Since Pacquiao dominated Bradley equally to how Mayweather dominated Marquez...

I count 6 who had it 115-113. Why 33?

 

115-113 and 116-112 are close, the former in the neighborhood of a draw by a shift of a single round and the latter by still merely 2.

The former was my score, and the latter is one round's shift (as is a draw, in the other direction - although I don't think wiggle room exists on the other side for Bradley to make it a draw. 115-113 and 116-112 are the range that seems reasonable to me and both are what can be deemed close).

117-111, 118-110, 119-109 and 120-108 are the range typically said to be wide.

Once again I find myself explaining common sense to you. It's getting a bit tiresome. Maybe find someone else to hold your hand?

 

'In fact, most of the smarter & more boxing savvy people had it very close. (still invariably for Pac, though)' - if you think that this sentence is clear that you are talking about people on this website then you are wrong. There is nothing wrong with my common sense.

 

You must be a Pacquiao fan. You guys always say the same thing. "Manny will dominate JMM"
Umm, newsflash. they fought 4 times, Manny has never dominated JMM, and he WASNT DOMINATING HIM IN THE 4TH FIGHT EITHER. He may have been getting the better of JMM, but the punch was not lucky. JMM had been hitting Manny with the same right hand all 3 prev fights, and knocked Manny down in the 4th fight with it. Pac vs Marquez could happen 10 times. It will always be close. PERIOD

 

I am sure some people find Rossie O'donnell and Rossane Barr gorgeous too. Leave this guy to his opinion and to admire the opinions of others.

 

It doesn't suggest you should infer anything about what people I'm talking about, except that obviously (and explicitly) they are ones I hold in esteem. It shouldn't be implied they do or don't have anything else in common.

 

My point was that many people disagreed with your scorecard. And i was right. Only 6 people out of that list had it as you do.

You don't see the arrogance in the way you wrote this post?

I AM RIGHT. YOU ARE WRONG. YOU ARE STUPID. - is what it sounded like.

 

So it's my tone you don't like. Well tough ****, cupcake. :yep

 

'that pretty obviously refers to posters whom I personally value and whose opinions I deem worthy of respect. If you disagree, whatever.'

Well then this comment by you is wrong.

 

Yeah. I don't like arrogant, close minded people. For sure. Nobody said we had to get along. I just disagree with your scorecard and wanted to point out that a lot of people do.

You probably are not arrogant and closed minded. But your tone often is.

 

Fine, swap out the word 'posters' for 'people' to amend the grievous error on my part there.

 

Okay.

 

My tone is often brusk, I'll give you that - especially when rehashing something that has been discussed to death and regarding which the unhappy majority has shown very flexibility in discussing. It always comes back to posting lists of journalists' cards as you did, or talking about how disgusted the HBO crew were, or about how 'obvious' it was that Pacquiao 'dominated'. Hardly ever do these discussions involve actual round-by-round analysis illustrating exactly why people feel Bradley couldn't have taken upwards of four, five, or even six rounds to arrive in the 116-112 Pac, 115-113 Pac, and draw range. Those shrilly demanding acceptance of the 117-111+ cards are the ones who generally adopt the bullying tones in this discussion and refuse to break down each round in a calm and rational manner, so please do forgive me if my tone after sixteen months of this roundabout conflict is a touch reactive and betrays my frayed patience with the subject matter and the majority's rabid (but largely unsubstantiated through legitimate analytical debate) fervor over it.



See, I can be a civil and polite conversationalist just as easily as I can be a condescending dickhead.

 

And i appreciate the fact that you are civil and polite with me. I think you have excellent opinions.

And i agree there are a lot of '*******s' championing the 117-111 type cards on here. But don't let it get to you.

 

i'm only talking the 4th fight, and next.

I never said it was a lucky punch. but manny was starting to cruise before the ko punch landed. any unbiased person would agree I believe.

fight 3 was a below par effort from pacman, but I think he entered that fight far too ****y. he thought he'd just jump in the ring, throw a few punches and he'd win. his recent dominant wins made him complacent.

I like both fighters fwiw too.