First fight Bradley actually won in the last 3.

It was actually the 2nd in my view. Everybody saw him get beat my Pacquiao but I had him beating Provodnikov by a point.

 

Well Pac "win" over Bradley was only in his last 3 fights, so what?

 

I thought he beat Ruslan, even with the 2 knockdowns, even though only one was scored. He completely outboxed him in most of the fight. He did lose to Manny, badly.

 

Thought the Pac fight was close, and that the right man won, wouldn't of had a problem with 115-113 either way. It is laughable that people continue to say Pac was robbed, as if Bradley was not landing any punches.

Bradley outboxed Provodnikov clearly. You don't get punched in the face and gut 20 times in a round, then hurt a guy with a shot in the last 20 seconds but not get the knockdown, and think you won the round. According to some people in here, landing a hurtful punch counts for winning three rounds. lol

The fight last night wasn't close in my opinion. I gave Marquez three
rounds max.

 

Pacquiao 115-112
Provodnikov 113-113 with the missed KD.
Marquez 115-113 but could have been a draw

 

This...

 

How's it laughable when you have numbers like this?

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Manny_Pacquiao_vs._Timothy_Bradley

"Among the experts above, 121 scored the bout for Pacquiao, 1 scored the bout a draw, and 1 scored the bout for Bradley."

Average score 9-3. That's a textbook robbery

 

Yet in this modern age of technology, video analysis of the fight doesn't support 9-3 for Pac, it supports a close fight either way.

 

You don't score fights on video analysis. If you have 123 scorers ringside, and 121 score it for one guy, there's no doubt what happened. Notice there's hardly a close scorecard there.

I understand scoring it close in good faith, but "robbery" is defined by consensus, and doesn't get more clear than this.

 

Bradley's fight with Pacquiao was fought similarly to this one with Marquez. Bradley was good defensively against Pacquiao, but when an uneducated eye looks at that fight, they see the speed and flash of Pacquiao and not actually the punches missing the mark.

Rewatch these fights people, Marquez actually consistently landed cleaner and harder blows on Bradley than Pacquiao did.
The commetating brainwashes the viewer. Bradley was contorting his body so much in avoiding Pacquiao's punches, it seemed for an instant he might be landing the punches. But paying attention closely, you see that they're not.

The fight was close with Pacquiao, I had both Pacquiao and Marquez winning 7-5, but thought that consistently Marquez landed more telling and quality shots on a round by round basis.

Let me make it clear for you *******s, "round by round consistency" I'm not talking about taking one or two or Pacquiao's best rounds and comparing it with Marquez' best round.
Its a fight scored round by round *******s!

Akbar, 3 rounds for Marquez is inept scoring that imo was likely aided by you listening to the commentating.
Watch both Bradley fights with Marquez and Pacquiao with the sound off and you're looking at 7-5 scores either way. Close fights both of them.
I gave the fights to Marquez and Pacquiao because I thought both scored with more telling and effective blows than did Bradley in return.

 

In a fight like Pacquiao-Bradley with alot of speed in the punches, ringsiders dont have a better view over an educated eye watching it on TV.

Bradley was falling over himself trying to get away from Pacquiao's punches, and as we learned later on, he was fighting with a bum leg in there against Pacquiao.

.......and btw, Ringside does'nt have 123 quality journalist that truly know boxing. There's probably 20 or 30 in attendance in these big fights.
Most ringside observers dont even cover boxing on a consistent basis, but only are there for big fight. Those are not educated eyes watching a boxing match.

 

I thought the Pac-Bradley fight was kind of close but there is no way he won 6 rounds, let alone 7 even giving him all the reasonably close ones- thus, he lost that fight