Was Pacquaio-Bradley really a robbery?

The problem with this fight is that there were a buttload of decisive inarguable Pacquiao rounds, some swing rounds but only ONE…. ONE really decisive Bradley round (that being the tenth)

To even make this fight close you have to go out of your way to give Bradley EVERYTHING that can be vaguely argued for him.

 

If Pacquiao-Bradley had a been a unanimous decision of three 117-111 cards there would be NO CONTROVERSY.

If Mayweather-Guerrero had been scored a split decision 115-113 113-115 115-113 win for Guerrero, there would have been about the same amount of outrage as there was for Pacquiao Bradley. But, eventually, just like you have on this thread, you'd have a handful of people reanalyzing every round to death trying to justify the decision harping on about bias commentary and how Mayweather's punches weren't really landing.

 

What IB meant to say (I believe) was that just because the majority of people agrees on sth that doesn't mean it is a proven fact, history is full of examples for this.

That guy knows more about scoring fights than anyone else in this thread, and if he says it was a close fight thats telling.

Actually I wish he would rewatch rounds 2-7 and make himself even more unpopular :deal

 

Oh yeah? Give me one example where there was total consensus the guy got robbed, and then somehow this was proven wrong. You said history full of such examples

 

I said history, not BOXING history.

The essence is that the public is stupid and uneducated and relies on authorities to tell them what to do and what to think and in every generation there are just a few geniuses like Kopernikus, Galilei, Intentional Butt or me that dare to look beyond the illusions and are therefore able to see the underlying truth behind things because of their outstanding intellect and godlike cognitive powers.

We will never be appreciated in our time and it is our fate to argue with and get ridiculed by idiots like you for as long as we live.

 

Ok joker, I see you totally missed the point of the post you first responded to. Boxing scoring is not a science. Don't give me Gallileo you fcuking simpleton, we're talking boxing scoring. There's no Copernicus of boxing scoring, wonder why dumbass

 

No, that's you putting words in my mouth, pretty shitty of you.

I consider the five rounds I gave Bradley to be clear for him, though a couple were close, all clear. The 7th I gave to Pacquiao and have never recanted that score but it was a close one. The other six I gave Pacquiao live stand firm.

There is one "up for grabs" round that wasn't crystal clear (however close some of the rest were, they were all clear either way) - and that was the seventh...which I gave to Pac.

So your theory is, like you with your disingenuous attempts to cleverly twist what people said around, full of ****.

Yes it's subjective but there are criteria in place that the majority aren't using in thinking Pacquiao took more than 6-7 clear rounds. (same as those finding more than 5 clear rounds for Bradley clearly aren't using the appropriate criteria)

In a few of the five rounds I gave Bradley, lots of people got drawn in by Pacquiao's aggression while largely ignoring the jabs, defense and body shots of Bradley.

Uh, no. You can absolutely have 100 wrong and 1 right. If the 100 are being suckered by automatically favoring the ineffective aggressor, they are scoring incorrectly while the 1, if applying the proper criteria, has it right.

I do think with time, as subsequent generations lacking emotional investment review the film, all the robbery talk will look sillier.

 

Bradley said that he won 8 - 4 in that fight. That's ridiculous.

 

Pacquiao won heavily

 

It is. So is Pacquiao winning by any wider a margin than 8-4.

 

Almost all boxing sites voted pac-bradley the robbery of the year

 

Pacquiao won this fight 8-4. No wonder why this fight was the biggest Robbery in boxing.
That is why the Boxing Community did not give Bradley credit, damn even Andre Ward said Bradley should just given the Belt back to Pacquiao.
After the Pacquiao fight, Bradley's boxing career was being criticized and was getting a lot of hate.

 

No, but boxing scoring is subjective as **** and the guidelines on it couldn't be more imprecise and that kinda makes it an art.

I think they will come up with a fair judging-system somewhere in the future and that will prove that Bradley indeed won that fight and then all you monkeys will feel plenty stupid about yourselves.

So, youre right, I'm not the Copernicus of boxing scoring, I'm the Mozart of boxing scoring.

IB is Tschaikowsky.

 

Yawn. So if there's no "right answer" and you find yourself in a 100-1 minority, what does that tell you? It's not like we're talking music or film here, boxing scoring really has no snob appeal. No "arty" boxing scoring, either you're seeing it like everyone else or you saw some other fight

 

"If you disagree explain which two of the following absolutely weren't Bradley". All 5 of those fit, but that's a pretty low threshold for winning a round lol. And that was enough for you to claim the consensus score of 9-3 is "ridiculous", with 1 absolutely clear round for Bradley. Turns out you get 9-3 when you split the remaining 50/50.

So who's the arbiter on whether the proper criteria were used? The one out of 100 who had it different? I'll spare you the lols. We're talking experienced scorers here, including a who's who of US boxing journalism who had it dominant for Pac on average, with barely a close score registering.