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

Im pretty sure you meant Helenius...or Fury?

They haven't fought yet.

 

I respect your opinion more than most on here IB.

[url]http://boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:1656951[/url]

What are your thoughts on this though.

91 reporters favour manny, to 1 that favour Bradley.

 

I don't know how much more transparent these cats can be...it seems as if they have been far more open than usual in terms of their logic etc. Personally I agree with them. I was surprised that Bradley got the decision but I wasn't surprised at the scores.

 

Cotto got his ass beat brah and you still mad lol.

One guy looked like this post fight

This content is protected

And one looked like this

This content is protected

I give Cotto props this time. Took his ass whoopin like a man and didnt take no knees or quit. Good job. :good

 

And yes it's much worse when Pacquiao gets robbed because as Schaffer stated in an interview, this is a highly visible fight. In order for new fans to be interested in the sport, we need a credible sport to watch. If we try and get new people to watch an exciting fight, no matter how great the match-up may be, the new viewer might be inclined to do something else because "whats the point they'll get robbed anyway". Ridiculous? See how many peopel tweeted that they're "done with boxing". It's becoming nearly impossible to defend the sport I love to the casual viewer...and it's because of **** like this that they end up seeing.

Rios/Abril or Holyfield/Valuev or Williams/Lara...all of those fights weren't promoted, viewed or marketed anywhere near the same way that this fight was and like we all keep saying...a robbery on THIS stage is ALWAYS bad for boxing.

 

He's makes some great points.

 

Me either. I admitted Bradley didnt win and Pac got a gift but given how inactive Pac was down the stretch i was not shocked.

 

Your brain isn't functioning properly. Maybe a lack of oxygen. Slow down. Have a drink of water. Breathe in, through your nose.

At no point did Roth ever say that he was using "whether or not Pac showed his usual killer instinct" as a direct scoring criteria or factor. You, JohnAnthony, and BKruise are all assuming you knew what he meant by mentioning the lack of usual killer instinct, when really it's just over your heads.

The easiest way for your minds to process it I guess is "OH OK. ROTH MEAN HE ONLY SCORE ROUND FOR PAC WHEN PAC SHOW KILLER INSTINCT. ROTH NOT SCORE ROUND FOR PAC WHEN PAC NOT SHOW KILLER INSTINCT BECAUSE PAC SUPPOSED TO DO THAT. DERP DERP DERP."

No capacity for complex thought. :verysad

That isn't at all what he was talking about when mentioning Pac's relative lack of killer instinct.

"Then in the latter part of the fight I thought he just didn't do enough. He didn't have that killer instinct that he usually has."

Nowhere does he say there is a direct and exclusive causal relationship between the two. You numbskulls are arbitrarily bridging the gap between those two sentences, substituting period at the end of the first with a comma and the word BECAUSE. Do you understand what I'm saying? Do you see where you've erred?

He didn't feel Pacquiao did enough in the latter part of the fight. FULL STOP. <--- reasons for scoring as he did.

Pacquiao didn't have that killer instinct that he usually has. FULL STOP. <--- contextual observation, NOT a reason for scoring.

Jeez Louise...

 

And he didn't score it for Bradley so what's your point?

 

Lol IB told him "have some water baby"

 

atsch Helenius, yeah. :yep

 

:deal

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl

this is absolutely seamless and priceless.

 

This.