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

I'm not talking about a conspiracy, McGrain. I also never said you were necessarily scoring out of bias.


I'm saying many people give Pacquiao the star treatment and benefit of the doubt in certain rounds (ie the later ones against Bradley, and several against Marquez) and think he's still winning them despite his output dwindling to odd bursts whilst getting pecked with jabs and body shots...just by virtue of being who he is.

If this was a six rounder, and Pacquaio had lost, it would be the robbery of the millennium. Pacquiao DOMINATED Bradley in the first half, and hurt him many times.

The second half was pretty close, though, and had a lot of potentially swing rounds. I'll plant my flag right now and yeah, say that anyone who disagrees with that statement IS indeed biased.

 

wow man you really scolded me just then.

I wasn't really trying any of what you're accusing me of intentionalbutt. I just truly feel like, in addition to what you claimed to be one of, not THE, definining characteristic of the latter rounds, pacquiao did the better work. I don't see where bradley landed effective work in the later rounds. the judges act as if it was a tale of two fights in the truest sense, where one dominates the first half and the other, the second half. what I saw, imo, is one dominate the first half, commandingly, and for the most part, the second half, by edging it as a result of better punches.

I mean, this, at least consciously has nothing to do with how I saw the fight, but did you see how utterly demoralized bradley seemed in the latter half of the fight?

 

yeah that was a bit ridiculous

 

8-4 pacquiao. 7-5 at most. However 11-1 or 10-2 pac is just as absurd as 7-5 Bradley

 

More absurd. Judge Roth saw it perfectly.

 

Not really, Michigan.

The rounds which Bradley won in the second half were, according to everyone who gave them to him, close rounds that could have gone either way. So, if they were close rounds that could have gone either way, then it would be perfectly reasonable to give 2-3 of those rounds to Pac (because, you know, they could have gone either way); thus making your 8-4 to Pacquiao turn into 10-2/11-1 to Pacquiao.

Basically, if "close rounds that can go either way" can be used to justify Bradley creeping in towards the end, then they can also be used to justify Pac continue to rack up the rounds to make it a 10-2 or a 11-1. In fact, you'd be more justified in doing the latter, seeing as though Pac outlanded Bradley in almost every round.

 

He was pecking away, jabs and body shots, severely limiting Pacquiao as to the number of effective hurtful shots he was landing back as compared to early on. A left hand or two would still zap him now and then, but few and far between...where early on they'd been constant. :good It took a hell of an effort from Bradley, and he only barely did it, but he did turn the tide of momentum in the 2nd half and a case could be made for him edging many of those rounds.

See this is what you aren't getting. That wasn't the case at all. They WERE seeing it as a tale of two fights, but not as you describe.

It was one fighter dominating the first half, and the other just barely nicking much of the second half. QUANTITATIVELY, that's exactly the same as one fighter dominating and then the other fighter dominating. Qualitatively, obviously, it's very different. By the numbers, it doesn't matter how the rounds are won. Get it? Not "Pac takes his turn dominating...and now Bradley takes his.". No. Bradley never dominated. You don't have to dominate. A dominantly won round counts no more than one which is only barely won. Understand? Bradley didn't dominate in the second half, he just did slightly more/better work on a round per round basis.

Pac's flush left hands - even late - were eye-catching, sure. Better individual punches than anything Bradley pecked at him with? :think Yeah, OK. There weren't nearly enough of them, though. Night and day difference between how many he landed flush early and how many he landed flush (or grazing, often) late.

I saw him treading water. It was difficult on him, yes. I saw someone working hard, trying to pull it out of the fire and not at all sure of success but plugging along anyway. Technically, he did pull it out - although I don't agree with the scorecards that awarded it to him. Had he not put up such a great effort in the late stages, the "robbery" wouldn't have happened.

Just because he didn't look comfortable doesn't mean he wasn't earning a share here and there when Pacquiao went into cruise control sleepwalking mode for 2+ minutes at a go.

 

all excellent points, especially the bit about the tale of two fights, which I understand now that you've made it clear to me, and could have understood if I analyzed judge roth's standpoint on the latter half of the bout as thoroughly as you.

ultimately, imo if there's any legitimate arguement to be made for a pacquiao loss, it's because pacquiao truly lost the fight more than bradley went out and won the fight. coasting through the later rounds cost him calamitously, ala de la hoya-trinidad.

 

I actually agree with the judge. I've been quiet on the subject because everyone bandwagons these things and it takes a while for things to settle down. I only saw the fight once, but I definitely see how you can give the majority of the second half to Bradley. I remember him jabbing a lot, throwing flurries where some punches landed, and avoiding a lot of shots. Meanwhile Pacquiao only came on strong once or twice in the round.

Bradley is a smart guy, he thinks about winning rounds while fighting so he throws lots of pressure flurries and jabs a lot. It's not just about landing a few big punches in a round.

edit: I can't officially say who won, because I only saw the fight once. But I don't necessarily agree with most things people are saying around here.

 

You can do that, just as long as you realize that you're making an assumption. That can lead you to come to inaccurate conclusions when you make assumptions in concerns with another man's words.

 

:thumbsup Very fair assessment. :nod While I very much feel Pac deserved the win having banked plenty of early rounds- he is an idiot and should be kicking himself. As you say, much like Oscar against Tito.

Apologies for the scolding earlier. :yep It's clear now it was down to a misunderstanding and not underhanded debatng tactics.

 

Lol i love it.

 

Thought Bradley won 3 of the last 4 rounds pretty convincingly. And rounds 1-2 were up in the air. Ala 7-5 pac.


Cant look at a guy while getting punched for 2:30 then try and win the last 30 and be guaranteed a favorable decision.

 

BINGO! Roth goes against his own statement!

"He didn't have that killer instinct he usually has" vs. "we're consentrating on that fight and that flight only"