During pac and bradley 3, he scored round 1 for Bradley saying nothing much happened in the round but since the round looked more like how Bradley planned it that was the winning criteria. If he means Bradley wanted to avoid pacs punches as planned and pac wanted to hit Bradley but didnt too much then Bradley meant his objective. But that seems to be an unequal standard for an offensive fighter since it is difficult to score against someone who doesn't want to engage. I feel Kellerman reasoning is not correct.
Only sport where fans and announcers have their own ****ing scoring criteria, and they can't explain it either
Same story, particularly in the 1st rnd, all the time. I'd advocate more frequent use of even rounds personally.
yeah I didn't see that as a smart comment either :bbb that's not uncommon for Max over the years, it happens.
I felt Bradley won the first round because it looked like his fight, not much happened but he looked in charge that round. Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
Ring generalship is one of the scoring criteria, so if the fight is playing out more to one guys game plan that the other then that would fall under that criteria. I gave Bradley the first round mostly because of that.
This is literally how so many people gave Mayweather rounds in their fight when in reality many rounds were close. "Well, Pacquiao didn't throw a ton of punches even though Mayweather didn't land or throw anything either, so Mayweather round." It's like an offensive fighter can't fight technically, defensively if they want to and still win the round, even if the other fighter didn't do anything either. I agree it's an unfair set of standards.
What was Pacquiao's game-plan? To me, it appeared he wanted to be defensively sound while waiting for the opportunity to counter and land a big punch. Be patient. Don't take too many chances. Just wait for Bradley to make a mistake and THEN take advantage and release a quick combination or counter with the left. People expect Pacquiao to be very aggressive, throw 7,8,9 punch combinations and swarm guys every round like he used to, and that NOT his style anymore. It hasn't been since Marquez 4.
The whole thing is that boxing's scoring is very flawed to begin with. A super close round, where like this example someone has to make up some reason why to give it to (their favored) boxer, scores just as much as one boxer dominating the round (also called a borderline 10-8 round). Which makes it easy to score fights in favor of the guy they want to win (looks commonly used by actual judges), and often scores a fight in favor of the wrong person. Just look at the Ponomarev vs Solomon fight. Ponomarev was the very clear winner, and you could easily score the fight a shutout, but with nationalistic scoring you could come up with all sort of reasons why Solomon won this and that round in which he looked competitive. The outrageous 94-96 score in his favor was a clear intentional robbery attempt of course, but 96-94 for Ponomarev could easily be explained as a different take on the closer rounds, in which case a good effort in round 10 could have saved a draw for him. In that case Ponomarev would still have been the clearly dominant boxer in the fight for all to see, but boxing's scoring criteria warrant 95-95 no matter how unfair it seems (and actually is).
