Show me 3 punches in that fight that Bradley damaged anybody with. This was a joke.

_________________
You know me like that.

I said it was an shitty decision in my post. Again though basing fights on "who is the aggressor" or "who Harold Lederman is scoring for" fights is an awful way to view fights. That's how you have people somehow scoring Pacquiao-Marquez III for Pacquio.

Dan Wetzel
@DanWetzel:

Blame here has to fall on Pacquaio's strategy of punching Bradley more often and harder

_________________

Frankly, I've always thought that you had to clearly dominate or knockout the champ to take the title. I don't think Pacquiao was at his best, but it certainly wasn't a performance that should have cost him the title.[/quote]
This was a shitty decision, but just for the record, you should never score a fight based simply on who appears to be the aggressor, who clueless Harold Lederman is favoring, or who the champ is.[/quote]

Show me 3 punches in that fight that Bradley damaged anybody with. This was a joke.[/quote]
I said it was an shitty decision in my post. Again though basing fights on "who is the aggressor" or "who Harold Lederman is scoring for" fights is an awful way to view fights. That's how you have people somehow scoring Pacquiao-Marquez III for Pacquio.[/quote]

Zeph, I should have qualified what I wrote saying that I agreed with Lederman's scorecard. I am not a huge fight fan, but I have seen enough to know a lopsided victory when there is one and this was it. I don't base my viewing on his, or anyone else's scorecard, but I had to agree with him on this one.

I should also say that just being aggressive doesn't mean you will win rounds or fights. However, if, as was the case here, the one who was the more aggressive and happened to have landed the most punches-nay, the most quality punches-and seemed to be in control of the fight, I don't know how a judge could have scored it other than to favor Pacquiao.

viewtopic.php?f=88&t=64766

Better option. Boxing is fake.

_________________

Just letting out $65 worth of frustration.

_________________
You know me like that.

Snoop Dogg ‏@SnoopDogg
Ain't that sum bullshit Boxing is a wrap. Going bacc on that ultimate fighting

_________________

The saving grace is that no respectable boxing analyst will pay any attention to this decision. Even Panther.

_________________
You know me like that.

Where's Jim Lampley to tell me that this sport isn't dead and that it's still more relevant than MMA?

Well, Zeph, I know you're one of the bigger fight fans here, and I may agree with you about what should be done. But there's never been a time in my life where a champion didn't have to be decisively pummeled to lose his belt.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Would 2 horses boxing be more crooked?

Neigh

_________________

I set 'em up, you knock 'em down.

I didn't watch it and not i"m gonna watch so maybe I'm not allowed an opinion, but the entire aggressor thing doesn't make sense. Plus each round is judged individually and then they're added up at the end, rather than who won the fight overall or the champ getting some unfair bias because he happens to be wearing a pretty gold belt. You either won or lost, you can't get bonus points because you're the champ. Every fighter has a different strategy. Some are counter strikers. Some will wait until you gas out and then whip your ass. That Ali guy did pretty well for himself by not being the aggressor once in a while:

We all know this story...

The rope-a-dope is a boxing fighting style commonly associated with Muhammad Ali in his 1974 Rumble in the Jungle match against George Foreman.
In competitive situations other than boxing, rope-a-dope is used to describe strategies in which one party purposely puts itself in what appears to be a losing position, attempting thereby to become the eventual victor.

The rope-a-dope is performed by a boxer assuming a protected stance (in Ali's classic pose, lying against the ropes; by leaning against the ropes, much of the punch's energy is absorbed by the ropes' elasticity rather than the boxer's body) while allowing his opponent to hit him, providing only enough counter-attack to avoid the referee thinking the boxer is no longer able to continue and thus ending the match via technical knockout. The plan is to cause the opponent to "punch himself out" and make mistakes which the boxer can then exploit in a counter-attack.

and then the best example:
Eight-division world champion Manny Pacquiao skillfully used the strategy to gauge the power of welterweight titlist Miguel Cotto in November 2009. Pacquiao followed up the rope-a-dope gambit with a withering knockdown.

_________________

But that's the way it's always been done. I'm pretty sure without that unwritten rule of scoring Earnie Shavers beat Ali. Hubert Davis didn't get the same calls Michael Jordan did either.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

For those of you who didn't but wanted to see the fight:

http://kat.ph/hbo-manny-pacquiao-vs-tim ... 41150.html

_________________
Just chillin' like Garret Quillin.

I totally agree, also similar to some pitchers getting "pitcher's picthes" because they're established vets, I just don't care for it.

_________________

What are the ACTUAL corruption allegations? Sometimes judges just suck at what they do. There's a ton of bad mma judges, but I don't think they're corrupt, I just think they're bad at their job.

Arum paid off one or two of the judges? Get the FBI involved, give the paid off judge immunity if he can prove the pay-off and case closed..

_________________

Did Teddy Atlas have a stroke or something? He sounds drunk on the phone interview.

_________________
CSFMB: Home of the small minded

Thanks, that actually makes sense.

_________________

So Bob Arum is Vince McMahon and Pac and Floyd are Stone Cold and the Rock?


THey should have a weekly show

Supposedly tweeted by Bradley 11 days before the (so-controversial-that-it'll-need-a-rematch) fight....

_________________

I am a fight fan and have heard many hours of Teddy speaking. I'm well aware of the scar, he just sounded like he had 4-5 mixed drinks in him when doing the interview. Just saying.

_________________
CSFMB: Home of the small minded

You are the only person who thought he won besides those two judges. Even the guy who won the fight thought he lost.

My guess is you are just trying to be different as usual.

_________________

Like I said, you just want attention. This all you will get from me.

_________________

Bradley won at most 5 rounds. And that's being generous.

_________________

I'm pretty sure "you have to take the belt from the champ" originally referred to the champ retaining in the event of a tie, not getting some kind of advantage in every close round.

Was not sober enough to do a proper scorecard when I saw it live and haven't given it a rewatch. My general impression from that one viewing was that it was a poor decision, but certainly not the worst of the year nor the worst I've seen for a fight of this level. Pacquiao's inactivity over the first two minutes of so many rounds probably did him no favors given how workrate-obsessed American judges tend to be (obviously bracketing corruption charges here). HBO commentary was awful as usual and at the very least it was a closer fight than they were making it out to be.

Rewatching now -

Paq won the 1st. But I'll give it to Bradley cuz he hit a body shot.

Paq wins the 2nd.

19-19

_________________
You know me like that.