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

[GorDoom]

Bradley-Pacquiao decision leaves boxing reeling
By Bob Velin, USA TODAY

LAS VEGAS – The outrage over the split-decision upset victory for Timothy Bradley against champion Manny Pacquiao reached a fever pitch Sunday, with many in the boxing world seeking reform in the judging system and promoter Bob Arum calling for an outside investigation.

Arum says "The conspiracy theory is that somehow I arranged this to create a rematch, which would give me another big fight until Floyd (Mayweather, who is serving an 87-day jail sentence) is ready to fight."
Arum said he was getting so much heat for this that, "On Monday, we're asking the attorney general of Nevada to conduct an investigation of everybody, to see what the facts are here.
"This is such an incredible situation, something I've never seen in 47 years in boxing, that it requires an investigation. And you can't rely on the (Nevada Athletic Commission) to conduct an investigation, because they'll whitewash it."
The commission's chief executive, Keith Kizer, did not return a phone message Sunday.
Bradley's trainer, Cameron Dunkin, told USA TODAY Sports on Sunday: "I thought it was very close and could've gone either way. And Tim got his hand raised. I certainly don't think it was a travesty, a horrible, worst decision I've ever seen.
"I saw Tim this morning. He doesn't have a scratch on him, he didn't have a bloody nose, cut lip, fat lip, swollen eye. If you get hit by Manny Pacquiao too many times, believe me, you're going to bust up. He looked fresh as can be. Not one mark on him. (Bradley) said, 'I don't judge the fights, I just fight the fights.' I can't believe that (Arum has) gone crazy in this, but he has."
But Arum isn't the only one calling for reform. HBO's Harold Lederman and promoter Lou DiBella also seek change.
Lederman scored it 119-109 for Pacquiao. Lederman said there was no excuse for how judges are picked for Las Vegas fights.
"They've had controversies in Nevada, and it's about time they start bringing in judges from outside for high-profile fights," he told USA TODAY Sports by phone Sunday. "I could have given them 10 judges who would have scored that fight correctly. The Nevada commission, which is the final authority, needs to bring in the three best people they can get from anywhere."
DiBella said it was as likely now to see an indefensible decision as it was to see a fair one.
DiBella has railed on the politics of the sport for years — The ranking organizations that are involved with judging, he says, and the judges belong to ranking organizations.
"The promoters, we pay the judges and the referees. So if we want to put a guy in a much nicer hotel, and buy him a nice dinner, or let him fly his wife in, there's no real safeguards against it. There's no checks and balances on the judges.
"Everyone's so used to a bad decision in boxing, the next day there's a rematch declared and everyone forgets about it."
Arum represents both fighters. He was so angry shortly after the fight, he told reporters that the sport was killing itself.
By Sunday, he had moved beyond anger to despair.
"I'm never going to get over last night," he said. "Look, this was preposterous. And when things are preposterous and involve more than one person, something may very well be wrong.
"I said to Kizer, 'Keith, how could you allow this to happen?' He just shrugged his shoulders."
Arum says he's seen one judge turn in a bad scorecard on occasion, "but three judges screwing up their scorecards is very suspicious."
Bill Caplan, a Hall of Fame publicist who was George Foreman's longtime aide and now works for Golden Boy Promotions, said, "In all the fights I've ever worked and been to, and watched on TV — for major fights, it's the worst decision I've ever seen.
"I have nothing at stake except the reputation of boxing, and that's what makes me so outraged, because it really hurt our sport."
Bradley, who showed up at the postfight press conference in a wheelchair because of what was confirmed Sunday as a fractured foot and a badly swollen ankle, said, "My corner felt like I was winning the fight, I was controlling the action. Manny fought in spurts, regardless of the punch stats. He missed a lot of shots, and a lot of shots everyone thought he was hitting me with. And he wasn't touching me. Look at my face. I'm still pretty clean."
Former boxing trainer John Russell watched the fight on pay-per-view. He was incensed.
"I thought it was one of the worst decisions I've ever seen in my life. . . . I think Bradley won one round but I will give him the benefit of the doubt and give him two. It was that bad.
"You could take anybody in the world who didn't know a damn thing about boxing - never saw a fight in their life - and if you asked them to judge this fight, no one could have said that Pacquiao didn't win."
Even Roger Mayweather, the uncle and trainer of Floyd Mayweather, questioned the decision, in a tweet: "Can't lie i hate Manny but he did beat the (expletive) out of Bradley. But like i said it's no one to blame but Bob Arum."
Arum knows he's a natural scapegoat but swears he had no ulterior motive or any part in the decision. And he's worried about the sport in which he's spent his life.
"When the guys at the (Las Vegas) sportsbooks are talking about not betting on boxing anymore, I take that very, very seriously," he says.
DiBella said he thought Pacquiao did not look very good against Bradley, and gives him no chance to beat Mayweather. "But he won. There was no possible argument in my mind who won that fight."
DiBella said nothing surprises him in the sport anymore.
"Some people are tweeting that Dana White must be laughing and this is a great day for UFC," he said. "No, this is boxing hurting itself. The way boxing's been self-destructive for a long time. It's very clear it's not going to get fixed from the inside.
"It's a cesspool, bro."

[jlupi]

[QUOTE=
"Some people are tweeting that Dana White must be laughing and this is a great day for UFC," he said. "No, this is boxing hurting itself. The way boxing's been self-destructive for a long time. It's very clear it's not going to get fixed from the inside.
"It's a cesspool, bro."[/QUOTE]


UFC President Dana White was also unafraid to share his opinion regarding the match, tweeting out to his followers, "Nevada state athletic commission at its finest!!! You've for to be f***ing kidding me!! that is disgusting Nevada state athletic commission!!" and "Worst athletic commission in the country!!!!!!!"

http://www.mmamania.com/2012/6/10/30...calls-out-nsac

[JaKob]

Tims foot. Apparently happened in the 4th round. Really didn't look too severe at the time and it wasn't my foot of course. The reality is he was eating left hands down the pipe with consistency WELL before that happend so i don't think too much of it.

[Kyoodle]

BTW, all this talk about Lederman being a great judge. Well, he gave rd 11 and 12 to Manny. Not saying one couldn't, but I think Bradley deserved them rds more than Manny. I had my rd scores written down but I have misplaced them. I gave Bradley rds 11 and 12, and I can't recall the other two. Oh, I think rd 10 as well.

Lederman was most certainly NOT a great judge during his tenure. I can recall being ringside for Larry Holmes vs. Mo Harris at the Theater at MSG. If one was charitable one gave Larry three rounds in the fight (over 10); Lederman had Holmes up 96-94, with another blind mouse giving Holmes the split nod, with sentimentality being--hopefully, the reason for such atrocious adjudicating.

[gregbeyer]

i watched it with the sound off and felt charitable in giving bradley three rounds. he only seemed to win those because pac was less active. i am not usually big on punch stats but these were not even close and what bradley was credited for was not at all effective while pac was knocking his head back with lefts.

i just feel it was an out right manipulation because nobody in their right mind could say bradley won that fight and i was suspicious of how lightly pac and roach took the decision. seems they should have been screaming bloody murder, but of course they will clean up in a rematch regardless of what that phony bob arum is saying about not wanting it .....

greg

[JaKob]

I watched it yet again and slowed down the exchanges. I did this because there are a suprising number of fans out there defending the decision and the notion it was CLOSE or even could've gone either way.

Something i keep noticing. Marquez would always step back, catch Manny coming in and out of position with a straight right well timed between the gloves or with an uppercut straight up the middle. Manny throws up a high guard and puts those earmuffs on. He used in well in this fight to catch what Bradley was throwing. Where Marquez succeeded Bradley failed. Almost everything he was throwing landed on the gloves often completely and if not atleast partially. The jab was especially ineffective. Reason being he clubs and loops his shots. Even when he'd flurry i could discern that he really wasn't landing clean at all. Every punch was rattling off Pacquaios gloves because he threw up the high guard. Manny was open up the center but Bradley lacked the technical prowess and clean technique required to exploit this. Bradley's ring generalship and workrate was largely superficial. A workrate and 'ring generalship' is a means to an end. That end being making effective contact with his opponent. He just wasn't. He did indeed genuinely win a few rounds but many of these so called 'close' rounds i don't think are infact all that close when reviewed very closely.

[kikibalt]

Quoting Harold Lederman-"They've had controversies in Nevada, and it's about time they start bringing in judges from outside for high-profile fights," he told USA TODAY Sports by phone Sunday. "I could have given them 10 judges who would have scored that fight correctly. The Nevada commission, which is the final authority, needs to bring in the three best people they can get from anywhere."

One of the judges he mention that could be bought into Las Vegas to judge big fights was his daughter Julie Lederman

[PD99]

I was ringside at a John Mugabi fight when he was fighting a clubfighter. Mugabi hit this guy so hard upside the head, with a shot that was so loud you could feel it in the pit of your stomach. If you've ever been to a fireworks show and seen aerial bombs go off, it's that feeling.

Funny thing was, the guy didn't even bat an eye afterwards. I've seen it before and since... Tony Sibson hit Don Lee with a shot like that. It seems like those shots that sound like a guy is about to go to sleep never had the impact to match the noise.

Hey Laffty, nice posts. I definitely hear you on the above but at least you know the shot in question landed well and truly flush and score it at least to that extent. Other, more difficult to view shots with little or no associated noise might be suspected to have only grazed or missed altogether - not an exact science but maybe the best we can do. Your focus on effect brings up an interesting angle - a punch with the same force and contact landed against two different fighters can yield totally different effects depending on the resilience of the recipient - so yeah, how the recipient absorbs the shot can influence the net credit given to a punch.

I have only now just recently read a pre fight article in which Roach stated that he had devised a strategy to defend against Bradley's punches. Watching the fight, Manny's high guard appears as per usual but as Jakob pointed out, this type of defense being much more successful against the wider shots of Bradley. Perhaps Roach figured this success in the first instance. Perhaps the "adjustment" to Pac's strategy was simply Pac delibeartely playing "D" for protracted periods, being the first 2 minutes or so of every round to conserve his energy and allow for higher quality offensive bursts offense in the last minute or so. I have only watched most of the fight once but all in all, Pac's extended defense and metered offense appeared highly successful.

Given that Pac didn't fight his usual, high octane, reactive fight, the judges (if truly JUST inept and not dodgy) allowed themselves to be grossly mislead by a somewhat modified approach (imo) from Manny - all be that approach perfectly sound and higly successful agaisnt the opposition in question in the final wash. Imo, it was a bit unusual to see Bradley throwing combos at times with Pac merely content to cover up w/out any real intent to return serious fire until the apparent pre fight blue print permitted it. And you know, Pac even appeared to enjoy the off-beat periods during which he was able to successfuuly defend himself w/out having to necessarily use his own offense as his best defense.

Lastly, and I'm not the first to introduce this perspective, but perhaps the judges didn't so much properly measure Pac relative to Bradley as they measured the "current" version of Pac relative to the more frenetic, totally offensive "former" version of Pac himself. Given those points of reference we might accept that the "current" version would lose a close decision to the "old" version by way of comparative quality of performance.

Perhaps I'm bending over backwards too much to psycho-analyse these judges who were simply required to analyse the action before them. Calling them out as dolts might be all the asessment they deserve.

[mrbig1]

What has happened to the sport I love and have follow for nearly 50 years? Bob Arum is shit. He was talking about a rematch before the fight. He even had a date set just after the fight. This is not a rant just the truth. Arum is the one standing in the way of a Pac vs PBF fight. Because he has no control on Floyd. He controls both Pac and Bradley. Thus the rematch.

[JaKob]

Hey Laffty, nice posts. I definitely hear you on the above but at least you know the shot in question landed well and truly flush and score it at least to that extent. Other, more difficult to view shots with little or no associated noise might be suspected to have only grazed or missed altogether - not an exact science but maybe the best we can do. Your focus on effect brings up an interesting angle - a punch with the same force and contact landed against two different fighters can yield totally different effects depending on the resilience of the recipient - so yeah, how the recipient absorbs the shot can influence the net credit given to a punch.

I have only now just recently read a pre fight article in which Roach stated that he had devised a strategy to defend against Bradley's punches. Watching the fight, Manny's high guard appears as per usual but as Jakob pointed out, this type of defense being much more successful against the wider shots of Bradley. Perhaps Roach figured this success in the first instance. Perhaps the "adjustment" to Pac's strategy was simply Pac delibeartely playing "D" for protracted periods, being the first 2 minutes or so of every round to conserve his energy and allow for higher quality offensive bursts offense in the last minute or so. I have only watched most of the fight once but all in all, Pac's extended defense and metered offense appeared highly successful.

Given that Pac didn't fight his usual, high octane, reactive fight, the judges (if truly JUST inept and not dodgy) allowed themselves to be grossly mislead by a somewhat modified approach (imo) from Manny - all be that approach perfectly sound and higly successful agaisnt the opposition in question in the final wash. Imo, it was a bit unusual to see Bradley throwing combos at times with Pac merely content to cover up w/out any real intent to return serious fire until the apparent pre fight blue print permitted it. And you know, Pac even appeared to enjoy the off-beat periods during which he was able to successfuuly defend himself w/out having to necessarily use his own offense as his best defense.

Lastly, and I'm not the first to introduce this perspective, but perhaps the judges didn't so much properly measure Pac relative to Bradley as they measured the "current" version of Pac relative to the more frenetic, totally offensive "former" version of Pac himself. Given those points of reference we might accept that the "current" version would lose a close decision to the "old" version by way of comparative quality of performance.

Perhaps I'm bending over backwards too much to psycho-analyse these judges who were simply required to analyse the action before them. Calling them out as dolts might be all the asessment they deserve.

I agree but i almost must note that i think the style may not have just been as per a game plan but a natural adjustment to facilitate his physical state and capacity at this point in his career. Freddie was urging him to bring the right hook back after the left, move into range a bit more, and push the pace. Pac really didn't too often. There seemed to be a fair bit of coasting. What alarmed me is when Bradley come straight forward, head high, there to be tagged in combination and Pacquaio stood and banged without the fluidity of old and without pivoting as he once did. That being said he was still very effective. The raw intensity, energy, and movement that we saw in prior years were facilitated by a fighter at the zenith of his powers. There was no way those attritubtes could be maintained at that level and it appears he has adapted by becoming far more conservative and measured in an attempt to land with power and authority whilst conserving energy.

[JaKob]

I too think Arum is a major spanner in the works pertaining to any progression or resolution in this sport. None of them are 'good' golden boy included. However it appears Bob Arum reigns supreme as the biggest asshole of them all. What's sickening is how glaringly transparent the man is. There isn't the slightest of sincerity about the man. If we follow Top Rank's activities over the years it becomes pretty clear that they more than anyone are the most guilty of making a concerted effort to keep fights 'in house'.

[diggity]

Interesting point

Additionally, boxing trainer and analyst Teddy Atlas has suggested that with Pacquiao's contract with Top Rank ending in 2013, the fighter may choose to leave the company next year. This would allow Pacquiao to negotiate his own promotional deals like Mayweather does. By doing so, Pacquiao would presumably be able to claim a much fatter slice of the earnings pie from his fights. According to this tributary of the conspiracy theory, Saturday night may have been Top Rank's way of sending a message to Pacquiao: If you choose to leave next year, you might be doing so with two fresh losses on your record, and Mayweather might decide he no longer has to prove that he can beat you.

read the rest here
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...thy-bradley-jr

[JaKob]

Interesting point



read the rest here
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...thy-bradley-jr

I wouldn't be suprised if Pacquaio is leaving. He doesn't strike me as an astute business man the way that Floyd is but i'm sure with enough voices in his ear he could draw the obvious conclusion. He isn't making as much as he should. Too bad if he does it its at the very tail end of his career.

[diggity]

I wouldn't be either. He has nothing more to prove.
All the nonsense he would have to go through for another camp or 2 to erase the bad memory of Bradley and possibly with PBF really isn't worth it for a guy of his money and accomplishments.

I re-watched Pac's first demolition of Barrera last night.
I can still remember how wide my jaw was hanging open at the sight of what was happening 9 years ago.
He's really given the sport a fantastic decade of a ride.
Watching that fight reminded me how impossible it is to fake the kind of hunger he had in that ring 9 years ago at this point in his career.
That hunger and tenacity is what truly separated him from everyone else.
Despite all of the ways Pac has improved over the years, I have serious doubts if this more calculated and paced version of Pac is the package that can take out PBF.
The old Pac would not have gone through a debatable 12 round with Bradley - even if at a 10lb disadvantage.
Nor would he have slept walked through Mosely.
With the chin Pac has shown over the years, he should have walked right through the pitty-patting Bradley last weekend.

Questionable decision aside and considering the opposition, I think Pac looked pretty much the same in both his last fight with JMM and TB.
If anything I think the Pac from JMM III beats TB more convincingly.
If Pac steps on the gas all night against PBF like the Pac of old, I will bet on Pac all day.
Fighting in bursts or coasting through 2 minutes a round is just not going beat PBF.

[jlupi]

If Pac steps on the gas all night against PBF like the Pac of old, I will bet on Pac all day.>>>>>

the activity and angles is why some thought he could win that fight. W/O that he just has a punchers chance which aint much.

[PD99]

Jakob - sure, Pac's game plan obviously deferred to his current physical capabilities but it was clearly a pre-meditated approach all the same. To differentiate, Pac wasn't literally punching as and when he could, temporarily running out of gas and then punching again when his energy replenished. He quite deliberately kept himself well below the danger zone in terms of his output and associated energy consumption. Almost like clockwork and with perfect discipline, Pac withheld anything of substance until the 2 minute mark of each round. In the face of the specific opponent Bradley, I feel that it was understood that Pac could get away with remaining in almost singular defensive mode during the first 2 minutes of each round. It was a game plan cooly executed but I wouldn't say that Pac extended himself to his absolute, current limits - even given that those limits aren't what they used to be.

Certainly, against both Cotto and Margarito, even when Pac was at the height of his powers or near enough to, for better or worse, he left nothing in the ring and I think his ultimately emphatic victories overshadowed the fact that his efforts left him quite literally exhausted at the end of each of those fights. Suffice to say, the searing competitiveness and character Pac once took into the ring paid terrific complement to his prime physical abilities and made no mean contribution to Manny's overall performance.

Dig - I agree. Pac has given us a helluva ride. I would say that the Pac of the Cotto fight, switching it right up, would've stopped Bradley by about rd 8 if not less. While Pac's loss of fire may be associated with the self awareness that he can't execute quite like he used to, that loss of fire may also possibly be viewed as a separate issue in it's own right to some extent - impacting on how well Pac now prepares himself in training and how intensely he applies himself during the course of actual battle. Certainly, Pac appears that bit disassociated from the task at hand these days.

[diggity]

I think it really boils down to the danger of the fight at hand more so than what's at stake to Pac.
I believe Pac felt a true threat from the size, strength and ability of guys like Cotto, Margarito, DLH and even the tenacity of Hatton.
I don't think it was all just about having the right opponent in front of him for those fights.
I personally just don't see TB, Mosely or even JMM or PBF offering him the kind of challenge his fighting spirit truly enjoys at this point in his career.
I am fairly certain if Pac had felt threatened in the least by TB, TB would have not finished the fight and none of this mess would have happened.

[mrbig1]

I wouldn't be suprised if Pacquaio is leaving. He doesn't strike me as an astute business man the way that Floyd is but i'm sure with enough voices in his ear he could draw the obvious conclusion. He isn't making as much as he should. Too bad if he does it its at the very tail end of his career.

Can Pac buy his way out of the contract with shithead (Arum)?

[angelineB]

I watched the game and it's pretty obvious that Pacquiao won the match.

[jlupi]

Bradley-Pacquiao will be reviewed on HBO's 'Fight Game'
by Lem Satterfield
Jun 15th, 2012

Last Saturday's controversial split-decision win by Tim Bradley to dethrone Manny Pacquiao as WBO welterweight beltholder will be the focus of Saturday night's Fight Game with Jim Lampley on HBO, a program that will begin at approximately 12:30 a.m. ET/PT.

Fight Game will follow Saturday night's clash between WBC middleweight beltholder Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. and southpaw challenger Andy Lee (28-1, 20 KOs) at the Sun Bowl in El Paso, Texas.

Referee Duane Ford, who, along with C.J. Ross, scored the fight for Bradley, 115-113, will be the lead guest on Fight Game, Lampley told RingTV.com. The third judge, Jerry Roth, scored the bout for Pacquiao, 115-113.

HBO's unofficial ringside scorer, Harold Lederman, who had it 119-109 for Pacquiao (or 11-rounds-to-one), called Ford a "solid" official, labeled Ross "mediocre" and "shaky," and considered Roth to be suspect but "usually very solid" during his on-the-air pre- and post-fight assessments of the officials.

"You will hear Harold Lederman's evaluation of his reputation before the fight and post-fight," said Lampley. "You will hear exactly what Harold said during our pre-fight commentary before the fight."

A veteran of 154 title fights, Roth scored Pacquiao's second of three fights with four-division titlewinner Juan Manuel Marquez in favor of Marquez, 115-112. Pacquiao won that fight by a disputed split-decision and subsequently won a disputed majority decision over Marquez in November after having previously battled through a draw with Marquez.

In April, Roth also scored a controversial split-decision by lightweight Brandon Rios over Richard Abril in favor of Rios, 116-112.

A veteran of 149 fights, Ford teaches courses to judges in Nevada and scored Pacquiao-Marquez II in favor of Pacquiao, 115-112. Ford also scored for Bradley, 97-93, during his 10th-round technical decision victory over Devon Alexander. Going back decades, Ford has been known as a reliable, competent judge.

Ford scored the controversial draw between Marvin Hagler and Vito Antuorfermo for Hagler. Most fans believed Hagler deserved to win the 1980 middleweight title bout.

Ross has worked 20 title fights.


"I would say one thing: Duane Ford is a standup guy," said Lampley. "He will be the lead interview. The first person to be interviewed of several."

Also on the show will be Bradley's manager, Cameron Dunkin, and Top Rank President Todd duBoef, who promotes both Bradley and Pacquiao.

"This is going to be very important for boxing. This is a threshold moment. It's about how does the sport treat this pedestal and this moment when more people are paying attention than ever before?" Lampley said of the discussion involving Bradley-Pacquiao, which generated a live gate of $8,963,180 from 13,229 tickets sold at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas.

"Because of Twitter and other social media, because of the extreme decision, because of a lot of different reasons, this is a bigger moment for boxing's credibility than Felix Trinidad-Oscar De La Hoya, or Lennox Lewis-Evander Holyfield. The sports has exploded with this news, and, oddly, reversely, boxing has a chance at this moment to do something."

Bradley-Pacquiao has sparked international controversey.

WBO President Francisco "Paco" Valcarce has announced that his organization will review the results of Bradley-Pacquiao. Top Rank CEO Bob Arum, who promotes both Pacquiao and Bradley, has requested that Nevada attorney general Catherine Cortez Masto investigate the results of the bout.

Arum's assertion has been backed up by United States Senator Harry Reid, D-Nevada, for whom Pacquiao attended a rally in support for Reid's successful re-election two weeks prior to defeating Antonio Margarito for the WBC's junior middleweight belt in November of 2010,

In addition, Nevada State Athletic Commission director, Keith Kizer, told RingTV.com that he will review the video with the three judges.
http://ringtv.craveonline.com/blog/1...dley-pacquiao-

[LafftyTaffty]

This is a pretty long article so I won't paste it all here. It represents the viewpoint of the casual fan, so there are some pretty broad statements that I (and we) would disagree with.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertain...-fight/258574/

Like I said, it's pretty lengthy so I'll just focus in on something that caught my eye:

The arguments about scoring boxing matches on TV are exactly as old as the broadcasting of fights on TV. When I came of age watching Muhammad Ali on television, my father would quote to me from the Bible, Joe Williams TV Boxing Book, which was published in 1954.

"TV," wrote Williams, who was thought by many of his peers to be the most knowledgeable writer on the fight game, "does not give a complete picture of the fight. Instead, in certain circumstances, TV tends to distort and confuse. One of TV's most serious deficiencies is its lack of dimensional depth, which makes it impossible to measure the true force of a blow ... Very often one blow may seem to be no more destructive than another."

That was certainly true when Williams wrote it, less true in the 1960s and 1970s, and absolutely not true today with high-definition TV and multiple camera angles. In fact, having written about fights after watching from both ringside and reviewing them on the small screen. I can testify that the only time the ringside viewer has the advantage is when the action is happening directly in front of where he is seated, and not always then.

I really think that's a very valid point.

I never really got into hockey before in my life because it was such a lousy television sport. Never could see the puck, the cameras were either too far away, or too close cropping out other players, etc. Seeing it live in person, however, was always special.

But now, watching the digital images of hockey on the huge television sets, elevates hockey to a whole new level for me.

As for boxing, we're now seeing the sport better than fans ever have.

[jlupi]

That was certainly true when Williams wrote it, less true in the 1960s and 1970s, and absolutely not true today with high-definition TV and multiple camera angles. In fact, having written about fights after watching from both ringside and reviewing them on the small screen. I can testify that the only time the ringside viewer has the advantage is when the action is happening directly in front of where he is seated, and not always then.>>>>>>

i agree

[PD99]

Thanks Laffty.

I only had to listen to Brian Kenny's call for the first round of Pac-Bradley to idenfity what I imagine remained a terribly skewed call through out the fight. I might call it the anti-call because for several Bradley right hands that were clearly blocked, Brian called them as landing, underscored by his perception (sounding very pre-disposed to the idea) of how well Bradley was boxing. Come the final minute, Pac starts to get active and clearly lands a straight left accompanied by an audible thud and Kenny, with absolute conviction, called the shot as being blocked. Even for the 3 minutes worth that I watched, Kenny's impression of the action before him was out to lunch.

If you've watched the televised version of the first Liston-Williams fight you can see how the fighters appear disproportionately larger or smaller depending on their location (foreground, background etc.) relative to the camera. In terms of overall frame, Williams was the generally larger guy anyway but at times the camera made Big Cat look almost like a giant (as compared to Sonny). The connection and power of each man's shots was reasonably well conveyed via the old telecast but a HD version would multiply the appreciation of the action and the fighters themselves by 10 I would think.

[Michael Frank]

Please allow me to disagree with apparently all of my friends here at CBZ, and most of the rest of the world, about the decision in this fight. Tonight I saw it for the first time via the HBO replay.

Having read last week how this was the most horrible decision of the past decade, even the last 20 years, 30 years, whatever, I expected that I'd be watching Pacqiao just kick the shit out of Bradley. Bloody him up, break a rib, or swell up an eye at least, maybe knock out teeth. Something. Back up Bradley all night. Knock him down a few times. At least have him hurt on his feet a few times. Leave Bradley all busted up and bruised by fight's end like Pac did to Magarito and many others.

Wrong . . .wrong . . . wrong . . . wrong . . . wrong . . . and wrong. None of this happened.

I mean, if the whole world is saying this was the worst decision just about ever, surely Pac had whipped Bradley. But I, who pretty much always see the fights per the consensus of the judges except in those cases of widely-believed-bad decisions, agreed with the majority of the three judges in Pac-Bradley.

I mean, does anybody here think Pac actually looked good? Hell, he looked SO much worse than just a year ago. At the end of this fight, his face was more damaged than Bradley's; whereas Tim looked unmarked.

To me, here's the thing that was dirty: the shill HBO announcers, and I mean, Lampley, Steward, and Kellerman specifically, acting like in every round, Tim did nothing, and in every round, that Manny's "much greater" power edge was the game-changer. Huh? When? Just the 4th round, that I saw, when Bradley was staggered and Pac actually landed flurries. Still just 10-9 for Pac, one round. So why did they say these things? I saw virtually NONE of it.

When Pac kicks the shit out of somebody, said somebody always LOOKS it. Not last week. Pac rocks 'em and drops 'em usually. Ah hem . . . not last week. Imagine IF this wasn't Pac in there, then we wouldn't have heard these three idiots acting like Pac was killing Bradley and Bradley had been mugged by a superior athlete with much greater power. Instead, in reality, Bradley came through the 12 rounds just fine, EVEN fighting on an ankle injured in the fight. Pac's superior power, as droned on about by Steward and Lampley? Huh??? Say what? Remember, NOBODY got hurt in this fight, and Bradley was merely staggered in round 4.

Yeah, this fight should have been watched with the sound off . . . merely so as to not hear the highly-biased HBO commentators. Lampley would say later in the fight that Pac was coasting for the first 2 minutes of a round, and he STILL gave Pac those rounds. Lampley actually said Harold Lederman is the best fight judge on the planet! And in the 5th or 6th round, Lampley said that Pac had knocked Tim halfway across the ring with a punch, when to me it looked like Bradley had been moved back two steps and no more by the punch.

Here's what I saw: A not-great fight from either guy-- not a great fight, period. (Not one I'll ever view again, believe me.) Both fighters missing with their punches A LOT. Nobody hurting anybody to any significant degree except for Bradley being knocked around in round 4--but not falling. Two guys who showed up, fought mostly in slow motion after round 4, and CLEARLY were going to go to a decision because nobody could hurt anybody, and whom Mayweather Jr.--whom I hold in low regard-- would have licked together in the same night.

Nobody looked like a REAL WINNER in this fight. That's the key. So, somebody had to win, and the closeness of the decision is the perfect result in my mind, because it was damned close. And the right guy won. In fact, had Bradley not won, the ONLY reason I could have seen it that way was that NEITHER guy "took" the fight from the other, and (they say, but I disagree) that a challenger has to decisively "take" it from the champ. (I'd add here, however, that the cards say 0-0 when a fight starts, yes, even for a title fight.)

Again, it wasn't much of a fight, nobody got dropped, no standing 8-count was needed for anybody (had that rule been in effect) . . . so how could one guy have SO dominated, as the commentators would have you believe? And if one guy doesn't dominate, how is he then "robbed"?

Then, after the fight took place, I read here on CBZ and in the media how this was the worst decision in a long time. Puh-lease. For those of you who didn't view the 1972 Olympics, Alan Minter of Great Britain and Reggie Jones of the US lost two of the worst decisions in history. Ali-Norton III, now THERE was a terrible decision. Look at Norton's shocked and disgusted reaction after that decision and look at Pac's reaction after this one-- Pac didn't seem upset in the slightest, and only once in the post-fight interview said he felt that he won (only when asked directly), otherwise he congratulated Bradley, didn't complain, and didn't seek to discuss the decision further at all. And almost EVERY decision-losing fighter says afterward that he thought he won the fight. Big deal.

This fight didn't have the fury of Duran-Leonard #1, it was fought at a comparative snail's pace. If that fight had gone to Leonard, THAT would have been a bad decision, and I say that as a big Leonard fan, both then and now. But THIS fight? Nobody put a whipping on anybody. If this was two ESPN fighters, nobody would have even questioned the decision. Because the commentators would have been unbiased. Instead, we had Lampley saying all night that Bradley hasn't won a round, even as my eyes were telling me Bradley looks better than Pac this night. Not like a definitive winner on his greatest night, beating up Pac . . . but neither did Pac look like a definitive winner on his greatest night. This was indeed a case of judges having to come up with a winner with not much to work with.

I might add that Bradley handled the post-fight interview better than Max Kellerman, who in large part was raining on this guy's parade after his biggest victory. Did Bradley look his best that night? No. Did Pac look HIS best? Far from it.

This reminds me of when Pernell Whitaker lost to Jose Luis Ramirez the first time and acted like it was the biggest robbery in history. When the judges probably had it right, in my view. But here, Pac didn't act like Whitaker afterward . . . only the "fans" and the HBO shills acted like some terrible, illegal thing happened.

I'd like to propose a new paradigm: if a fight truly sucks, or just isn't very good, then nobody should complain afterward about how bad the decision was. Because then, usually, neither guy worked hard enough in the fight to have earned a clear-cut decision.

P.S. - The worst scoring of a pro fight in my lifetime was, I believe, for Tyson-Douglas, where Douglas by my count won every round of the fight except the round in which Tyson dropped him for a 9-count (and even that round Buster was winning but for the kd); yet, had the fight ended after the last full round (the 9th) immediately preceding the 10th round KO, Tyson was ahead by a point on one Japanese judge's card and even on another; only American judge Larry Rozadilla had Douglas ahead, at a more appropriate 88-82. This could have been the robbery of the century, and yet there was no investigation, no TV expose about judging by Jim Lampley (who had, like the recent fight, also covered Douglas-Tyson for HBO), just the usual complaining by fans and the media for two weeks and then the usual dying down of same.

[PD99]

A fight sucking does not preclude a clear cut winner nor an apparently unmarked loser.

For example, I would say that Ali v Evangelista sucked but Ali won that fight clearly. Same feeling about the Bugner fight also.

Of course we can call in Pac himself v Mosley. After being hurt badly in rd 2, Sugar Shane dropped tools and basically fought to survive. Pac wasn't as aggressive or active in his pursuit as compared to past efforts. No matter, Pac did what was necessary for a wide decision in a fight that was ultimately lack lustre imo.

I agree, Norton was robbed against Ali, a fight Norton clearly dominated overall. At fight's end, Ali was not banged up at all. This was a fight in which Ali literally "stole" rds by fighting in spurts to catch the judges' eyes. You might well say the same of Pac except Pac was landing very well for the limited periods he he did throw. In many instances, Ali's shots were pitty pat and largely ineffectual.

Look at Floyd Mayweather, a guy whose ouput is relatively limited but efficient all the same. Floyd's opp. might look to be working harder for the greater part of a round but their shots aren't landing and Floyd is left to land only a certain number of selective counters to outscore his opponent. Floyd might not specifically leave his efforts to the last minute of a round but in total his efforts to land might only amount to 1/3 duration of each and every round.

I think the "worst" decision tag was only intended to cover pro boxing at the elite level - not the amateurs. Also, rather than staying with absolutes, I'm reading current Pac being compared to previous Pac - certainly, Pac loses as compared to his old self but that doesn't necessarily mean he lost to Bradley. In determining the victor, the comparison should remain strictly between Pac and Bradley and their actual contest.

Bradley was clearly rocked on several occasions during the course of the bout. I did not see Manny rocked once. Though he kept the hands moving, Bradley's shots were not committed and largely missed their mark. Pac missed too but his strike rate was that much better and the shots he did land were of greater substance.

Pac's reaction to the loss? Well, Manny has always been a gentleman and true sportsman. Atop that, his passion for the game appears to be waning and with his new found faith, he quite literally may not have been overly upset even if he truly felt that he had won.

It doesn't make it so but heavy majority opinion lends itself to this being a very bad call and I doubt that all those in question fell under mass hypnosis by way of biased commentary.

After the fight, I believe that one judge who voted for Bradley stated "This isn't Amercian Idol". Interesting statement and insulting to the more subjective and discerning fan. As if to suggest that most onlookers were swayed by Pac's celebrity and not the actual substance of his performance. What it suggests to me is that the judge himself may well have had his own pre-meditated issue with Pac (perhaps the decision win against Marquez among other possible motives) and bent over more than backwards to somehow score in favour of Scotty McCreery...err, I mean Bradley.

And, let's not be be naive to the more than possible influcence of the machinations behind the scenes - Bob Arum, Top Rank, Bradley and Pac under Top Rank, more $$$ from a return match and whispers of Pac looking to break away from Arum in the near future. Forget the robotic, passionless expressions of indignation, Arum didn't appear overly upset with the outcome either, did he?

[Michael Frank]

Hell, on Lampley's HBO half-hour show tonight about judges and scoring, the one round of Pac-Bradley they showed in its entirety (the 7th), won by Bradley on all three cards BUT supposedly the best example of a Pac round OBVIOUSLY scored incorrectly . . . I scored for Bradley.

Lampley has gone insane.

[Michael Frank]

Hey PD99, lots to reply to but I'll address a couple:

Yes, I can still evaluate a boring fight such as Ali-Evangelista, one of the crappiest fights in history. But had Ali lost a decision, I wouldn't have shed a tear-- due to his lousy effort. These guys (Pac and Bradley) worked much more than Ali and Evangelista, though it still wasn't a good world championship fight, IMO. And I can't stand Mayweather Jr., but I know that he surely wins his fights (except vs. DLH), boring or not, low-output or not. He wins clearly. Pac didn't beat Bradley clearly to me, in fact he didn't beat him at all IMO.

Popular opinion? I say the fans often get it wrong. Tune in to a fight with a popular Latin-American boxer fighting in his hometown (oh, say, in Panama or Mexico) vs. someone from another country. The crowd all want him to get the decision over the foreigner no matter how bad the beating the foreigner may have administered to him.

I wasn't comparing current Pac to previous Pac so as to say he should have lost, just saying he wasn't that effective; and current Pac vs. previous Pac shows the difference as to how effective he can be.

And if Pac's got this ostensibly immense power and Bradley doesn't, and if Pac also outlanded Bradley, why were there no marks on Bradley after the fight? (Yet Pac had his lumps plainly visible.)

"No matter, Pac did what was necessary for a wide decision in a fight that was ultimately lack lustre imo." - I not only disagree with this statement, I disagree with its logic; when you do only "what was necessary," a "wide" decision usually doesn't cometh.

[PD99]

Hi Michael,

Bear in mind, simply debating the points. Let's go:-

A lousy effort (relative to one's previously proven capabilities) or a boring fight overall does not or should not impact on scoring. Talking simple absolutes in terms of scoring per rd - Ali beat Evangelista by a wide margin. That's all she wrote. Whether you cared or not as to whether Ali got the nod actually presents itself as a fan's (or non fan's in this case) view.

Nationalistic pride or common race origin will always drive a good number of fans to want their fighter to get the decision. That is different to an emphatic and protracted disputing of that decision after the fact. Even if that were the case, that example still wouldn't be analoglous to Pac v Bradley - the disputing of this particular decision is much more widespread across nations, among officials, commentators, fellow boxers (DLH, Amir Khan and Andre Ward to name three) and other athletes in general. A poll conducted amongst officials and commentators posted on this very board indicated an overwhelming belief that Pac won this fight.

Lastly, as to Pac doing what was necessary, well he basically did and it was ultimately sufficient for a wide decision. Yes, Manny did do what was necessary in so far as going through the motions to ensure the victory. He certainly didn't step it up to further brutalise Mosley and secure a stoppage as earlier versions of Pac might have. With as little resistance as Mosley was offering, measured against what Pac did do, the difference between the two combatants amounted to a wide points victory. Seems logical enough.

[wpink]

Hell, on Lampley's HBO half-hour show tonight about judges and scoring, the one round of Pac-Bradley they showed in its entirety (the 7th), won by Bradley on all three cards BUT supposedly the best example of a Pac round OBVIOUSLY scored incorrectly . . . I scored for Bradley.

Lampley has gone insane.

Frank. You and i are always cool and generally on the same page. I do admit with looking at the fight with the audio off, i hat it 8-4 possibly 7-5 giving the close rounds to Bradley to account for opinion. But THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL, Bradley won this fight. HE DID NOT. Period. He lost if you look at any sane measure of scoring a fight, to reach a outcome that says " who got the best of who that round" and then talley up the 12 rounds.

Over most rounds, Pacman out landed Bradley in volume and power punches and clealy the harder punches in every single round from 1-8. EVERY SINGLE ROUND. Then rounds 10-12 also. But Those last three were closer because bradley was boxing better, and landed very good power punches and cleaner and more effective punches than he did earlier.

Some say Pacman only came on in last minute of each round. OK, he did, but what did Bradley do the 1st 2 minutes. He did nothing.

Lampley was 100% correct here. So was Kellerman. The goal of measuring a round is simply who won it. Who went back to the corner and the unbiased viewer would say they got the best of the other person. There is no way anyone Can say Bradley was that man 7 or even 6 of those rounds. Hell from rounds 3-9 he would getting ran out of the fight and totally outclassed, volume on or off.

This is the worst decision I have ever seen. Much worse than Leonard Hearns, dlh-trinidad, pretty close to Chavez Whitaker. 91% of viewers 1 week after the robbery reviewed the fight and many took into considerations people said from the bradley view and the mainstream, and still concluded Pacman won. If 48 out of 51 credentialed ring side experts had it for packman by large margins, 91% of consumers, almost all interviewed had it for pac-man. There is a reason. He did.

[wpink]

Please allow me to disagree with apparently all of my friends here at CBZ, and most of the rest of the world, about the decision in this fight. Tonight I saw it for the first time via the HBO replay.

Having read last week how this was the most horrible decision of the past decade, even the last 20 years, 30 years, whatever, I expected that I'd be watching Pacqiao just kick the shit out of Bradley. Bloody him up, break a rib, or swell up an eye at least, maybe knock out teeth. Something. Back up Bradley all night. Knock him down a few times. At least have him hurt on his feet a few times. Leave Bradley all busted up and bruised by fight's end like Pac did to Magarito and many others.

Wrong . . .wrong . . . wrong . . . wrong . . . wrong . . . and wrong. None of this happened.

I mean, if the whole world is saying this was the worst decision just about ever, surely Pac had whipped Bradley. But I, who pretty much always see the fights per the consensus of the judges except in those cases of widely-believed-bad decisions, agreed with the majority of the three judges in Pac-Bradley.

I mean, does anybody here think Pac actually looked good? Hell, he looked SO much worse than just a year ago. At the end of this fight, his face was more damaged than Bradley's; whereas Tim looked unmarked.

To me, here's the thing that was dirty: the shill HBO announcers, and I mean, Lampley, Steward, and Kellerman specifically, acting like in every round, Tim did nothing, and in every round, that Manny's "much greater" power edge was the game-changer. Huh? When? Just the 4th round, that I saw, when Bradley was staggered and Pac actually landed flurries. Still just 10-9 for Pac, one round. So why did they say these things? I saw virtually NONE of it.

When Pac kicks the shit out of somebody, said somebody always LOOKS it. Not last week. Pac rocks 'em and drops 'em usually. Ah hem . . . not last week. Imagine IF this wasn't Pac in there, then we wouldn't have heard these three idiots acting like Pac was killing Bradley and Bradley had been mugged by a superior athlete with much greater power. Instead, in reality, Bradley came through the 12 rounds just fine, EVEN fighting on an ankle injured in the fight. Pac's superior power, as droned on about by Steward and Lampley? Huh??? Say what? Remember, NOBODY got hurt in this fight, and Bradley was merely staggered in round 4.

Yeah, this fight should have been watched with the sound off . . . merely so as to not hear the highly-biased HBO commentators. Lampley would say later in the fight that Pac was coasting for the first 2 minutes of a round, and he STILL gave Pac those rounds. Lampley actually said Harold Lederman is the best fight judge on the planet! And in the 5th or 6th round, Lampley said that Pac had knocked Tim halfway across the ring with a punch, when to me it looked like Bradley had been moved back two steps and no more by the punch.

Here's what I saw: A not-great fight from either guy-- not a great fight, period. (Not one I'll ever view again, believe me.) Both fighters missing with their punches A LOT. Nobody hurting anybody to any significant degree except for Bradley being knocked around in round 4--but not falling. Two guys who showed up, fought mostly in slow motion after round 4, and CLEARLY were going to go to a decision because nobody could hurt anybody, and whom Mayweather Jr.--whom I hold in low regard-- would have licked together in the same night.

Nobody looked like a REAL WINNER in this fight. That's the key. So, somebody had to win, and the closeness of the decision is the perfect result in my mind, because it was damned close. And the right guy won. In fact, had Bradley not won, the ONLY reason I could have seen it that way was that NEITHER guy "took" the fight from the other, and (they say, but I disagree) that a challenger has to decisively "take" it from the champ. (I'd add here, however, that the cards say 0-0 when a fight starts, yes, even for a title fight.)

Again, it wasn't much of a fight, nobody got dropped, no standing 8-count was needed for anybody (had that rule been in effect) . . . so how could one guy have SO dominated, as the commentators would have you believe? And if one guy doesn't dominate, how is he then "robbed"?

Then, after the fight took place, I read here on CBZ and in the media how this was the worst decision in a long time. Puh-lease. For those of you who didn't view the 1972 Olympics, Alan Minter of Great Britain and Reggie Jones of the US lost two of the worst decisions in history. Ali-Norton III, now THERE was a terrible decision. Look at Norton's shocked and disgusted reaction after that decision and look at Pac's reaction after this one-- Pac didn't seem upset in the slightest, and only once in the post-fight interview said he felt that he won (only when asked directly), otherwise he congratulated Bradley, didn't complain, and didn't seek to discuss the decision further at all. And almost EVERY decision-losing fighter says afterward that he thought he won the fight. Big deal.

This fight didn't have the fury of Duran-Leonard #1, it was fought at a comparative snail's pace. If that fight had gone to Leonard, THAT would have been a bad decision, and I say that as a big Leonard fan, both then and now. But THIS fight? Nobody put a whipping on anybody. If this was two ESPN fighters, nobody would have even questioned the decision. Because the commentators would have been unbiased. Instead, we had Lampley saying all night that Bradley hasn't won a round, even as my eyes were telling me Bradley looks better than Pac this night. Not like a definitive winner on his greatest night, beating up Pac . . . but neither did Pac look like a definitive winner on his greatest night. This was indeed a case of judges having to come up with a winner with not much to work with.

I might add that Bradley handled the post-fight interview better than Max Kellerman, who in large part was raining on this guy's parade after his biggest victory. Did Bradley look his best that night? No. Did Pac look HIS best? Far from it.

This reminds me of when Pernell Whitaker lost to Jose Luis Ramirez the first time and acted like it was the biggest robbery in history. When the judges probably had it right, in my view. But here, Pac didn't act like Whitaker afterward . . . only the "fans" and the HBO shills acted like some terrible, illegal thing happened.

I'd like to propose a new paradigm: if a fight truly sucks, or just isn't very good, then nobody should complain afterward about how bad the decision was. Because then, usually, neither guy worked hard enough in the fight to have earned a clear-cut decision.

P.S. - The worst scoring of a pro fight in my lifetime was, I believe, for Tyson-Douglas, where Douglas by my count won every round of the fight except the round in which Tyson dropped him for a 9-count (and even that round Buster was winning but for the kd); yet, had the fight ended after the last full round (the 9th) immediately preceding the 10th round KO, Tyson was ahead by a point on one Japanese judge's card and even on another; only American judge Larry Rozadilla had Douglas ahead, at a more appropriate 88-82. This could have been the robbery of the century, and yet there was no investigation, no TV expose about judging by Jim Lampley (who had, like the recent fight, also covered Douglas-Tyson for HBO), just the usual complaining by fans and the media for two weeks and then the usual dying down of same.

Frank... wow. Ok. I will respect your opinion and actually do agree with many point here. But Bradley did not win. Period. He just didn't.

Did pacman look good. NO not at all. Just like you described he missed widely was off balance many times, he looked like he has seriously dropped off, and really looked like he is having stamina issues. Futhermore, he had him at several points in that fight on the ropes or rocked and missed repeated follow up shots. Yes I was not that impressed.

Also, yes IMO Mayweather whips the shit out of Pacman that fought the last two fights, even though Mayweather the last two fights showed he is vulnerable to backing straight up into the ropes and getting hit with combinations forcing him there. Ortiz had some good moments in their brief fight, and Cotto did too. If Cotto had the tenacity and energy of a young duran, a right hand of a young duran, defense etc. Well thats why there is only one Duran, but it showed a peak Pacman vs a Welterwight version of Mayweather that even vs DLH and Hatton was forced back to the ropes repeatedly. However, we are not with a Peak Pacman, and I agree with you, this version of Pacman vs this version of Mayweather, leads to a destruction of Pacman. I agree

But the fight 6/9 Your totally wrong on bro. While he was not the Pacman of old, the issue was... DID HE IN 7 OR MORE OF THOSE ROUNDS WIN THE ROUND. Yes he did. Period. No matter how bad he looked, Bradley looked worse.

Punch states - Pacman
Power punches - pacman
Hurting the opponent - pacman
Effective generalship - rounds 3-9 with out question pacman. Thats 7 rounds there.
Defense - Both avoided punches. and we are talking about a peak Bradley who could not hit a slipping Pacman effectively except to the body and arms. This is the quote from his manager about why Bradley won. He landed good body shots and to the arms. WTF

Frank. We always agree. Your my man. But dude. You must have been enjoying a early fathers day with loved ones and only keeping one eye on that fight, cuz no way in hell Bradley won. He just did not. Its not opinion, its a fact if we use any accepted form of measuring a boxing match. Generally if yoiu hit harder, and land more, the only person who ever got remotely hurt was the other person, you repeatedly backed up your opponent with power shots...... What did Bradley do to suggest he won?