Chuck Giampa, the same dude who had Chavez ahead vs. Taylor in 1990 at the end of the bout.
Chuck Giampa, the same dude who had Chavez ahead vs. Taylor in 1990 at the end of the bout.
This Lampley hypno spin should really be put to bed. There are so many ways it doesn't wash it's not funny.
Is the irony lost here that the individual who is suggesting Lampley's all conquering influence also happens to be the ONLY member of this board who appears to have paid Lampley any real heed? Obviously Lamps got to someone. Go figure.
As to your flat-out statements about "so many ways it doesn't wash," that's ridiculous. How many people here and elsewhere have mentioned viewing the bout with the sound off. Your mentioning that he "got to someone" (me) is asinine. I'm the guy he didn't get to . . . as I saw it differently from the way he called it.
You seem to suggest that my having paid Lampley any real heed in the past is a bad thing, and the irony you mention isn't an example of irony at all. My mentioning liking and respecting Lampley in the past was done so as to indicate that I believe I've had a balanced attitude toward him, that I wasn't a hater of him from the get-go. That I recognized his de-evolution from a good sportscaster to a poor one, from an unbiased professional journalist to a shill.
PD, why the negative personal remarks all of a sudden? Can't we do without them? Is discussing the most biased call of a fight that some of us have ever heard, in connection with the same bout's having a widely unpopular decision, somehow off limits all of a sudden? It would seem to be relevant. I'm tired of the only point of view being that the judges obviously got it wrong, the only question being why, when some of us thought they got it right. Lampley's disgraceful call is itself the subject of several threads on other sites (please don't reply that CBZ is the only place with smart people . . .)
It is also obvious that the "experts" on this board have disagreed on boxing decisions of the past; there's no one way to see a close fight, as judges, who are supposedly experts themselves, show us all the time. Which brings this back to Lampley, who of course was speaking to an audience composed primarily of boxing non-experts. OF COURSE he influenced them. It's only a matter of degree.
To claim his call didn't influence viewers seems to me to be ridiculous. All those "experts" turning off the volume in re-watching this bout underscore the point, even if you in particular have a problem with it.
There is a very good video on youtube regarding HBO and its Pacman favouritism in relation to this fight. I haven't time to get it now but I will post it later if nobody here has posted it before me. I haven't watched it in its entirety yet, but will do so when I am home. It's a real eye opener as regards HBOs commentary.
BTW, include me as someone who has "paid Lampley heed." One couldn't but fail to notice his cock ups in his commentary on that fight.
Last edited by walshb; 06-21-2012 at 10:06 AM.
The video obviously has a motive here but I know I was fooled by a few of those exchanges in my first viewing.
Some of those replays are pretty revealing.
Maybe with a close seat at ringside, the fight is a bit different after all.
Be that as it may, Bradley certainly did not look the part of a winner when it was over and that put any questions that I may have had to rest.
Michael - first and foremost, check your sensitivities at the door.
Not least for the fact that this is a BOXING dicussion board but particularly so if you want to, in all hyprocrisy. use terms such as "ridiculous" and "asinine" and then cry poor about "negativity". Do you read any such adjectives in my preceding post? No, you read a properly framed and valid perception. Did I write that it was "imbecilic" or "moronic" for someone to suggest such widespread influence on Lampley's part? No, I didn't. Clearly you are biting your own arse.
Now, I do think that this has been addressed before in some measure but people HERE turned the sound down as a precautionary measure second time around (purely in deference to an official score much at odds with their own), bending over backward to somehow see it as the judges scored it - a very balanced approach. It wasn't an admission of being swayed by the commentary. And, you know what? Even with that considerate review, they scored it pretty much the same - perhaps closing the gap that little bit by way of giving Bradley the benefit of any points of doubt. So, in the final wash, they weren't influenced by Lampley's commenatry.
You continue to miss the point. This isn't a case of not being aware of Lampley, more to the point, no one cares about Lampley here in so far as he didn't factor in their scoring and the general scoring here happens to mirror the perception of the wider public. You have been the only one chewing on Lampley's call ad-naueum. You state that Lampley was speaking primarily to an audience of non-boxing experts - which doesn't account for fellow members of the boxing media and officials external to the panel of three judges and the majority of those compromising the latter two groups also saw it as a wide win for Pacquiao. Co-incidental? Also, I must assume that you do not consider Stewart and Kellerman as "experts" in any way shape or form because according to you they also fell under Lampley's "spell".
Also, it's one thing to chew over bad commentary, it's another thing again to suggest its ALL conquering influence, read it again - ALL conquering - so yes, your angle doesn't wash in many ways. The fact the people on other boards are identifying what they perceive as a bad call actually illustrates that many fans do understand and appreciate a bad call (read - commentary that does not align with their perception of the vision - the primary fact source to which they defer).
You're not just identifyting what you see to be a bad call but you're also suggesting a highly disproportional influence (and non-applicable among several audience categories) which you and only a select few others were immune to. Somewhat pretentious isn't it - "I'm the guy he didn't get to....as I saw it differently from the way he called it"? No chance of reverse psychology compromising your own preceptions here given you're own clear and away pre-occupation with Lampley acting as a shill for HBO? Yeah, you used to respect him but you quite obviously do not now and perhaps you are pre-disposed to reject his observations outright (even if some of those observations did in fact match the vision).
And THIS - 'please don't reply that CBZ is the only place with smart people". First, of course I will reply however I wish. Second, it has been yourself who has promoted the elite level of members of this board on a number of occasions - so much so that you even somehow took offence to several articles from other boards (ESB among them as it so happens) being published on this site because they were "beneath" the intellectual level of members of this board. But you then found an article from non-other than ESB that happened to suit your own, relatively isolated view (and the article itself is isolated from a several others articles published at ESB which opine a wide margin win for Pacquiao).
As to the definition of a reasonably accepted "close fight", I imagine that would be a bout in which those EITHER side of the fence would be arguing for say a 2 point margin of victory. A fight that, upon review and with slight re-interpretation of the action could actually cause those either side of the fence to change their pick.
As it peratins to Pacquiao-Bradley, this is clearly not the case. Rather, it is wide margin (majority opinion) vs close fight (minority opinion).
Maybe I'm wrong, but in looking around at news reports I don't see any discernible number of boxing writers/fans giving support to this decision outside of the USA. I don't see Brits, for example, stepping up to defend it.
The race angle was put out there by B-Hop, and much to their detriment, a lot of American boxing writers ran with it, notably the clod from the NY Daily News. Then Pretty Boy ran with it.
The idea of an Asian (of all races) dominating boxing (of all sports) is a slap in the face to our childish stereotypes. Bob Arum fed those childish stereotypes in a pre-fight publicity campaign (Mosley fight, IIRC?) saying that Manny was an ardent student of Bruce Lee's teachings. <eyeroll>
So, it's out there in full force.
If my Spanish was better I could find a Mexican boxing forum that would make the same types of ridiculous assertions defending horrible decisions in favor of their fighters; "if you watch with the sound off, only look at Ramirez the whole time, played at 3/4 speed, while wearing a tin foil hat..."
American fight fans were once the rock-solid voice of reason in boxing, scrupulously fair. That is still largely the case, but...
Last edited by LafftyTaffty; 06-22-2012 at 08:42 AM.
As to your flat-out statements about "so many ways it doesn't wash," that's ridiculous.>>>>>
I watched a non HBO feed and had bradley win 2-3 rds. The % of ringside journalists that had pac up big was pretty high. Were they influenced by Lamps?
If you have something personal to hash out with one another, please take it offline and away from this thread.
Let's stick to the topic and keep it clean.
Thanks for your understanding.
Interesting video. As I mentioned earlier I didnt see the HBO telecast but a youtube video of an Easteron Eurpean telecast. Lampley is a disgrace. Watching that video I can see how someone could be swayed listening to Lamps.
Without hearing Lampley the cheerleader I scored 4 rounds for Bradley but his volume punching made some of the other rounds tough to score. I had pac winning but I didnt see the horrible decision that everyone is crying about.
I was simply going to depart this thread today, but later saw how "very cool" Diggity is according to a poster, who, for the record, says his posts were "nothing personal."
Yeah, I just seem to recall a wonderful post that, you know, added so much to the discussion, which went something like this: "Is the irony lost here that the individual who is suggesting Lampley's all conquering influence also happens to be the ONLY member of this board who appears to have paid Lampley any real heed? Obviously Lamps got to someone. Go figure." How someone could take that personally, is, you know, so "uncool." How could that be personal?
Diggity, I appreciate your comments and moderation as much as anyone, but didn't think I needed to write anything along those lines in this thread. However, when one participant calls you "very cool," then the absence of that sentiment from the other could be taken wrongly. Diggity, I have always been pleased with how you and the other moderators run the board, so far be it for me not to laud your coolness as well.
A genuinely (and yes, I do mean genuinely) expressed sentiment made directly to Dig somehow offended the senstivities again?
I could break it down further but it really does speak for itself. Enough bandwidth wasted.
I rewatched most of the fight. I just dont get how anyone gives bradley the fight. Even in the first couple rds he was active but landed almost nothing everything was caught on the gloves/elbows. Pac was less active but way more accurate and punched w authority.
I appreciate the kind words guys.
I don't participate on here as much as I would like to but I always enjoy and appreciate the knowledge, views and humor of everyone here.
We all know what a subjective sport this is.
When you combine that with posting in a forum where it is easy to let words run away in a moment or misinterpret the tone or intention of posts, needless to say things can get elevated.
There are times I've posted things that I've regretted later. Nobody is perfect.
In the end of the day we're just trying to talk shop and attempt to make some sense of the passion we have for this sport when it drives us completely insane.
Back to topic - I recorded the fight again on my DVR this week.
I am going to review it one more time now that I saw those slo-mo replays.
This time I am going to focus solely on the landing of Pac's punches rather than pick apart what Bradley was doing or not doing & see if Pac actually landed the better punches like I originally thought.
Bottom line is 95% of the press and public, experts and otherwise, saw Pacquiao as winning the fight, regardless of what channel or feed they saw, sound on or off, domestic or foreign. That tells you what you need to know. Yes, there is no doubt that the HBO crew tends to be biased and bandwagon in their approach, but fight-knowledgeable folks know what they are watching regardless of the commentary, as did 95% of the ringside reporters, who didn't have Lampley in their ears. Yes it is annoying when Lampley announces a big left as landing that I just saw blocked or miss, but what can you do? I often see fights differently than the t.v. announcers.
I think if they were going to screw Pac over, it should have been a draw, not an outright decision for Bradley. At least they didn't give Holyfield the fight outright against Lewis the first time, or Chavez the fight over Whitaker. Both those fights were screw jobs even with draw decisions, but at least it was even as opposed to screwing a guy so bad it was a loss on the record of the guy who should have won.
In the old days, I could see a ref calling this a draw and then having everyone be upset, saying Pac won, but then most folks going away semi-satisfied that the money got split evenly and the gamblers didn't lose their shirts, and Pac kept his title. Back then refs often called close fights draws so that they wouldn't upset either side. But when you take it away from a guy, then that is when you cross the line.
I really tried to give Bradley the benefit of the doubt upon further review and simply cannot say he WON the fight. At best, he kept it close and competitive, arguably more even, but it was not a winning performance. That was a professional fight where clean hard punches and effective lands matter, and I simply do not see some light arm punch touches that more often than not partially strike the gloves or arms as overcoming crisp clean solid lands that jolt the other guy's head back.
Ha! Quite the contrary.
I am not looking forward to reviewing the fight again (I'll be fast-forwarding through most of it anyway), but it bothers me why some people are so adamantly for Bradley and that I just couldn't see it.
If many of Pac's shots truly missed and were extenuated by Bradley's head movement, then the argument for Pac winning based on the clearly better punches loses some steam.
I didn't watch that entire youtube thing as much of it was repetitive but I'm curious nonetheless if I rewarded Pac for attacking and not landing.
Despite what I may or may not find, the fact remains that Bradley showed all the body language of a loser when it ended is all I needed to see.
Well, Bradley also exhibited the language of a loser literally when he said he would have to go home and review the fight to see IF he won.
As to Pac. Well, his output was obviously metered in deference to stamina that isn't quite the same as it once was.
However, in my view, Pac was still working somewhat within his absolute output capabilities and could've laid it out more if absolutely necessary.. The probelm with decisions like this also is that IF Pac knew how ridiculously close the judges had it, he may well have stepped it up to ensure the victory. Given the majority opinion as to who actually won and by what approx. margin, it was highly reasonable for Pac to execute as he did and pull it up a bit in the latter rds given what most assumed to be a more than healthy lead that couldn't be pegged back.
It has been correctly pointed out that scoring points in boxing isn't as clear cut as scoring points in say a game of football or hockey. I will add also that a boxer isn't availed of a real time score board to which he can react and lift his game where necessary.
Last edited by PD99; 06-23-2012 at 10:42 PM.
Guys you are not going to believe this. I watched the fight again tonight twice, in slow motion too replaying every possible controversial moment over and over as to who any given round went to. I brought over several boxing experts to my home to watch it again and again with me. I was one of the most vocal protestors as to the original verdict feeling it was an outrage.
I saw it in the home of my buddy where there were including me many Pacquiao fans and we all respected Tim Bradley very much also. I watched the HBO commentator 2 out of the 3 in round two say Bradley was actually holding and hitting when in actuality it was Manny pinning Bradley's left arm so obviously that Bradley had one arm free, his right hand and aggressively kept punching. Lampley and Emanuel said he was holding and hitting?
Tonight man oh man did I eat crow. Timothy Bradly won this fight and if I have to stand alone on this and eat more crow that is ok. I saw him box, counter, slip, and negate everything Manny did in there. If it had been Floyd Mayweather it would be a shutout.
Tim Bradley do not apologize to anyone, you won the bout, most of the rounds you won at least 2 minutes of every round outboxing, countering to the body and head and in sooooo many of the exchanges where HBO said Manny was landing hard, he was not.
Tim Bradley won this fight. Manny's power, speed, movement that he had against Hatton, Margarito and Cotto have gone bye bye.
He legitimately lost this fight by a wide margin.
As to many people saying Manny has lost the speed and movement etc; well, Bradley is not Margarito or Hatton, two punch bags. Bradley has slickness, elusiveness and tactics. Manny still looked fast and sharp. He simply wasn't allowed the same free reign that he had vs. Clottey and Hatton and Margaritio and Cotto. Bradley is a very resourceful fighter with skills and slick movement and spoiling tactices too.
Manny has lost his speed and movement to some extent. I think its a reach to state that Bradley posed such a stylistic challenge that pacquaio's physical assets simply seemed to have declined. No his upperbody movement and general fluidity and coordination is not what it was. There were many an occasion in the early going where Bradley come forward, squared, head straight up and pacquaio didn't pivot while punching on his toes producing an angle. Times where Timothy wasn't doing anything all that refined, polished, and there was no display of the subtle nuances on these occasions. Bradley was there to be tagged and was in the early going Manny just wasn't the dynamic offensive machine he once was.
Some may point to JMMIII, however, that fight's results were not drastically different than the previous ones from Pac's "prime."
I see Pac as now being a more mature fighter with broader experience, tamed into an efficiency by Freddie Roach.
I agree conventional wisdom says Pac's abilities should be deteriorating ... but I gave up on trying to apply conventional wisdom to Pacquiao a long time ago. I think he's more than earned that consideration.
Meanwhile, there is this:
Timothy Bradley's controversial split decision over Manny Pacquiao resulted in a review by the World Boxing Organization. A five-person panel of judges commissioned by the WBO unanimously agreed that Pacquiao won but won't reverse the decision, nor will it strip Bradley of his belt. It is, however, mandating a rematch, which might take place on Nov. 10.
Last edited by LafftyTaffty; 06-25-2012 at 08:55 AM.
Sorry Ron, but after that I can pretty much believe anything you say.
Reading this thread is bizarre. I despise Lampley and stopped listening to him a long time ago, but suggesting he has somehow created this controversy is a pretty flawed argument. Where the ringside press who wrote up the articles listening to Jim? How about the crowd who booed the American's win lustily, where they all quietly listening in on Jim? And how about Tim himself, who didn't look like he thought he had beaten Manny Pac? Who was he listening to?
The controversy has come from the fact Manny Pac beat Bradley comfortably.