Lampley is the one who gave boxing a black eye.

Exactly i don't understand why some dumb-asses don't see that. Lampley is the biggest joke in boxing, he is the most biased commentator out there. Dont even mention his stupid show dedication on how he thought pac was robbed. :rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

you are in good company but unfortunately, only a few of you saw it that way.

 

Please allow me to disagree with most, but apparently not all, here at Eastside Boxing, as some here on this thread apparently are of the same mind as I am about the decision in this fight. Tonight I saw it for the first time via the HBO replay.

Having read last week how this was the most horrible decision of the past decade, even the last 20 years, 30 years, whatever, I expected that I'd be watching Pacqiao just kick the **** out of Bradley. Bloody him up, break a rib, or swell up an eye at least, maybe knock out teeth. Something. Back up Bradley all night. Knock him down a few times. At least have him hurt on his feet a few times. Leave Bradley all busted up and bruised by fight's end like Pac did to Magarito and many others.

Wrong . . .wrong . . . wrong . . . wrong . . . wrong . . . and wrong. None of this happened.

I mean, if the whole world is saying this was the worst decision just about ever, surely Pac had whipped Bradley. But I, who pretty much always see the fights per the consensus of the judges except in those cases of widely-believed-bad decisions, agreed with the majority of the three judges in Pac-Bradley.

I mean, does anybody here think Pac actually looked good? Hell, he looked SO much worse than just a year ago. At the end of this fight, his face was more damaged than Bradley's; whereas Tim looked unmarked.

To me, here's the thing that was dirty: the shill HBO announcers, and I mean, Lampley, Steward, and Kellerman specifically, acting like in every round, Tim did nothing, and in every round, that Manny's "much greater" power edge was the game-changer. Huh? When? Just the 4th round, that I saw, when Bradley was staggered and Pac actually landed flurries. Still just 10-9 for Pac, one round. So why did they say these things? I saw virtually NONE of it.

When Pac kicks the **** out of somebody, said somebody always LOOKS it. Not last week. Pac rocks 'em and drops 'em usually. Ah hem . . . not last week. Imagine IF this wasn't Pac in there, then we wouldn't have heard these three idiots acting like Pac was killing Bradley and Bradley had been mugged by a superior athlete with much greater power. Instead, in reality, Bradley came through the 12 rounds just fine, EVEN fighting on an ankle injured in the fight. Pac's superior power, as droned on about by Steward and Lampley? Huh??? Say what? Remember, NOBODY got hurt in this fight, and Bradley was merely staggered in round 4.

Yeah, this fight should have been watched with the sound off . . . merely so as to not hear the highly-biased HBO commentators. Lampley would say later in the fight that Pac was coasting for the first 2 minutes of a round, and he STILL gave Pac those rounds. Lampley actually said Harold Lederman is the best fight judge on the planet! And in the 5th or 6th round, Lampley said that Pac had knocked Tim halfway across the ring with a punch, when to me it looked like Bradley had been moved back two steps and no more by the punch.

Here's what I saw: A not-great fight from either guy-- not a great fight, period. (Not one I'll ever view again, believe me.) Both fighters missing with their punches A LOT. Nobody hurting anybody to any significant degree except for Bradley being knocked around in round 4--but not falling. Two guys who showed up, fought mostly in slow motion after round 4, and CLEARLY were going to go to a decision because nobody could hurt anybody, and whom Mayweather Jr.--whom I hold in low regard-- would have licked together in the same night.

Nobody looked like a REAL WINNER in this fight. That's the key. So, somebody had to win, and the closeness of the decision is the perfect result in my mind, because it was damned close. And the right guy won. In fact, had Bradley not won, the ONLY reason I could have seen it that way was that NEITHER guy "took" the fight from the other, and (they say, but I disagree) that a challenger has to decisively "take" it from the champ. (I'd add here, however, that the cards say 0-0 when a fight starts, yes, even for a title fight.)

Again, it wasn't much of a fight, nobody got dropped, no standing 8-count was needed for anybody (had that rule been in effect) . . . so how could one guy have SO dominated, as the commentators would have you believe? And if one guy doesn't dominate, how is he then "robbed"?

Then, after the fight took place, I read here and in the media how this was the worst decision in a long time. Puh-lease. For those of you who didn't view the 1972 Olympics, Alan Minter of Great Britain and Reggie Jones of the US lost two of the worst decisions in history. Ali-Norton III, now THERE was a terrible decision. Look at Norton's shocked and disgusted reaction after that decision and look at Pac's reaction after this one-- Pac didn't seem upset in the slightest, and only once in the post-fight interview said he felt that he won (only when asked directly), otherwise he congratulated Bradley, didn't complain, and didn't seek to discuss the decision further at all. And almost EVERY decision-losing fighter says afterward that he thought he won the fight. Big deal.

This fight didn't have the fury of Duran-Leonard #1, it was fought at a comparative snail's pace. If that fight had gone to Leonard, THAT would have been a bad decision, and I say that as a big Leonard fan, both then and now. But THIS fight? Nobody put a whipping on anybody. If this was two ESPN fighters, nobody would have even questioned the decision. Because the commentators would have been unbiased. Instead, we had Lampley saying all night that Bradley hasn't won a round, even as my eyes were telling me Bradley looks better than Pac this night. Not like a definitive winner on his greatest night, beating up Pac . . . but neither did Pac look like a definitive winner on his greatest night. This was indeed a case of judges having to come up with a winner with not much to work with.

I might add that Bradley handled the post-fight interview better than Max Kellerman, who in large part was raining on this guy's parade after his biggest victory. Did Bradley look his best that night? No. Did Pac look HIS best? Far from it.

This reminds me of when Pernell Whitaker lost to Jose Luis Ramirez the first time and acted like it was the biggest robbery in history. When the judges probably had it right, in my view. But here, Pac didn't act like Whitaker afterward . . . only the "fans" and the HBO shills acted like some terrible, illegal thing happened.

I'd like to propose a new paradigm: if a fight truly sucks, or just isn't very good, then nobody should complain afterward about how bad the decision was. Because then, usually, neither guy worked hard enough in the fight to have earned a clear-cut decision.

P.S. - The worst scoring of a pro fight in my lifetime was, I believe, for Tyson-Douglas, where Douglas by my count won every round of the fight except the round in which Tyson dropped him for a 9-count (and even that round Buster was winning but for the kd); yet, had the fight ended after the last full round (the 9th) immediately preceding the 10th round KO, Tyson was ahead by a point on one Japanese judge's card and even on another; only American judge Larry Rozadilla had Douglas ahead, at a more appropriate 88-82. This could have been the robbery of the century, and yet there was no investigation, no TV expose about judging by Jim Lampley (who had, like the recent fight, also covered Douglas-Tyson for HBO), just the usual complaining by fans and the media for two weeks and then the usual dying down of same.

 

****, glad you finally got to see the fight. Good post.

 

I wish he had the same amount of publicity given to him as well. HBO is certainly biased, but if it takes Manny to get robbed for them to speak out and empower fighters and fans to pursue justice in the long run, then so be it. I wish it didn't have to be that way but it's better than having these robberies occur unpunished.

AJ, whether the fight is good or not shouldn't influence the outcome. Manny performing relatively less impressively should have no bearing on judging whether or not clean effective punches were landed by either man. If Manny can justifiably be called the loser of that fight, then the vast majority of boxing matches are meaningless in their awarding of the victory.

 

Great post AJ

 

:good

 

stfu. only a clown would think that fight was close

 

Way too much **** to read

 

during the fight lampley did nothing but annoy me. the guy is so impressively bias it makes you sick, makes you want to puke. He only does this with Cotto and Pacquaio fights. He is an jackass often says someone lands when they arent landing anything, while their opponent is landing steadily. This happened in the Mayweather vs cotto fight. Mayweather was landing CLEAR body punches, that were hard, but Lampley said nothing, but he drooled from the mouth from every uneffective flurry that cotto did, and all -- and mayweathers bleedy nose nearly sent him to heaven. Bradley for a whole round would control the pace, while this happened, they would say NOTHING, talking about how great pac is.

 

Exactly, I had Bradley winning the fight and it's funny to see all these mindless idiots who listen to clueless Lampley changing their tune about the fight.