My controversial belief..... IMO Bradley beat Pacquiao

Yes I said it and dont act like you dudes got some of your own controversial beliefs in boxing.

Some Ricans believe Trinidad actually beat Hoya, some believe Chavez beat Whitaker, etc

You can talk some ish whatever but all I'm going to say is why I believe Bradley won.

First of all something I noticed is that interpreting the actual scoring criteria is very SUBJECTIVE. You always hear how Steward, Roy Jones, Kellerman, etc talk about "WHAT THE JUDGES LIKE BETTER, SOME LIKE HARDER PUNCHES, SOME LIKE WORK RATE, ETC"

WTF?????

This is an inherit flaw in how the scoring is done by the judges because then technically speaking there is no such thing AS AN OBJECTIVE SCORING CRITERIA!

In basketball, vollyball, hockey, soccer, baseball, golf, and many other sports there is no freaking BS, its clear as day, do this and you win.

Combat sports on the other hand are very subjective.

Taking that into considerations I scored the fight for Bradley because he simply landed more punches, period, end of story with me.

Pacquiao did land the harder punches no question about it but to me if a dude lands 5 body shots, 2 jabs, 3 solid straight right/left hands while the other dude landed 4 hard looking straight left/right hands with 2 body shots and 1 jab you mean to tell I'm supposed automatically give the round to the other guy because he landed the harder shots???

If they were hard but never wobbled or hurt the fighter why should I award the fighter with the harder shots the round and **** away the fact that the other fighter landed more punches???

Also dont give me the compubox BS, compubox is only reliable with punches thrown thats it. You guys really believe those dudes are accurate witht hose numbers??? Get real and event then you have to consider whether want they are punching in, did that punch really land???? Where they influenced by the crowd???

I know, I know, I know you can throw me that same critique on me because I may not be perfect in judging what actually landed but I seen the fight various times and to me IMO Bradley landed more punches.

Bradley also didnt get credit for his body work on Pacquiao and for his solid shots to the head on Pacquiao because his punches dont sound like anyting strong and to be hones sometimes they land cleanly and you dont hear almost anything from the impact.

Bradley vs Pacquiao shows how flawed the scoring system is.

EVERYBODY THINKS THEIR CRITERIA IS THE RIGHT WAY TO SCORE FIGHT AND THAT INCLUDES THE FREAKIN JUDGES.

If boxing was about the harder punches so be it but its not, its not about work rate either, its not about being the aggressive fighter, its not about ring generalship, its not about effective punching...........wanna know why???? because every freaking judge cant agree on what objectively those damn things are!

The sport needs to be clear as day as what wins a fight.

Harder punches??? More landed punches???? Which one is it because for every fight that people claim it was the "harder punches" argument those same clowns will say "he landed more punches than the other guy even though said other guy landed more harder punches" in another fight.

Ish is a cluster ****.

 

Been in this board for a while.

Fact of the matter the scoring is flawed in boxing and it needs to be fixed because nobody can agree with what the actual interpretation of the judging criteria and that includes the damn judges themselves!

 

Bookmarking this thread to bump for the haters and nuthuggers.

IF PACQUIAO DESTROYS RIOS AND LOOKS AWESOME DOING IT, THE BRADLEY REMATCH HAPPENS AND BRADLEY WINS THE REMATCH.

 

Love how clowns here have no rebuttal to the obvious flaws in this sports scoring

 

Why you mad?

 

Still no rebuttal to a simple question.

 

Doenst matter what the judges like?

So it matters when it favors Pacquaio, Mayweather, Chavez Jr., etc but when its Bradley it doesnt matter???