I dunno... at first I agreed, and thought shouts of corruption were a bit histrionic. But the more I think about it the less likely I find it that all three judges scored the bout that way... I mean, it's ridiculous...
Originally Posted by Tranquil Suit
So maybe, who knows? There was recognition of all the last minute betting going on:
"Meanwhile, conspiracy theories abound on the Internet. Haralabos Voulgaris, a professional sports gambler and poker player, noted on Twitter the curious amount of last-minute bets on Bradley in Las Vegas, hours before the opening bell.
“Late money on this boxing match, Pac was -432 at 2pm it closed -397 at pinny,” wrote Voulgaris. “Lots of late money on Bradley. Take that fwiw.”
The rest of the article's worth looking at too:
Many upset friends on this decision. There is a petition, 15,000 signatures so far: http://www.change.org/petitions/the-...share_petition
Originally Posted by It is Fake
So the fan backlash is pretty huge IMHO.
Nice find dude. Signed.
Originally Posted by BFGalbraith
A petition, huh? Quick question: how many signatures do you need to take that belt off Bradley's waist?
You didn't get my point.
Originally Posted by BFGalbraith
I know the fans are extremely outraged, it has happened numerous numerous times before this incident. I have NEVER seen pundits, execs, reporters, promoters, and opponents say it was BULLSHIT from a fan standpoint. These people are more worried about their ratings and money. To see these people flipping out is quite amazing.
I mean you normally find at least one reporter, referee, coach, trainer, or sportscaster that can see it as correct. This is the first time I have seen a near unanimous disregard for the judges decision. I know somewhere someone has said it was right, besides the two idiot judges, but I haven't encountered that article.
Bradleys' own Manager had it 8-4 for MP. The closest I have heard is 7-5. I mean this is why I stopped watching boxing along with 8 billion different titles.
I'm wondering if boxing is actually truly scared. Boxing, minus a few huge fights, has been on the precipice IMO. This didn't help at all.
Right now, I'm just waiting for the Bradley Trollface gifs
It was on Cable here in Old London Town and I expected to see it as I subscribe to BoxNation but I soon realised it was separate. It was scheduled for 2AM-5AM but I gave it a miss as I knew I was off to a Grading.
That said, here's Kevin Mitchell of The Guardian. I'd happily take his opinion.
guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 June 2012 15.32 BST
A Manila newspaper's front page reports on the controversial defeat of the Philippines boxing superstar Manny Pacquiao. Photograph: Jay Directo/AFP/Getty Images
Distance does not always lend enchantment. Having finally caught up with a tape of the fight between Manny Pacquiao and Timothy Bradley, it was hard not to conclude that boxing is doomed to forever be peopled by brave fighters and idiots in suits.
How two judges could see the fight in Bradley's favour is beyond me.
Pacquiao got the benefit of the doubt against Juan Manuel Márquez in his last fight, but this was worse – by three to four rounds.
The problem is manifold.
The casual viewer imagines boxing is run still by gangsters and any dubious decision is a fix. That is simplistic. There are some marginal characters still in the business, because it attracts people who thrive on the anarchy of a sport with four main governing bodies and hundreds of easily charmed officials. But there are very few prearranged results these days, if any – at least in recent times.
Nevertheless, into this chaos come judges and referees who look the part, with their ludicrous badges and bow ties, but whose grasp of the fundamentals is often shaky. A few are excellent. Some are OK. Too many are blindingly poor.
On Saturday night in Las Vegas two of the three judges, Duane Ford and C J Ross, gave the fight to Bradley by margins of 115-113. The third official, Jerry Roth, saw it the other way by the same score.
This would suggest a close fight. It was not. Well, not in the opinion of nearly everyone in the building as well as nearly everyone who has given his or her tuppenceworth on it since. A poll of more than 50 boxing writers found only three who agreed with Ford and Ross.
I had Bradley winning two of the last three rounds and sharing a couple early on in a slow start. The other eight went to Pacquiao, in my humble opinion, at least four of those without argument. He hit harder, more often and took not much in return. Where he let himself down was in starting slowly and not finishing the fight conclusively.
Nevertheless, he did not deserve to lose his title – unlike his fight against Márquez, in which the Mexican should have got the decision by a couple of rounds. That, though, was a close fight. This was one-sided to anyone who knows anything about boxing.
And that's the nub of the problem. Too many people – from fans with websites to the hired help with pencils and scorecards who sit in judgment at ringside – do not understand either the fundamentals of the sport – having never boxed, perhaps – or the tricky job of scoring.
The governing bodies insist they instruct their judges on how to score a fight, to reward clean scoring shots with the legal part of the glove, to take note of aggression and not to be swayed by late flurries in a round but to take in the action of the whole three minutes. What they do not tell them is that many rounds are too close to give to either fighter. They are encouraged not to sit on the fence but to make a call one way or another even though, in their own minds, they cannot be sure one fighter is dominant in a particular round.
How many times do you hear fans at a fight say, "How'd you see that one? Bit close, wasn't it."
At the heart of the judgment should be this: a fighter cannot win a round if he does not land more obvious scoring punches than his opponent.
When David Haye beat Nikolay Valuev, Jim Watt, an excellent commentator and judge of a fight, reckoned Haye had not done enough to take the title from the Russian. But this was to fall for the old trap of burdening the challenger with "making the fight", taking it away from the champion. It is a nonsense. The fight stands alone, a contest between two boxers on the night, and no notion of the champion having an edge before the first bell should be countenanced. This leads to the "house fighter" syndrome and the perception that one boxer is favoured to win by the promoters, the broadcasters and the industry as a whole.
I slow-moed that fight a few days later and Haye landed approximately 150 punches to 50, a boring bout, obviously, but a clear win to the challenger.
He rightly got the verdict.
On Saturday night in Las Vegas, the challenger Bradley was somehow seen as the winner by two judges who ignored all the above guidelines. Pacquiao outpunched him, outboxed him and was by a little distance the better fighter on the night.
It should be as simple as that. But it's not. And that is the single major reason the sport is perpetually in such a mess. It's not fraud, it's plain old human failing. It is hard to see it changing.