How do you rate Tim Bradley?

Mayweather is a natural welterweight. When he fought at 130 he was appropriate but not natural because he was still growing. For his height, frame and age, i47 is natural. He walks around at no more than 5 or 6 pounds over. Thurman nor Brook are natural welters. They are both 5'9" with big frames and walk around at over 160. Thurman rehydrated to 162 for the Guerrero fight. That's not a natural welter. Pac is not a natural but because of his frame, he can either 140n or 147.

 

Natural welterweight, yet visibly outsized in virtually all his fights there? :huh (bar Marquez)

 

120-108 Pacman both times. :nut

 

:rofl

 

atsch

Among the experts above, 121 scored the bout for Pacquiao, 3 scored it for Bradley and 1 had it a draw.
None of the scores for Pacquiao were offered by Philippine media.
Two of the three scores for Bradley were provided by American media. The other score for Bradley and the draw were from British media.

I have watched the first fight more than 3 times in full and the only round i could give bradley was round 10

 

119-109

 

Horrible.

When I first watched it live, I was drinking and wasn't keeping score. I had 117-111 Pacquiao. Then I re-watched and kept score because of all of the controversy, several times. I had 116-112 Pacquiao on my second viewing, and 115-113 Pacquiao on the third. So I settled on either 116-112 or 115-113 being legit. Close rounds. The second fight is about the same.

 

119-109 first fight

 

You were close!

 

This is a horrifying individual.

At least with MVC! you get the impression he is just being silly and pulling our legs sometimes.

b_m really believes his drivel.

 

It was robbery of the highest order the fight was not close at all and 99 percent of the people would agree with me and i am not talking about only pac fans

 

Wrong. 99% of people scored it for Pacquiao, yes, but the ones that scored it 115-113 or 116-112 probably wouldn't call it a "robbery of the highest order".

 

But they would still call it a robbery since bradley won wouldn't they?

 

Now you're backtracking. A bad decision isn't the same as "robbery of the highest order". You said 99% of people would agree with you it was the latter.

Unless someone had it 117-111 or wider (or was an emotional Pacquiao fan unable to be objective) they wouldn't call it a robbery of the highest order. They'd say, as I do, that it should have been a close but clear decision for Pacquiao where the wrong man got the official nod.