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

Lot of virgins here.

 

it's cool man:thumbsup

 

Several jabs, esp ones to the body, and a few hard body shots (effective punches) + making ur opponent miss and controlling the action(ring generalship) is greater than chasing ur opponent (not effectively cutting off the ring) and missing flurries of punches with 2 or 3 clean hard shots landing. This went on for the last 6 rounds. Rds 7 and 8 Pac landed more however. This was not the case for rds 9,10,11,12 which Bradley secured.

 

You guys need to STFU.

At no point did he say "Pac wasn't showing his isual killer instinct SO BECAUSE OF THAT I SCORED THE ROUND AGAINST HIM PUNITIVELY." You guys are making that up, filling in the blanks as you see fit.

He was obviously suggesting that HAD Pacquiao showed his usual killer instinct it may have been enough to put him over the top in a close round. He was using other fights not to apply them to his scoring but to illustrate contextually how Pacquiao might have erased any doubts in the rounds where his foot came off the gas pedal.

 

Says the guy who gave Cotto 2 rounds against Mayweather.

Cotto put up a much more convincing "close rounds" fight against Mayweather and yet this dude only gets two rounds on the score cards.

All the while, Bradley puts up a C- effort in what should've been the REAL turning point for him when Pac took the foot off the brake and didn't do jack ****. Pacquiao still landed the harder cleaner shots and I will ALWAYS favor those punches vs. a couple of jabs and shoe shining combinations that are blocked.

Bradley hardly even put up a good workrate and the compubox stats reflect that.

Seriously. To have a complete shutout is absurd. I gave Bradley the 10th and 12th round. That's it. The middle rounds were close because as you say, he took his foot off the gas...even then. It was BRADLEY who didn't do enough vs. Pacquiao's power shots that landed clean and effectively.

People have built up Bradley as this monster of a fighter all throughout this promotion and the previous swayed decisions for Pac against Marquez and they clearly had it in against the Filipino. **** is ****ed.

No WAY you can give Bradley more than 4 rounds TOPS.

 

sure. that's your perspective.

 

Bottom line is that the absolute highest number of rounds you could give Bradley...and I mean ABSOLUTE, would be 5 rounds. I think you could make a very solid arguement that Bradley won 3 rounds. An incredible stretch would be 5. But ****ing 7 rounds? Burn your house down with your family inside and kill yourself.

 

Old white judges are the worse.:rofl

 

You do understand how that literally makes NO SENSE and it is YOU who is bending the statement to YOUR liking.

He is using past Pacquiao fights to or even prior rounds to judge whether Pacquiao "had that same killer instinct". That already is a violation of bias. Pacquiao, sadly, is put on a pedastool to dominate and anything short of that makes whatever opponent B do accordingly shine a bit better, which is bull****. Nothing of what Bradley did, except round 10, did I look at that round and say "Yea...Bradley put in some good work there." You would REALLY have to lean towards Tim to give him those rounds and mostly because of how FANTASTIC Pacquiao looked in the beginning half instead of judging EACH ROUND ACCORDINGLY.

Pacquiao landed and THREW MORE PUNCHES in nearly all the rounds while backing Bradley up. That's effective aggression and ring generalship. Whether it looked as pretty as the opening rounds is irrelevant.

Bradley didn't come close to winning more than 4 rounds TOPS (again...that's being GENEROUS)!

 

The most insane scorecard you can produce favoring Bradley is a draw.

 

I gave Cotto 3 rounds. 3,6,8. And even in those rounds he took a beating to get his punches in.

This content is protected

3 is fair. 118-110 or 116-112 are stretchin it either way.



Oh and comparing Mayweather v Cotto to Bradley v Pacquiao is nonsensical. Mayweather was fighting 3 minutes of every round and he dominated the championship rounds. Pac was fighting 30 seconds of each round and gave away the championship rounds.

 

As was the case for, say, Abril vs. Rios? In which case it wasn't an 80-20 split, it was 100% of people left baffled at how Abril wasn't declared the clear wide winner? (OK, maybe a couple of goofballs with Rios avatars tried to offer feeble defenses, but near enough to 100% as makes no matter)

Or Chisora vs. Helenius? That again had far less opposition to the notion of it being a "robbery" than does Pacquiao vs. Bradley...and neither of these examples requires digging all that far back in memory. Yet out of hand you call this the worst since Casamayor vs. Santa Cruz, either forgetting about the many true robberies between them that have been far worse (or hoping everyone else will) or legitimately feeling that it's somehow "worse" for Pacquiao to be robbed than Abril or Chisora, because Pacquiao is a big star and has earned the right to be above such things where Abril and Chisora haven't. It's the same stupid notion applied in basketball to the max-contract guys being expected to get all the foul calls.

 

Hmm...I wonder why...Oh yea...BECAUSE SO WAS COTTO! And Mayweather "dominated" (which is biased word considering Mayweather wasn't dominating **** because Cotto put in work vs. Cotto not doing as much and Mayweather doing more work makes him look like Superman in there) the rounds because Cotto pretty much tired out after round 10 and not what skills Mayweather displayed in there.

If Pacquiao only needed 30 seconds as you claim, then clearly Bradley wasn't doing ****! Absolutely ****ing NOTHING! And in those 30 seconds of work (as you claim) he managed to not only OUTLAND Bradley, but OUTWORK Bradley...which says WHAT about Tim....HE DIDN'T DO ENOUGH!

There is no defensible argument here for a close fight. Valiant effort, but a soundly defeated opponent in Tim Bradley.

 

Did he favor work rate when a certain other well known boxer potshotted for the whole fight? No I didn't think so!