WTF - Pacquiao - Bradley

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Matthean

If so, he's doing a good job of selling it.

If the fix was in and he is paying off the old, retiring judges one last payout, he's taking the absolute perfect stance.

[bronconick]

Judge CJ Ross (115-113 to Bradley) scored it 7-5 in rds to Bradley. He gave rounds 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 to the American; rounds 1, 3, 4, 6 and 9 to Pacquiao.
Judge Duane Ford (115-113 to Bradley) scored it 7-5 in rds to Bradley. He gave rounds 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 to Bradley; Rds 2, 3, 4, 6 and 11 to Pacquiao.
Judge Jerry Roth (115-113 Pacquiao) scored it 7-5 in rds to Pacquiao. He gave rounds 2, 7, 10, 11, 12 to Bradley; Rds 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 to Pacquiao.


The official scorecard shows Manny Pacquiao shocking loss to Timothy Bradley in Las Vegas – Telegraph Blogs

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I read on Twitter there is already a rematch scheduled for November 10th

The Timothy Bradley-Manny Pacquiao Rematch Poster Was Already Made Two Weeks Ago | The Big Lead

[DaddyTorgo]

Smells like they realized the Paq-Mayweather match was never gonna happen and wanted to cash in on Paq now.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Ragone

for every one of the big markets getting screwed arguements, there are 4-5 big markets get lucky scenarios..

Cleveland gets hometown boy 1st pick(lebron)

Cleveland gets 1st pick after hometown boy blows town(irving)

New orleans gets 1st pick as a team still owned by nba (please buy us tom benson)

Knicks get ewing


San antonio getting duncan instead of boston is probably another arguement in your favor, i'm just saying.. Wish nba would just go to a regular damn draft order.

Cleveland and New Orleans are big markets?

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

Cleveland and New Orleans are big markets?

Forget it, he's rolling.

[sabotai]

I did not see the fight, but the aftermath reminds me a lot of De La Hoya - Trinidad and the second De La Hoya - Mosley fight. In both cases, De La Hoya stopped fighting around the 9th round because he thought it won going away.

Looking at the judges scoring, Neon's scoring and some of the round-by-round logs, it looks like Pac did the same. You just can't give away 25% of the fight like that. Especially when you're the favorite. You'd think being the favorite would give you extra points from the judges, but IMO, judges score favorites more harshly. They look for rounds to give to the underdog.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

FWIW, I'm reading that it's three former players shot, two dead & one critical ... all unconfirmed so far

edit to add: Or at least two former players & another whose status I can't quite determine

Two former players dead, and one player that was slated to start on the O-line in the hospital.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Two former players dead, and one player that was slated to start on the O-line in the hospital.

Yeah, just saw where mainstream media finally started using the names a little while ago.

Injuries to that OL not life-threatening but two non-players wounded are both listed as critical.

As many as seven shot in incident in Auburn that killed two former football players | al.com

[stevew]

There's almost enough stuff yesterday to do a 30 for 30

[Crapshoot]

Havok, fyi, you realize Neon is a Pinoy, right?

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Havok, fyi, you realize Neon is a Pinoy, right?

Huh? Did posts get deleted?

[DaddyTorgo]

They must have...

[lcjjdnh]

A Pacquiao-Bradley rematch? Maybe not - latimes.com

Manny Pacquiao reserved a contractual right to request a rematch against Palm Springs' Timothy Bradley if he lost Saturday.

And even though Pacquiao was left stunned by a split-decision defeat in which two of three judges awarded Bradley a 115-113 victory, it's not a given that the pair will reunite in November.

Fight promoter Bob Arum said after the bout that he heard from ticket brokers who said they would have trouble selling seats to a Bradley rematch because most fight watchers considered the World Boxing Organization welterweight title bout on Saturday at the MGM Grand a one-sided Pacquiao victory.

"The brokers are telling us if we make a Bradley rematch, no one will go," Arum said.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

A Pacquiao-Bradley rematch? Maybe not - latimes.com

aka "Most fight watchers are telling us they believe the fix was in."

[EagleFan]

So it's...

Sorry that we screwed you out of your title but we won't give you a shot to get it back because no one will watch?

[SteveMax58]

Reading this kind of crap makes me feel all self-reassuring of my loss of interest in boxing for years now.

Looks like I'm not missing nearly as much as I sometimes wonder.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

So it's...

Sorry that we screwed you out of your title but we won't give you a shot to get it back because no one will watch?

Yeah...and if nobody will watch THAT fight...wtf other fight is there that would have any interest at this point (with Bradley)?

[EagleFan]

They're amateurs at this. Wrasslin' knows that more people will watch the rematch for the guy that was cheated out of the title.

[jbergey22]

MMA is such a superior product right now. MMA fight card will usually have 3-4 very good matches scheduled. The best we can hope for from a boxing card is a fight that isnt fixed.

[Ragone]

So basically, Bradley will fight mayweather.. probably lay down early in the fight.. take his payday and never be heard of again..

[A-Husker-4-Life]

Originally Posted by Ragone

So basically, Bradley will fight mayweather.. probably lay down early in the fight.. take his payday and never be heard of again..

Ding, Ding we have a winner.. First fight out of jail for him.

[Matthean]

[JonInMiddleGA]

Nevada boxing judge Duane Ford claims Timothy Bradley gave Manny Pacquiao 'a lesson' - ESPN

A couple of good quotes in here that might point to the problem.

First this little bit from 74 y/o judge Duane Ford

"I thought Bradley gave Pacquiao a boxing lesson," Duane Ford said, according to the newspaper. "I thought a lot of the rounds were close. Pacquiao missed a lot of punches and I thought he was throwing wildly."

Compubox stats say
Pac - Landed 190 of 493 thrown 38.5%
Bradley - Landed 109 of 390 thrown 27.7%

Next, this from the Nevada State Boxing Commission chair

The commission's chairman, Skip Avansino, who was sitting ringside for the fight, told the Review-Journal he was content with the outcome.

"We had three seasoned professionals working and I don't question their determinations," Avansino said. "Unless something is brought to our attention that there was improper behavior, we're not going to take any action. I'm not going to second-guess our judges."

Yeah, I think I'm starting to see where some of the problems lie. If you're content with what was pretty much a travesty by virtually every account, that's probably not a good sign.

[molson]

Ya, I think bad judging is a much more likely culprit than conspiracies. "Athletic commission judge" seems like one of those jobs like "toll booth operator" where you need good connections to get in and you can never be fired. These aren't boxing experts. I wonder if the 74-year old even has to have his vision checked. And would you really trust your conspiracy (and your freedom) with a 74-year old guy who is talking to the newspapers, and who sounds kind of confused while doing so?

[spleen1015]

I don't believe there was a conspiracy. I chalk it 100% up to shitty judges.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by molson

"Athletic commission judge" seems like one of those jobs like "toll booth operator" where you need good connections to get in and you can never be fired. These aren't boxing experts.

I don't doubt they need connections (like any job) to get the best positions (judging a championship fight), but to say the judges aren't boxing experts is just really stupid.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yeah, I think I'm starting to see where some of the problems lie. If you're content with what was pretty much a travesty by virtually every account, that's probably not a good sign.

The biggest problem is that 90%+ of the viewers are judging the fight as a whole, and going simply by "who looks like he's winning", while a fight is really scored like 12 individual and completely separate 3 minute long fights (imagine what would happen in baseball if the games were scored like 9 completely separate, 1 inning long games. Essentially a best out of 9 series of innings). And the judges look for entirely subjective things like "ring generalship" and "effective aggression" that the casual fans don't know nor care about.

I think you can make an argument against looking for those things. In most other sports, it doesn't matter who looked the best, who controlled the field, who really took it to their opponent. All that matters is the score at the end. In boxing, whether you like it or not, the judges give points for command and style.

Not too mention, they don't use the 10 point system like it was intended. There's hardly any 10-10 rounds, and hardly ever any 10-8 rounds without a knockdown. If they started handing out more 10-10 rounds instead of feeling like they have to give a round to someone, and give out more 10-8 rounds for when a fighter clearly wins the entire round but doesn't score a knockdown, and you'll see a lot fewer controversial decisions.

[Blackadar]

While I don't agree with Neon's card, I will say that the fight was much closer than many people think. The trick here is that Manny won the middle rounds decisively and those were really the only memorable rounds.

Otherwise, the fight wasn't very interesting. The other rounds followed the same pattern - a lot of nothing but pity-pat for 2 1/2 minutes followed by late rallies by Manny trying to win the round. While that "late rally" strategy has been proven to work in the past (see: Leonard vs. Hagler), it also can work against a fighter because it makes the close first couple of minutes in the round look like maybe they were for the other guy and now you're trying to catch up. And if those last 30 seconds aren't that convincing, then you can wind up losing rounds. While Bradley was missing, at least he was throwing and that gets you some points as well. At the end of the round, it's not that hard to see how someone preferred the activity of Bradley over Pac's 30 seconds of fury.

I don't know if the fix was in (late action, Pac's upcoming expiring contract), but I do know it was closer than the 119-109 on Laderman's scorecard. Pac should have won somewhere around 8 rounds to 4, but he also should blame himself. He looked like he was coasting the last few rounds and the judges also thought so - he won a grand total of 1 round out of a possible 9 in the last 3 rounds.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I don't doubt they need connections (like any job) to get the best positions (judging a championship fight), but to say the judges aren't boxing experts is just really stupid.

What level of expertise do you need to demonstrate to get a judging license then? I can't find any requirements on the website (other than $50 to apply). How judges are assigned to fights in another matter, of course, but it appears the strategy there is to just send out the oldest licensed judges available.

Edit: Whenever i read quotes from judges they seem pretty simplistic. Or at least, as Blackader and sabotai said, they're looking at things very differently from boxing analysts and fans.

[k0ruptr]

Anyone who thought Pacquiao was the one throwing wildly and missing punches is crazy.

[RainMaker]

I don't think Bradley won the fight, but I do think that the coverage of the event skewed the opinions of a lot of people. The announcers were falling all over themselves in regards to Pacquiao. He was the better fighter, but it was closer than they made it seem. Manny was taking off rounds and wasn't particularly engaged.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by molson

What level of expertise do you need to demonstrate to get a judging license then? I can't find any requirements on the website (other than $50 to apply). How judges are assigned to fights in another matter, of course, but it appears the strategy there is to just send out the oldest licensed judges available.

The main reason why the judges for championship fights are mostly older people is because it takes that long to work your way up to them. You have to judge amateurs for awhile (usually, unpaid) before they'll give you a license to judge professional fights.

The website doesn't explicitly say how much experience is needed, but it does say : "If you live in Nevada and need to start out with the amateur boxing program to get the required experience you may call Dawn Barry at (702) 368-2696. Otherwise, you will need to find your local USA/ABF program to get started."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sabotai

The biggest problem is that 90%+ of the viewers are judging the fight as a whole, and going simply by "who looks like he's winning", while a fight is really scored like 12 individual and completely separate 3 minute long fights (imagine what would happen in baseball if the games were scored like 9 completely separate, 1 inning long games. Essentially a best out of 9 series of innings). And the judges look for entirely subjective things like "ring generalship" and "effective aggression" that the casual fans don't know nor care about.

Hard to imagine that this accounts for Pac landing more punches in 10 of 12 rounds and losing the fight.

Even harder to imagine that this accounts for all three judges scoring the 7th round for Bradley when punches landed were 27-11 in favor of Pacicantspell. Bradley landed a whopping 2 jabs (of 32 thrown) in the round, only 9 of 35 power punches. Manny was 5/18 and 22/59 respectively.
CompuBox Stats: Bradley W 12 Pacquaio | CompuBox

That leaves a casual observer - like me, who gives a shit about either guy - to wonder if perhaps all three judges were either absent from ringside, drunk or suffering from dementia.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hard to imagine that this accounts for Pac landing more punches in 10 of 12 rounds and losing the fight.

Even harder to imagine that this accounts for all three judges scoring the 7th round for Bradley when punches landed were 27-11 in favor of Pacicantspell. Bradley landed a whopping 2 jabs (of 32 thrown) in the round, only 9 of 35 power punches. Manny was 5/18 and 22/59 respectively.
CompuBox Stats: Bradley W 12 Pacquaio | CompuBox

That leaves a casual observer - like me, who gives a shit about either guy - to wonder if perhaps all three judges were either absent from ringside, drunk or suffering from dementia.

I'd think that maybe the judges have different criteria than number of punches thrown/landed, except the quoted judge seems to admit that was at least part of his criteria, he just wasn't tracking the fight accurately.

[sabotai]

Not all punches are the same. For CompuBox, a glancing shot counts the same as a power shot delivered on the chin. And the function of a jab isn't always to land. It's usually to set up another punch or to keep your opponent at the distance you want him to be, so the connect percentage for jabs is pretty much irrelevant.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Not all punches are the same. For CompuBox, a glancing shot counts the same as a power shot delivered on the chin. And the function of a jab isn't always to land. It's usually to set up another punch or to keep your opponent at the distance you want him to be, so the connect percentage for jabs is pretty much irrelevant.

I'm pretty sure that -- assuming we're identically equipped,are roughly the same size person, and are hitting each other in the same general areas -- if I hit you 27 times and you hit me 11 times then I'm whipping your ass by virtually all objective measures.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by sabotai

The main reason why the judges for championship fights are mostly older people is because it takes that long to work your way up to them. You have to judge amateurs for awhile (usually, unpaid) before they'll give you a license to judge professional fights.

The website doesn't explicitly say how much experience is needed, but it does say : "If you live in Nevada and need to start out with the amateur boxing program to get the required experience you may call Dawn Barry at (702) 368-2696. Otherwise, you will need to find your local USA/ABF program to get started."

Like the same reason we get 50-60 year old MLB umps and Basketball refs. I wonder if there is a similar uncrackable association to protect them.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm pretty sure that -- assuming we're identically equipped,are roughly the same size person, and are hitting each other in the same general areas -- if I hit you 27 times and you hit me 11 times then I'm whipping your ass by virtually all objective measures.

I think a good example is the famous controversial Meldrick Taylor-Julio Cesar Chavez fight. Taylor was completely outclassing Chavez under traditional boxing scoring. Taylor had landed many more punches and was way ahead on all scorecards when the fight was stopped with 2 seconds left. Now whether the stoppage was correct is up for debate, but for anyone who saw the two fighters at the end of the fight it was pretty clear that Chavez beat the complete shit out of Taylor. Taylor's face looked dented and he peed blood after the fight, while Chavez looked like he hadn't even been touched.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm pretty sure that -- assuming we're identically equipped,are roughly the same size person, and are hitting each other in the same general areas -- if I hit you 27 times and you hit me 11 times then I'm whipping your ass by virtually all objective measures.

I laughed.

[EagleFan]

Food for thought...

Which would you rather they do?

A - Publish the round scoring after each round so everyone can see what the score is as it is going on.

pros - Everyone knows pretty much up to date who is winning the fight and the judges will be immediately "judged" on their round by round scoring in the eyes of the fans.
cons - No more drama at the end of the fight as the winner is announced.

B - Keep the same approach of waiting until all is said and done.

pros - Keep the drama at the end of the fight.
cons - Pretty much what we have been talking about.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I have no idea whether this is strictly for show, for (perceived) monetary gain (if he thinks Pacman win = Mayweather fight) or if he's legit pissed.

Bob Arum requests AG inquiry into judges' disputed Manny Pacquiao-Timothy Bradley decision - ESPN

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I have no idea whether this is strictly for show, for (perceived) monetary gain (if he thinks Pacman win = Mayweather fight) or if he's legit pissed.

Bob Arum requests AG inquiry into judges' disputed Manny Pacquiao-Timothy Bradley decision - ESPN

He's playing the long con. Now he'll just pay off the investigator too.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Food for thought...

Which would you rather they do?

A - Publish the round scoring after each round so everyone can see what the score is as it is going on.

pros - Everyone knows pretty much up to date who is winning the fight and the judges will be immediately "judged" on their round by round scoring in the eyes of the fans.
cons - No more drama at the end of the fight as the winner is announced.

B - Keep the same approach of waiting until all is said and done.

pros - Keep the drama at the end of the fight.
cons - Pretty much what we have been talking about.

I'm think they should publish the cards after every three rounds (championship fights) or two rounds (normal fights). In that way, there's still a little drama left and you wouldn't get guys running around the ring in the 11th and 12th rounds knowing they have it locked up. There's still a little mystery left.

At the same time, everyone can see how the fight is being scored and the fighters will know approximately where they stand. So I think you'd see guys pressing harder, knowing that they're down. In the Manny/Bradley fight, does anyone not think that if Manny knew that he was in a close fight going into the 10th that he would have performed differently?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Logan

He's playing the long con. Now he'll just pay off the investigator too.

Possibly he had already told the AG to put a few thousand on Bradley, and feels pretty safe?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Possibly he had already told the AG to put a few thousand on Bradley, and feels pretty safe?

That's some next-level conspiracy shit right there.

[k0ruptr]

Just some thoughts after more analysis:

initially during the fight, I scored it 116-112 for Manny, giving Bradley round 1,9,10,11- and Manny 2-8 and 12

So I rewatched this entire fight 3 more times, and watched round 5 and 7 (the most controversial) six times each.

I'm trying to get into these judges mindset:

if I am judging based on most active fighter - notably jabs and jab attempts, and I'm thinking it was a smart strategy for Bradley to clinch/hug when it got dangerous then
I score it either 114-114 or 115-113 Bradley. Bradley in 1,2,9,10,11,12 and a MAYBE in 8, with Pacq getting 3-7(8)

however, I like to think of boxing as a little more strategic then that (maybe I'm wrong) I like to look at counter punching/counter power. Can I see that the punch hurt him. Jabs that set up a bigger/better punch. Pacquaio picked his spots beautifully (most rounds) He had Bradley clinching all night to stop a flurry. When Bradley landed a combo, Pacquiao almost always countered with one of his own. Manny out "boxed" him, at least in the definition I would use for boxing. with this criteria , I score it 117-113 Manny getting 2-8,11,12. Bradley with 1, 9,10

BUT that being said, these judges don't get the benefit of seeing rounds more then once, or at an excellent camera angle. They have to judge on the fly and live from ringside. I am still unsure how they could of seen more power from Bradley, so I'm thinking they must of thought they saw a ton more jabs land. They must of also thought Manny's power punches were very ineffective. Maybe due to no staggering + the clinches.

My conclusion I guess is the judges saw 200 more jabs from Bradley and thought a lot more of them were legit, and didn't think Manny hurt Bradley as much as he really did.

I'd really like to go back and watch the last 5 fights these judges have been assigned, and see if it was consistent with this.

Is there no way to implement a monitor (I'm unsure but don't think they have this) with no sound and no text/overlays for each judge, if at least for the camera angles? There must be a really good reason why this is not a thing, since it hasn't happened.

IMHO, there is no way in hell Bradley out-boxed Pacquiao. He threw a ton of elbow snap jab like thingys that mainly hit Manny's gloves , had a couple decent combos and clinched like it was going out of style. If thats what wins the eyes of judges now days so be it, but I don't think most people want to see this. Manny should have finished the later rounds stronger then he did, although I think he clearly won round 12 and also the entirety of the fight.

[Blackadar]

k0ruptr, that analysis is pretty close to my own. But 116-112 isn't a blowout - it's only a solid victory and it doesn't take much for that to turn into a 115-113 loss. ...just judging 3 rounds differently is all it takes.

While I agree the decision was very poor, I don't think it deserves the attention that some (especially those in the media) are giving it. If I hear one more writer talk about Manny dominating rounds 4-6 or how Bradley was "reeling around the ring" one more time, I may go postal. Those were only 3 rounds and while Manny won them conclusively, he didn't put Bradley down. They weren't 10-8 rounds. As such, they just count the same as a much closer and uninspired round (like round 1).

This isn't a Roy Jones/Olympics '88 level of stealing a victory from someone. In the 12 mini-fights that made up this bout, Manny won 3 or 4 of them convincingly. The other 8 could have really gone to either party. Should 7 of those 8 have gone to Bradley? No, but it's not entirely inconceivable. The old adage is if a fighter wants to keep the decision under his control, you don't let it get to the scorecards. Manny did...and unfortunately he paid the price. He's gotten the benefit of questionable decisions before. Now he has a (very) questionable loss.

Of course, if he is a truly great champion, let's see what happens during the rematch. Shades of Roy Jones Jr. vs. Montell Griffin II anyone?

[k0ruptr]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

k0ruptr, that analysis is pretty close to my own. But 116-112 isn't a blowout - it's only a solid victory and it doesn't take much for that to turn into a 115-113 loss. ...just judging 3 rounds differently is all it takes.

While I agree the decision was very poor, I don't think it deserves the attention that some (especially those in the media) are giving it. If I hear one more writer talk about Manny dominating rounds 4-6 or how Bradley was "reeling around the ring" one more time, I may go postal. Those were only 3 rounds and while Manny won them conclusively, he didn't put Bradley down. They weren't 10-8 rounds. As such, they just count the same as a much closer and uninspired round (like round 1).

This isn't a Roy Jones/Olympics '88 level of stealing a victory from someone. In the 12 mini-fights that made up this bout, Manny won 3 or 4 of them convincingly. The other 8 could have really gone to either party. Should 7 of those 8 have gone to Bradley? No, but it's not entirely inconceivable. The old adage is if a fighter wants to keep the decision under his control, you don't let it get to the scorecards. Manny did...and unfortunately he paid the price. He's gotten the benefit of questionable decisions before. Now he has a (very) questionable loss.

Of course, if he is a truly great champion, let's see what happens during the rematch. Shades of Roy Jones Jr. vs. Montell Griffin II anyone?

That's why I wanted to post, I still felt he got robbed;but maybe just not as bad as it seemed right away. The shock factor of the decision played a big part in it I think. It's still a horrible decision by the judges in my book, but yes I agree Manny didn't finish him off, and/or Bradley stepped it up later in the fight. Still it seems 99% of boxing fans felt Manny won, and most by a decent margin.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

BUT that being said, these judges don't get the benefit of seeing rounds more then once, or at an excellent camera angle. They have to judge on the fly and live from ringside. I am still unsure how they could of seen more power from Bradley, so I'm thinking they must of thought they saw a ton more jabs land. They must of also thought Manny's power punches were very ineffective. Maybe due to no staggering + the clinches.

I have never seen a fight from ringside, but I can't imagine how that's a better position to judge a fight than on TV, or even just several rows back. I can't see how they don't miss some of the punches due to the action being on the far side and from the angle they can see.

One of the arguments I hear being made, though, is that at ringside you notice the power of the punches that land far better than you do on TV. Can't say if it's true or not, but I hear journalists make that point all the time.