Manny Pacquiao vs. Timothy Bradley Jr. RbR!!!

Dwyer has always been a muppet. He picked the outsider a few times, got lucky and made out he had some great insight. I know nothing about betting, but more knowledgeable friends tell me he just spreads his bets to minimise losses.

Anyway...

The guy always comes up with laughable defences for his incorrect picks. He has James DeGale as one of his P4P top ten and, when he lost to Groves, posted a pathetic video about people giving Groves credit just for doing better than expected.

His Dawson-Pascal round-up was hilarious. Dwyer's got a bit of a man-crush on Chad, I think.

 

Dwyer is a fat ******

 

Yes i remember that Groves bashing he gave out, why some call him the God father i just dont know:huh

 

Sometimes, the fans, press and judges all see something different to what the fans at home see on TV. A massive percentage of the media (maybe even 100%) scored Valuev/Holyfield to Valuev and even though that seems weird when you watch the fight on TV, you imagine that there was a difference watching the fight live and it makes the scoring understandable. You can just put it down to the live atmosphere telling a different story and accept it.

However, with Pacquiao/Bradley, everyone is united aside from the 3 judges. Everyone in the press, all the fans in the arena, both teams, the fighters themselves - everyone knew Pacquiao had won.

 

I only just saw it about an hour ago, had avoided ESB and the result all day and got an HBO copy from torrent.

I could argue Bradley winning Rd 1 although it was very close, definitely took Rd 10 and even if you gave him both of the last rounds ... at most he took 4 rounds.

Personally, I would say 9-3 Pacquiao was probably about right.

 

One thing you won't see is the judges defending their scores.

 

It's a downright strange decision is all I can say. I gave Bradley 1, 10 and 12, and there was another round I felt was his until Manny leathered him hard in the last 30 seconds.

I just didn't see any real way that Bradley was in control. He made it awkward for Pac, but he never seemed to trouble or frustrate him.

 

I think all they would say is that Bradley was winning large chunks of rounds before Pacquiao got going. I've heard a lot of judges in the past saying they split a round into 3 one minute chunks. Ultimately that could have cost him.

 

In the lead up to the fight, I made posts that Team Pacquiao were hugely underestimating Bradley, who I have always seen as a solid tough opponent with a habit of winning. That I thought he was probably Pacs toughest fight since Cotto.

Then when I seen him unable to really impose anything on Pac, I gave him the benefit of the doubt that his twisted ankle might be hindering him.

There was no way I saw him being awarded the fight at the end, the first 15-13 score made me sit up in my seat and think "the ****?"

 

Bradley wasn't really doing anything in those two minutes either. Pawing, feinting, landing on arms and gloves. When Manny opened up, the difference was immediate.

I always remember Hugh Mcillvanney complaining how 10-9 scores did no justice to the damage one man does to the other. Last night was another example.

The "work-rate" argument was as specious for Manny beating Marquez in the rubber-match as it was for Bradley beating Manny.

 

thats one of my points Bradley was winning large chunks and the manny flurried but i cant forget what happened before unless its a real ******* of a last minute. When bradley tried boxing on the front foot he came a cropper but when boxed on the back foot he did well

 

Yeah, I was the same. I even wrote a wee article about it, that Bradley would be trouble. In a way he was, but less than I'd expected. Other than his jab and the occasional body-shot he couldn't figure out Manny the way he has other opponents.

Didn't watch it live, heard the result, watched it and took into account any concious bias I might have. While Tim usually did enough to make it competitive, he never ever gained the upper hand except in the 10th.

 

He was throwing a lot of jabs, not landing with many but how many wins have we seen recently where one man looked to be doing more. Maybe that was enough, assuming legit judging. He had success with a few straight rights too, and had good footwork to keep it where he wanted at times.

I dunno really, I saw someone make an inspecific post about a robbery before watching and after the final bell I just couldn't believe it could be this fight. Crazy.

 

That's really interesting. Do you think it's group-think where everyone's gotten caught up in the drama?

I didn't watch the fight live, so I knew there was the "robbery" talk, and did my best to pay attention to what Bradley did as much as what Manny did. Truthfully it made me a little depressed. One of the two best fighters in the world got jobbed in a fight he clearly won.

Bradley really didn't do enough to be considered winning all bar three rounds. Any others you're claiming for him are benefit of the doubt type rounds.

 

The whole thing is just plain weird. Manny was the crowd favourite and the cash cow and he clearly won. How the hell does he drop the decision?

If there's something amiss, who does it benefit and how? Is Pac-Bradley II really going to attract more PPV buys than Pac-Marquez IV?