I don't understand this argument. "The fight was pretty close but I scored it for Pacquiao" = ""So I can see the fight for Bradley". What the hell does that even mean? So one guy can win 7 rounds, the other 5 rounds, but you can give it to the other guy just because it was 7-5? If you scored the fight for Bradley, you are in the small minority, but whatever I can deal with it I guess. I think you are a horrible judge but I'll live with it. People know who won, 90%+ know. But enough with this I scored it 115-113 Pacquiao = Bradley could have won.
The argument most make is that with exception of four very clear rounds for Pacquaio, there are eight rounds in the fight that were close, tough to score and have arguments either way for which fighter won the round. Take the conjecture around Round 7 for instance. I personally saw Pacquaio edging the round. Others see that as one of Bradley's best rounds. So far, 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 all tend to be rounds that people sway either way on - even those who believe Pacquaio won decisively. When there are that many rounds with different perceptions on how the action went, you start to understand that "The fight was pretty damn close" and "It could feesibly have gone the way of Bradley" Even if I personally disagree that Bradley should have won the fight.
I agree but I don't think anyone is swaying on a lot of those rounds. It's the clowns whom scored it for Bradley that throws off the curve. I know there is some debate in the scoring but the fact of the matter is, not just a majority, not just an overwhleming majority, but a catastrophic, monumental majority scored it to Pacquiao by a clear margin. Like I said, for those who scored it to Bradley, you suck at juding a fight, but I can deal with it. I just don't like the logic that "Pacquiao won the fight definitely, but since it was close Bradley could have". That just doesn't make any sense.
I've proven the amount of sway, even in journalists who scored the fight 119-109. The seven I surveyed had six different rounds they'd awarded Bradley. The outrage over this fight in my view is worse than the outrage over JMM - at least in the case of JMM, you had a guy who fought to his own fight plan throughout the entire fight and fought every minute of every round too. I had JMM 116-114 up, the same margin I gave to Pacquaio vs Bradley. The only difference is I could have easily given Bradley rounds 2 and 9 also, making it 114-114. JMM? He clearly won 6 rounds, clearly lost 2 rounds and there were 4 closer rounds up for grabs. The JMM fight in my view was more decisive.
You are entitled to your opinion. There is also a poll on Boxrec in which 92 scored it for Pacquiao, 1 for Bradley, and 1 a draw. I am not comparing to to JMM because that is a whole different can of worms. You can survey whoever, that is fine. It just turns into a nit-picking argument after a while. Hey this guy scored round 4 for Bradley, this guy round 7, etc. How about a bad scored round in there? Does that account for anything or is that just whatever? One awful scoring could throw off your entire "study". I know nothing about it, just saying an outlier can screw it up. I scored the fight 8-3-1 with one round that that I was unsure of (being a draw). 8-4 in my opinion, my own, is as far as I can go.
Point is, if this were a decisive win for Pacquaio, you wouldn't have this amount of debate around the decision.
Was that a joke? What debate is there? 90% on most polls and 92-1-1 on a poll discounting every American who scored for Bradley and Filipino for Pacquiao.
Someone needs to learn planet Earth consists of 7 continents. Boxing isn't even big in America you clown. Even if you want to include American writers, it's still decisive. Point was to take out bias. Just stop.
Basically, you refuse to accept the fact that this fight was extremely close and despite the sensationalist media who reported back about how dominant Pacquaio was, there is no consensus on which rounds he dominates You then get angry when someone points this out? Good game. I'll stop bumping your ******ed thread.
Awarding yourself victory, internet tough guy. Points what out? The fact that Pacquiao was the overwhelming victor? Leave it alone. Ass ******ed, nice vocab. :tired
Judging is subjective. Meaning that it is possible to see a round in more than one way. Meaning that it is possible for one person to score the round for one boxer and another judge to the other. This could result in any score card both 7-5 cards and 12-0 cards. To ensure a round the a boxer must elemanate all doubt over who was better that round. Neither Pacquiao or Bradley was able to do that. There fore rather you scored the fight 12-0 or 7-5. It was a close fight.
