I Thing as much fault lays with the system as the judges

First of all, big fan of both guys and thought both guys, though not spectacular , brought it and can be proud.

I had pacquiao winning the fight- by a score of 116-112, as did most people, who had it at around that score.
Of course, i feel the judges were in the bag- that arums a ****, all of that- and agree with any of those sentiments- but im taking a specific viewpoint ommitting those erroneous and hideous details here, to voice a point.


as i was watching the fight- I knew that that pacquiao was taking it very very easy in most of the very early and late rounds, and although bradley himself wasnt landing anything of note- his attempts, and shots to the arms, made him more active, though not more effective, and that many rounds couldve been swayed based off of his activity in the majority of the time in each round. Pacquiao of course would come back , and tag him with heavy lefts in the latter stages of most rounds, or flurry him against the ropes. I like to think clear clean punching is worth more than ineffective aggression. look at the Cotto, Mayweather fight- where floyd landed in a similar fashion - with perhaps only 3 to 4 significant heavy rights each round- yet cotto was far busier and aggressive- yet the judges saw it floyds way that night. his ring generalship scores well.

My point is this- the scoring system is flawed. The Marques of Queensbury scores on the 10 point must system- not sure the specifics of this fight itself- meaning one guys has to get 10 , and the other guy gets whatever he gets, based off of kos,etc,etc, we all know the rules.... This means that say round 10, where bradley did attack but didnt land anything significant, gets bradley as many points as round 4 gets pacquiao, where pac did significant work and landed cleanly , clearly and beautifully. something is wrong with this. In basketball , a shot from long range is worth 3 points free shot with no defence worth 1. everything else is worth 2. difficulty equals reward. in football a touchdown worth 6, a kick over the posts worth 1. A sport that has limited scoring , and rigid rules allows far more intervention and fixing. think soccer. though that cant be changed- i think boxing can. and a I think its time the sport fixes itself-

and allows judges- i mean they are allowed- but encourages them to give rounds even, or score them 9-9 or 10-10 based off of the performance of each man in the ring and to use more discretion and justification in giving points. if two guys are just standing there feinting for 3 minutes- then give each man 9 points- if two guys go to war- or box beautifully, then give the winner of the round 10-9 , or perhaps even 10-10 to reward a significant round. Why have 10 points at all when only a variation of 3 is ever seen!??! why not have it a 3 point must system- where each judge gives a scale of 3 to each fighter per round based on the same criteria. at least give the judges some flexibility to acknowledge the difference between a dominant round, and a slight edging round. With a more flexibile scoring system- one can point to each judge- and say WHY did you give this guy 9 points for winning a round- WHY did you give this round a draw at 9 each - and the next 10 each. more specific scores means more specific answers, rather than the typical- oh - he worked more that round.

I also believe compubox punch stats should be available live in the fight to the crowd, although scores should not be published live.

What i believe is in terms of different ways of viewing the fight:
- Pac won the fight
- pac won more rounds
- if the fight was viewed as one round, pac won
- if i was as lopez said, choosing who id rather be in the fight, itd be pac


But again- under the current rule system- i could have seen how the judges could have seriously ****ed up what they were doing, without being necessarily able to do much about it, because well they had to give the later rounds to somebody.

Does anybody else have a problem with the scoring system itself- and a way to improve it so that we can get a clearer, more concise, and consistent reflection of the fight itself??

Even if you had bradley winning, or Pacquiao winning, the scores didnt reflect the fight.