Pacquiao-Bradley Results & Discussion - June-9-2012

[Michael Frank]

Worth a look, and like I previously stated, when I viewed each round again and again and in slow motion, I gave the bout to Bradley.

http://www.doghouseboxing.com/Jason/Petock062712.htm

Excellent article and AMAZING video, Ron. If I had more talent and time, I could have authored both, as they both reflect my feelings on the HBO call of this fight perfectly. And for me, that means ALL of the HBO commentators were terrible-- just incompetent or blind, and obviously heavily biased in Pac's favor-- and appearing in my view not to know the sport about which they are ostensibly experts. Yes, that means Steward, Lederman, and Kellerman, too; not just the most egregious one, Lampley.

Here is a link directly to the (apparently professionally produced) video--"Boxing: A Tale of HBO Nuthuggery"-- on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riSEb-hdq8M

The video producer's description under his video is wonderful:

"This video IS NOT about who won the fight, nor is it really about the fight. Read the title.

In order to keep the video within 15 minutes, I had to cut corners. If you feel the action moves too fast, pause, rewind, replay. Much of what I wanted to include had to be scrapped as well.

I'd like you to pay attention not just to the action, but what the commentators say. When HBO constantly repeated "Pacquiao", and they did that A LOT, they made some viewers subconsciously favor Manny and concentrate on the things that Pacquiao is doing. Note how they keep talking about Pacquiao's power, his musculature or status, oftentimes when Bradley is doing good work. Then, they also degrade Bradley's work by either ignoring it or straight talking shit. Throw in all the bogus shot calls, Ledderman scorecards, crowd reaction, and what you have is an attempt to sway the viewer. If you don't believe TV got people mind controlled, then you also probably still think you live in a free country or that you are doing something noble by joining the military. For example...

The point is not to show that all of Bradley's shots were clean and powerful, although some were. The point is to show how the HBO team would call Pacquiao's complete misses as scoring and even hurtful shots, all the while ignoring Bradley's partial shots and clean connects. Isn't a partially blocked jab from Bradley a more effective shot than some of Pacquiao's "straight left hands"? But I guess if you call Pacquiao's misses as clean shots, your goal is not to be fair or truthful, is it?

Lastly, how is it that Pacquiao supposedly landed all these quality shots, yet Bradley's face looked almost untouched? Wouldn't all these straight left hands show like they did on every other opponent? Anyone?

If you disagree and believe that Pacquiao did land a lot of clean shots and HBO was fair, please submit a video response. If want your argument to be more than mere OPINION, I guess you're gonna have to do some work, huh? Talk is cheap.

And for the record, I had Pacquiao winning a close fight that could've gone either way.

Thanks for watching."

Interestingly, among the many comments left under the video by viewers, virtually all agreed with the theme of the video-- about how wildly inaccurate and biased the call was, and how close the fight actually was--agreed on even by the few viewers who still gave the fight to Pac. Which was my most important point (at least to me) the entire time: not that Bradley had kicked the crap out of Pac, just that Pac in no way beat the shit out of Bradley or outfought him in any lopsided way, as evidenced by what my eyes saw throughout the fight and how perfect Tim's face looked after the fight compared with Pac opponents who really did get beaten up.

So, IMO, this was not the robbery of the century or anything close to it, even if one might give the edge to Pac; I did not, however . . . I saw Bradley as the guy who landed more of the cleaner blows and made the other guy miss more, and this 15-minute video sure backs that up for the portions of the fight that it covers.

I'd reiterate also that I think CompuBox is shit and in no way is an accurate punchcount. It's done by human beings, after all, and in real time (that means counting often split-second punches) . . . to think it's correct is to believe in the tooth fairy. At best, it's inaccurate going both ways, so its inaccurate numbers may nonetheless portray an accurate overall picture. Not for this fight, though, IMO.

Some of the video reviewers mentioned also that they had first viewed the fight on Top Rank.tv with different commentary (by Brian Kenny), and the commentary was the opposite of the HBO shlock, and those commentators saw Bradley winning.

[Monte Cox]

Excellent article and AMAZING video, Ron. If I had more talent and time, I could have authored both, as they both reflect my feelings on the HBO call of this fight perfectly. And for me, that means ALL of the HBO commentators were terrible-- just incompetent or blind, and obviously heavily biased in Pac's favor-- and appearing in my view not to know the sport about which they are ostensibly experts. Yes, that means Steward, Lederman, and Kellerman, too; not just the most egregious one, Lampley.

Here is a link directly to the (apparently professionally produced) video--"Boxing: A Tale of HBO Nuthuggery"-- on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riSEb-hdq8M

The video producer's description under his video is wonderful:

"This video IS NOT about who won the fight, nor is it really about the fight. Read the title.

In order to keep the video within 15 minutes, I had to cut corners. If you feel the action moves too fast, pause, rewind, replay. Much of what I wanted to include had to be scrapped as well.

I'd like you to pay attention not just to the action, but what the commentators say. When HBO constantly repeated "Pacquiao", and they did that A LOT, they made some viewers subconsciously favor Manny and concentrate on the things that Pacquiao is doing. Note how they keep talking about Pacquiao's power, his musculature or status, oftentimes when Bradley is doing good work. Then, they also degrade Bradley's work by either ignoring it or straight talking shit. Throw in all the bogus shot calls, Ledderman scorecards, crowd reaction, and what you have is an attempt to sway the viewer. If you don't believe TV got people mind controlled, then you also probably still think you live in a free country or that you are doing something noble by joining the military. For example...

The point is not to show that all of Bradley's shots were clean and powerful, although some were. The point is to show how the HBO team would call Pacquiao's complete misses as scoring and even hurtful shots, all the while ignoring Bradley's partial shots and clean connects. Isn't a partially blocked jab from Bradley a more effective shot than some of Pacquiao's "straight left hands"? But I guess if you call Pacquiao's misses as clean shots, your goal is not to be fair or truthful, is it?

Lastly, how is it that Pacquiao supposedly landed all these quality shots, yet Bradley's face looked almost untouched? Wouldn't all these straight left hands show like they did on every other opponent? Anyone?

If you disagree and believe that Pacquiao did land a lot of clean shots and HBO was fair, please submit a video response. If want your argument to be more than mere OPINION, I guess you're gonna have to do some work, huh? Talk is cheap.

And for the record, I had Pacquiao winning a close fight that could've gone either way.

Thanks for watching."

Interestingly, among the many comments left under the video by viewers, virtually all agreed with the theme of the video-- about how wildly inaccurate and biased the call was, and how close the fight actually was--agreed on even by the few viewers who still gave the fight to Pac. Which was my most important point (at least to me) the entire time: not that Bradley had kicked the crap out of Pac, just that Pac in no way beat the shit out of Bradley or outfought him in any lopsided way, as evidenced by what my eyes saw throughout the fight and how perfect Tim's face looked after the fight compared with Pac opponents who really did get beaten up.

So, IMO, this was not the robbery of the century or anything close to it, even if one might give the edge to Pac; I did not, however . . . I saw Bradley as the guy who landed more of the cleaner blows and made the other guy miss more, and this 15-minute video sure backs that up for the portions of the fight that it covers.

I'd reiterate also that I think CompuBox is shit and in no way is an accurate punchcount. It's done by human beings, after all, and in real time (that means counting often split-second punches) . . . to think it's correct is to believe in the tooth fairy. At best, it's inaccurate going both ways, so its inaccurate numbers may nonetheless portray an accurate overall picture. Not for this fight, though, IMO.

Some of the video reviewers mentioned also that they had first viewed the fight on Top Rank.tv with different commentary (by Brian Kenny), and the commentary was the opposite of the HBO shlock, and those commentators saw Bradley winning.

Did you see the fight live or did you score it watching it later after you already knew the controversy? Because just about everyone I know who watched the fight live scored it easily for Pacquiao. These are veteran fight observors such as Frank Lotierzo, IBRO director Dan Cuoco and myself among others. Opinions formed after the fight is over do not count. Video reviewers cannot feel the ebb and flow of the fight like a live audience. I strongly suggest reading Frank's article on this subject. The fact is Pacquiao had the clean and hard punching, fought his fight as the better ring general, had better defense and won the majority of the rounds. Punches that land on Pacquiao's gloves do not count at all. Bradley had a few moments but they were few. There is no way one can take the title of an established champion on a fight like that. I thought and still do believe that Pacquiao won that fight easily.

[PD99]

I read and responded to Mr Lotierzo's article when it was posted.

I think Pac clearly won and felt same upon subsequent viewings. That's just me. Others may have felt that Bradley won in real time w/out changing their opinion upon rewatching the fight. Others again may've moved their opinion from a Pacquiao victory to a Bradley triumph with a few more viewings.

It makes no sense to me to suggest that an opinion cannot be formed/modified after the fight. The only reserve I would hold is the possibility of otherwise reasonable perceptions becoming perverted/disproportional with too many reviews or rewatching the fight for the express purpose of trying to "see" it the way the judges "saw" it - in other words, trying to make "something" out of "nothing". Also, if one was to dramatically change their opinion of the fight upon review, one might be stuck between a hard place and rock in terms of having confidence in their opinion either way.

I think Mr Lotierzo's article is primarily geared toward squashing the opinion of those who saw it Bradley's way upon second or more viewings. The concept that a fight cannot be re-judged has to hold up in all cases and I don't believe that it does.

Of course, the concept well serves those who feel that Pac won the first time around (and the majority of viewers appear to have retained that opinion on subsequent viewings) - because their opinion resides within the initial (and largely retained), overwhelming majority opinion.

What if the judges rewatched the fight and honestly changed their opinion, giving it to Pac by wide margin?

Would their modified opinions also not count? I think they would, at least from the perspective of those who felt Pac won the fight easily every which way they watched it. I think the feeling would be that the judges ultimately "saw" it correctly and got it right the second time around.

I think there are a number of ways (all previously addressed) to make a strong case for Pac having clearly won the fight.

However, imo, an absolute preclusion of re-assessing the fight after the fact is NOT one of them.

[Michael Frank]

Did you see the fight live or did you score it watching it later after you already knew the controversy? Because just about everyone I know who watched the fight live scored it easily for Pacquiao. These are veteran fight observors such as Frank Lotierzo, IBRO director Dan Cuoco and myself among others. Opinions formed after the fight is over do not count. Video reviewers cannot feel the ebb and flow of the fight like a live audience. I strongly suggest reading Frank's article on this subject. The fact is Pacquiao had the clean and hard punching, fought his fight as the better ring general, had better defense and won the majority of the rounds. Punches that land on Pacquiao's gloves do not count at all. Bradley had a few moments but they were few. There is no way one can take the title of an established champion on a fight like that. I thought and still do believe that Pacquiao won that fight easily.

Hello Monte,

No, I didn't see the fight live and in fact my first post on this thread was in response to seeing this thread immediately after the fight and thinking Pac had gotten robbed, based on everyone writing this. My first post assumed that was true and sure reads that way, explaining why such a robbery was to the benefit of all concerned . . . even Pac.

Then I saw the fight on the HBO replay and saw a different fight. I felt Bradley won a close fight, and that if I was wrong, it was still a close fight no matter what, even if Pac deserved it-- and thus not the robbery of the century. Nothing clear-cut about it either way, to me. And I am a Pac fan (and don't like Bradley).

I won't be arguing any longer the merits of why either guy deserved the decision, I've done it on this thread already. Ron and I aren't the only people who felt Bradley won, though I'm sure 90%+ of viewers and experts think he lost. What I AM discussing now, and have been, is the disgraceful, humongously biased call by the HBO commentators, Lampley being the worst but all the others nearly as bad.

Did you see the HBO call initially? I strongly recommend you watch the 15-minute video whose link I provided, it's an excellent piece of work and surely shows who was doing better for at least 15 minutes or however much of the bout it covered; more importantly, it shows the sheer bias and crazy inaccuracy--LOTS of errors-- of the HBO announcers. Which is my only point at this juncture. I believe ALL here would enjoy the video, irrespective of one's stance on the decision.

Like PD, I respectfully disagree about not being able to judge the ebb and flow of a replay like a live audience; I viewed Douglas-Tyson later that same night on a Super VHS tape I had recorded it on (via timer), and was 1000% caught up in it as if viewing it live-- though I had no knowledge of the result before turning it on. That such an opinion doesn't count is therefore not something I can agree with, but I see your point.

Hey, Monte, having read several of your past posts where you tell the other poster that he "doesn't know what he's watching" (maybe one of those might even have been directed at me!), I appreciate not reading that above. :-)

I'll give you another thought, in respectful disagreement; I have never seen the logic of having to defeat a champion soundly to take his title; seems the score is 0-0 on the judges' cards going in, or should be. Just my opinion, I again understand why those who feel as you do feel that way. I'd argue the champ already has an advantage-- a hidden, subconscious one-- in the judges' minds, before the fight starts; then, on top of that, saying that the judges should indeed be biased slightly for the champ in a close fight seems an unfair burden for the challenger. If a champion is so good, he should be able to beat challengers without any help.

Regards,

MF

[Michael Frank]

You know, my reaching back to Douglas-Tyson in my preceding post made me realize that that bout was one of the last times I'd felt Jim Lampley had done an excellent, professional, generally unbiased job in calling a fight, as did the rest of that team (SR Leonard and Larry Merchant). Though Jim did get excitedly caught up in Douglas-Tyson at times, he still seemed to tame his biases for the most part.

Ah, only 22 years ago!

[croock00]

Isolated photographs of Manny and Tim make Bradley appear that much bigger. In reality, in the flesh, face to face, while Bradley is more cut with obviously bigger flexed arms, Pac doesn't appear to suffer much if at all in terms of comparative size imo.