Judge Roth: “How anybody could see that fight so one-sided is beyond me

double post.

 

So Marquez beat pacquiao anyways. Pacquiao beat bradley in a robbery for Bradley. Marquez beat Pacquiao in a robbery for Pacquiao.

Either way Pacquiao is 1-1 in his last 2 fights.

Floyd is 43-0 in his last 43 *******s.

 

He is full of crap. Pacquiao clearly won the fight. I don't think it was 11-1. It was more like 9-3. Yet it was cristally clear who won it.

 

Cotto gets busted up easier than most.

Cotto vs Margarito 2, a fight he won.

This content is protected

and after seeing how Cotto gassed out against May on those last rounds, tells me Margarito would have probably stopped Cotto on those last 2 rounds as Marg was connecting more and more, or Marg's eye would have ......

 

Roth is legit. I think the fix is HBO trying to convince us that was not a close fight.

 

Roth and other judges back up what they say and score fights. You guys on here just whine on and on about how is was a bad decision, but you don't listen to the guys explanation when he knows so much more than you!! The guy was scoring fights before most of you were born!!! I think he did Thomas Hearns vs. Sugar Ray Leonard rematch!!!

 

Ya'll know what time it is. And the new!!!

 

cotto can thank pacquiao's left for his win over margarito.

2nd fight could have gone the same as the 1st. (cotto dominating boxing and then marg coming on after cotto got tired)

i could swear marg's eye came from a glancing jab from cotto. just a glancing jab and that thing started puffing up.

 

Yeah those punch stats were bull****!

 

Agreed. My first thought after a couple of rounds was that Pac was unveiling a new strategy designed to thwart attempts to counter-punch him by drawing the counter and punching over it. The "anti-anti-Pacquiao blueprint" if you will, because he figured Bradley would try to adopt the Marquez blueprint. And the strategy worked great. Bradley's connect percentage was awful.

The problem was to the uninformed eye, it looked like Pacquiao's output was cut because of something Bradley did, that he took Pacquiao out of his element. Roth seemed to imply that in his interview. If you credit Bradley with dropping Pacquiao's output, then you're going to give him points for ring generalship and award him rounds for "taming" Pac.

But it was clear to me, and many others that this was a deliberate and voluntary strategy by Pacquiao that worked very well, if not for the judges. The connect percentage differential in some rounds was Mayweatheresque at times, that's how good Pacquiao looked for the vast majority of the fight.

 

This fight had Arum written all over it.

 

Surprised so many people have failed to realise this.

Actually, this is ESB, afterall.

 

He isn't correct and should be banned from boxing. The rounds where competetive until Pac pushed up the tempo so if a round is competetive and still pac lands the better shots and the turns up the heat for the last minute and lands good stuff throughout.

 

So that makes at least 95% of the world beyond him.
This was so big of a robbery that a senator from the united states already called an investigation towards this.
Somebody is bound to **** up.

 

Easy answer, you score the round on who landed the most effective punches in the round.

Any other method of scoring is idiotic. Let's suppose that Bradley "won" the first two minutes of a round by landing 2 punches, and in the last minute of the round Pac lands 15, you actually think those 2 punches mean more than the 15?

"Stealing" rounds late means that someone appears to outwork someone the whole round by landing a bunch late. For example, if Bradley landed 15 punches in the first 2 minutes, and Pac 12 punches in the last minute, it would be a Bradley round (assuming punches were equally effective).