilogy, and casts it in a more favorable light for Bradley.
Really see no need for a trilogy Even tho Bradley was given The first fight it is clear they are not in the same league and if a 3rd fight happens why would it be any different to the last 2 fight? Bradley got dominated in the first fight and soundly beaten in the 2nd... I can't see a need for a rematch apart from Arums weak stable of possible opponents for Pac
99% of boxers come into the ring with an injury or get an injury during the fight. pac had bad leg cramps in the fight. so what, sh*t happens
As a Marquez fan I feel he shouldn't fight Pac again, However it would b interesting as PAC clearly isn't the same fighter he was prior to the ko... But again with this fight I don't know who would win but if Bradley and PAC fight again me and most other know who would win again Both fights have been to one sided as opposed to all of the JMM PAC fights
Regardless of how we see it(I also thought Pacquiao won both clearly), I think a 3rd fight is in the cards. From Bradley's side they'll cite the leg injury and poor gameplan as prospects for a better result. I've seen rematches and fights made based on far worse.
That really sucks if that was affecting him but it's not like we can do anything about it. Other than maybe a rematch in the future.