Pacquiao vs Bradley....What a disgrace.

This is the #1 reason that I have backed off on boxing. I was a huge boxing fan for a long time, but this kind of shit makes it unwatchable. Manny won at least 7 rounds of that fight, probably 9 rounds. I haven't seen this blatant fixing of a boxing match in a very long time.

Manny threw more punches, landed more punches and was by far the most active of the two fighters. I don't get it. I mean if it was a close match I could see the judges maybe giving the win to Bradley, but it was never in question. It should have been a unanimous decision for Manny!

Didn't see the fight, but the post match analysis is pretty clear...

http://espn.go.com/boxing/story/_/id/8032414/timothy-bradley-beats-manny-pacquiao-controversial-split-decision

Wonder how much the Judges got paid, and who was behind the fix? I read a piece on ESPN about international soccer that basically said that international crime syndicates had the power to fix almost any match, anywhere... seems like that would apply double sure to boxing.

I didn't watch the fight, so everythng I know is based off what I've read and heard.

Here are some quotes from one of the judges:

"If this were American Idol, without a doubt, Manny Pacquiao would have won," Ford said. "But it was not. I gave an honest opinion. I had Pacquiao up 4-2, I think, at the end of six rounds. I thought he hurt Bradley a couple of times early in the fight. But when the bell rang to end that round, it was over and what happens in one round doesn't carry over to the next round. They're separate units.

"In the second half of the fight, Pacquiao picked off a lot of punches to the head, but Bradley landed some hard body shots. That hurt Pacquiao. I don't mean it hurt him in the sense of it physically hurting him, but in terms of scoring and piling up points. Bradley did an excellent job standing his ground as a boxer. Remember, it's a boxing match and Bradley demonstrated his ability to box expertly."

"In pro boxing, you look for damage, and if the punches are equal and the damage is equal, you are looking for effective aggression, and that does not necessarily mean the guy going forward," Ford said. "Effective aggression can be a guy going back. And then you look at ring generalship, and that's all about control.

"When you score a fight of that magnitude, you know the criticism comes with the job. But unless you are totally focused on that scoring zone for three minutes, it's impossible to score the fight correctly. I know you can't do it talking into a microphone. It was a close fight in my mind that could have gone either way. The result was nothing more than three judges giving an honest opinion, and nothing other than that."

zero24gravity wrote:

I didn't watch the fight, so everythng I know is based off what I've read and heard.

Here are some quotes from one of the judges:

"If this were American Idol, without a doubt, Manny Pacquiao would have won," Ford said. "But it was not. I gave an honest opinion. I had Pacquiao up 4-2, I think, at the end of six rounds. I thought he hurt Bradley a couple of times early in the fight. But when the bell rang to end that round, it was over and what happens in one round doesn't carry over to the next round. They're separate units.

"In the second half of the fight, Pacquiao picked off a lot of punches to the head, but Bradley landed some hard body shots. That hurt Pacquiao. I don't mean it hurt him in the sense of it physically hurting him, but in terms of scoring and piling up points. Bradley did an excellent job standing his ground as a boxer. Remember, it's a boxing match and Bradley demonstrated his ability to box expertly."

"In pro boxing, you look for damage, and if the punches are equal and the damage is equal, you are looking for effective aggression, and that does not necessarily mean the guy going forward," Ford said. "Effective aggression can be a guy going back. And then you look at ring generalship, and that's all about control.

"When you score a fight of that magnitude, you know the criticism comes with the job. But unless you are totally focused on that scoring zone for three minutes, it's impossible to score the fight correctly. I know you can't do it talking into a microphone. It was a close fight in my mind that could have gone either way. The result was nothing more than three judges giving an honest opinion, and nothing other than that."

All I see is a lot of blah blah blah...

Those judges were paid. It wasn't just the guys talking in the mic's that thought the judges were wrong, it was pretty much every expert on the planet and BOTH fighters too.

Mind blowing that this will probably just all go away, everybody knows the fight was fixed, and nobody is gong to do a damn thing about it.

This is why I really don't love sports with judges whether it's Boxing or the Olympics or the x-games, judges turn sports into beauty pageants.

zero24gravity wrote:

I didn't watch the fight, so everythng I know is based off what I've read and heard.

Here are some quotes from one of the judges:

"If this were American Idol, without a doubt, Manny Pacquiao would have won," Ford said. "But it was not. I gave an honest opinion. I had Pacquiao up 4-2, I think, at the end of six rounds. I thought he hurt Bradley a couple of times early in the fight. But when the bell rang to end that round, it was over and what happens in one round doesn't carry over to the next round. They're separate units.

"In the second half of the fight, Pacquiao picked off a lot of punches to the head, but Bradley landed some hard body shots. That hurt Pacquiao. I don't mean it hurt him in the sense of it physically hurting him, but in terms of scoring and piling up points. Bradley did an excellent job standing his ground as a boxer. Remember, it's a boxing match and Bradley demonstrated his ability to box expertly."

"In pro boxing, you look for damage, and if the punches are equal and the damage is equal, you are looking for effective aggression, and that does not necessarily mean the guy going forward," Ford said. "Effective aggression can be a guy going back. And then you look at ring generalship, and that's all about control.

"When you score a fight of that magnitude, you know the criticism comes with the job. But unless you are totally focused on that scoring zone for three minutes, it's impossible to score the fight correctly. I know you can't do it talking into a microphone. It was a close fight in my mind that could have gone either way. The result was nothing more than three judges giving an honest opinion, and nothing other than that."

That's all horse shit! They know full well that's not how it works. Unless there is a KO the thing that plays into a decision is Punches thrown and punches landed as well as activity. It's not based on damage. I have seen many times a guy get his ass kicked in the ring. However he landed a couple of good shots and cut his opponent open. Yeah that punch might have caused the most damage of any thrown in the fight, but the guy might have lost every single round. Manny won in every category boxing uses to judge a boxing match. This is gonna be the last fight I ever pay to see.

Are they talking rematch already? It could be a money making shananigan. I could see a guy agreeing to a loss if his payday is doubled the next time they fight... Probably not what happened but it's possible.

I used to like boxing as well. I was just old enough to see Ali get beat by what's his name, who then got beat by Spinx - a middle weight. I was pretty bummed when Ali lost.

Crap, what's his name that beat Ali?

aliveandkickin wrote:

Are they talking rematch already? It could be a money making shananigan. I could see a guy agreeing to a loss if his payday is doubled the next time they fight... Probably not what happened but it's possible.

I used to like boxing as well. I was just old enough to see Ali get beat by what's his name, who then got beat by Spinx - a middle weight. I was pretty bummed when Ali lost.

Crap, what's his name that beat Ali?

Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, Larry Holmes, Leon Spinks and Trevor berbink? Those are the five guys Ali lost to.

Holmes. Thanks. Funny, but I couldn't be a fan of Holmes after he beat Ali. Wasn't it "Spinks" (not Spinx) that beat Holmes as a middle weight later in Holmes' career? I could look it up I guess.

So Holmes beat Ali in 1980. Holmes then lost to Michael spinks (first light heavyweight to beat a heavyweight) in 85. Then Holmes lost to Michael again in 86. Spinks' only loss was his last against Tyson.

It seems the only fights that get my attention anymore are ones with a gimmick... Like Foreman coming out of retirement yrs ago.

Like Magnus I just can't get into a sport that has judges. Too much room for error when it's close.

aliveandkickin wrote:

So Holmes beat Ali in 1980. Holmes then lost to Michael spinks (first light heavyweight to beat a heavyweight) in 85. Then Holmes lost to Michael again in 86. Spinks' only loss was his last against Tyson.

It seems the only fights that get my attention anymore are ones with a gimmick... Like Foreman coming out of retirement yrs ago.

Like Magnus I just can't get into a sport that has judges. Too much room for error when it's close.

An interesting note on the Ali vs. Holmes fight. Holmes was a big fan of Ali's. I remember Holmes saying in an interview after the fight how much he respected Ali and having to fight Ali was something Holmes wished he'd never had to do. That was back when boxing had some credibility and many of the fighters had respect for one another. They were a different breed, they fought because they loved the sport.

As for the Pacquiao vs. Bradley fight I can't even begin to figure it out. Pacquiao's success and willingness to fight the best fighters out there and beat them was the best thing boxing had going. This fight has tarnished all of that. In the post fight interview, with boos cascading down from the dissatisfied fans, Bradley said he was going to go home and watch the tape to see if he'd won. Really? Professional fighters know when they have won or when they got whipped.