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

Judging will always be subjective. And while i don't agree that Tim won, i thought it was competitive. Like 7-5 ish for Pac. Possibly even a draw. When Lampley showed the 7th round on his show to provide indisputable proof that the judges were completely wrong for giving Tim the round, it backfired on him because if you actually watch the round with no sound, Tim did actually win the round.

 

tl;dr


PAC clearly won.

 

Well, Pacquioa took the loss like a man and Bradley needs to watch the fight to see if he won.. :conf

 

It's a cumulation of a lot of factors which led most of the world to perceive that Pac dominated. First off, when Pac would attack, Tim would retreat and that never looks good. He even stumbled several times, which further gives the viewer the perception that Pac is hurting Tim and he's in trouble. Fact is, Pac missed a lot of his shots and didn't land too many right on the chin. Tim showed good defense. Bobbing/weaving, rolling with the punches, ducking them, etc. And i think the judges saw that.

Also, most people could care less if a guy controls part of the fight with his jab, which Tim did well at times. He would just pump that jab to maintain distance or to set up his attack. Again, i think the judges saw this. I think the judges also gave Tim for his solid body work throughout.

I honestly think the judges scored it like they saw it. If something fishy was going on, you usually have one score that is way off. But these scorecards were consistent. But you and I are obviously in the minority when it comes to this debate and that's fine.

 

You miss the point. When you have ringside export scores 121-1-1, on average 9-3, that's a rout, and no methodology adjustment can make up for it.

You probably didn't bother checking that link cause you know you won't like it. Well I won't lie, but go ahead and check just how few even had it a "close fight". Very few, mostly very wide

 

An unpopular belief but a well articulated post

I thought the fight was close. I think there was a lot of ineffective offense from both men and Manny being the name brand and the harder hitter so I think that factored ring side scoring while Lampleys commentary was huge for the perception on the tv viewers

This is a fight that I have been very focused on having watched it a few times and watched highlights and breakdowns

One thing that I noticed in this fight is Bradley controlled large stretches of many rounds by moving and jabbing limiting Pacquiao to to small bursts of attack in rounds where Bradley was the ring general

Round 1 is a perfect example where Bradley controls the first 2:45 or so and Pacquiao lands 3 lefts and Lampley and the Hbo team seem to think a few punches after several minutes of clear control wins a round

I ask anyone who thinks Manny won huge like Lederman and Rafael to watch 1,2,3,7, and 9-12 and explain to me how Bradley couldn't possibly win 5 rounds or more.

Before the whole forum is up my ass with insults I'm saying it was close but not that Bradley definitely won or lost but that the split either way for me was fine

I mean watch it again and watch close lots of Mannys called lands and supposed big lands many missed by a small margin or looked exaggerated due to Bradley's head movement and I think he wobbled a few times from the bad ankles more so than some of the punches

People say well Bradley landed nothing hard all night. I recall the jab knocking Mannys head back on numberous occasions. Also he landed a very hard punch at the close of the fourth. Remember how Manny gave away the last couple rounds, some said he coasted because he was ahead. I think the body punches he landed all fight plus the constant movement wore down Pacquiao who was very lethargic in the last 2 or 3 rounds

 

I literally just got finished watching this and came out with the same 115-113 Bradley win. First I'll acknowledge some will disregard and take it for Pacquiao hate my honest opinion is Pacquiao has my respect but not my prasie, what I mean by that is this I respect Pac as an ATG all the names he's fought but he does not have my praise because most of those guys he made his name against were coming off of losses and that cannot be overlooked.

As for the actual fight I can't argue with anybody who scored that fight for Pac because truthfully live i scored it 8-4 pac watching Pacquiao live he moves so fast its easy to get caught up in his flashy shots but when you sit down away from the hype and can really dissect the bout Bradley did a lot of good work.

Rounds 1-3 in the first 4th of the fight Tim controls the majority effectively with the jab and some nice body work in 1 & 2 the only real work he did was in the last 10/15 secs of each round (a recurring theme)
Third was better Pac's aggressiveness carried him through.

4 , 5, & 6 played out somewhat the same you can tell both picked it up I had them alternating rounds giving Bradley 4 & 6 as for the most part he worked Pac off the jab and good body shots and Pac the 5th for he landed a lot of clean bows.

Rounds 7-9 I gave to Pacquiao he stepped it up to start the second half and rallied back to take the lead on my card I this third is really where most of the good work from Pac took place as he controled the pace with some hard combos.

The championship rounds I feel took an equally yet opposite turn with Tim winning the final third in the last rounds he was aggressive when needed boxed well off the jab and had Pac frustrated at points the last three really sealed the fight for me.

(Notes)
To the people who say it was a blowout even the announcers acknowledged many times during the fight that Bradley was controling most of the rounds and that the flurries Pac threw in the final few seconds are the reason they gave him a lot of the rounds.
Second I want to comment on the punch stat those are some bs the nost obvious examples I think came in rounds 4 & 6 to finsh thoses rounds Pac threw a 20/16 punch combo respectively when they replay both after the rounds you can clearly see Pac miss most of those shots yet he was credited with landing the majority if not all things like that skew the final numbers to make it out a land slide which it is not.

I challenge anybody to watch that fight so we can debate rounds scored and why my most recent card.
Pacquiao Bradley
9/10
9/10
10/9
9/10
10/9
9/10
10/9
10/9
10/9
9/10
9/10
9/10
113-115 Bradley

 

You saw those ringside scores? No Lampley factor, 9-3 on average. More 11-1 for Pac than total "close scores".

 

Total agreement on the replay showing the Missed shots as well as the controlling the stretches of rounds


Great post

 

It's rare that you have total consensus like this for the "losing" fighter. For example, it happened with Rios Abril, PWill Lara, Shumenov/Cloud Campillo, you know, textbook robberies. Even Floyd Sr said Pac was robbed, Jeff Mayweather had it 10-2 for Pac, same as Danny Garcia. That might seem wide, but it's only one round wider than the average ringside score of 117-111

 

Those scores can be just as biased and agenda filled as Lampley

As for the sheer volume of differential like I said lots of punches barely missed I think PAC got credit for lots of close misses and as the name fighter with more power he can sway ppl with a flashier style

Funny thing is I don't remember the crowd booing the decision

I think Pacquiao was given all the breaks in their eyes and guys like Lederman more so than others from card to card

 

Tim landed plenty of hard, flush shots. I wish i knew how to create a youtube vid or i would make one for all of Tim's good work. If people saw this vid, i'm sure most will come away with the impression that it was competitive and not as lopsided as most claim.