DUANE FORD: “What I personally saw that night, is that the first six rounds,Pacquiao.

“What I personally saw that night, is that the first six rounds, clearly Pacquiao was the winner. It was an exciting six rounds,” stated Ford during the interview with Lampley.

Wait! He said what? He saw Pacquiao clearly winning six rounds of the twelve round championship fight. Then why did he only give five rounds to Pacquiao in his score cards? If he thinks that the then defending champion won six of the twelve, then the least he could score it was a draw for both fighters. Twelve minus six equals six, right Mr. Ford?

Mr. Ford did not stop there. He further defended his actions that night by saying “What I saw on the fourth round is that Pacquiao clearly won that. He hurt Bradley. But the Manny Pacquiao that I judged in the past would have finished him. He let him off the hook. “

Wait again! Did Ford judge Pacquiao’s performance not because of what he saw happening in the ring that night but instead compared him to the Pacquiao of the past? When did comparison of present and past performances become a factor in judging a fight? If that was one of the factors that he used in judging that fight, then his scores should not only be examined but he should be questioned by the Nevada Athletic Commission as well. He clearly is using the wrong criteria in judging a boxing fight. He is clearly biased on old performances of fighters versus the way the fight unfolds in front of his eyes. No wonder he came up with that score card. He should not be allowed to judge again based on this statement of his. He looks not on the fight itself but on what he perceived that fighter was once capable of doing. He clearly has it wrong.

Mr. Ford’s bloopers did not stop there on last night’s TV appearance. He further states that Pacquiao “in the later rounds, I thought he tired and his punches were missing a bit.”

Wait, wait Mr. Ford. Missing a BIT? What exactly did you see that night sir? Did he miss or did he not, did he score or did he not? There is no “bit” in judging a fight. What exactly did you see? Or what exactly did you not see?

Duane Ford was very vocal of his actions right after the fight. He defended his appalling scoring of a fight that the world saw differently. He told the Las Vegas Review Journal that he thought “Bradley gave Pacquiao a boxing lesson.” A comment that is uncalled for, given the issue at hand. Ford’s comment at that time was not only ill-advised, it is also arrogant.

But Duane Ford’s appearance on television last night and he making those remarks just added to the debate that he has erred in judging the Pacquiao-Bradley match. His explanations were absurd and downright confusing. He puts himself in a deeper hole with every statement he makes.

Mr. Ford should just remain silent from hereon and stop embarrassing himself and the sport. He has done enough damage already. He needs to stop defending his controversial work that night with equally controversial answers. He should stop representing other boxing judges, because he cannot. Despite his years of experience in the sport, he has only become a poster boy for erroneous and incompetent judging because of his actions last week and his remarks thereafter.

If Duane Ford thinks that Timothy Bradley gave Manny Pacquiao a boxing lesson, then maybe someone should give him a simple MATH LESSON.

Mr. Ford… 12 - 6 = 6!