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

[JaKob]

That seems to be a common theme in this thread, but until I actually see someone expose and capitalize upon this alleged deterioration I will have to respectfully disagree.

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:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...907634520.html

Efficiency?

He isn't all that efficient and what we are seeing is far from refinement. It's outright slowing down. He doesn't need to be beat to show that he has indeed experienced decline.

Fighting flatfooted, without upper body movement, without using angles is not the sign of refinement. It's the sign of decline and a subsequent stylistic change. It's not a matter of applying a rule it's a matter of observing him carefully in the ring. But fair enough we all see different things.

[JaKob]

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.

Me too and i think the notion that many of us here on CBZ would be swayed by Lampley asinine.

Jim fucking Lampley the same commentator that provided us with such highlight moments as 'BANG BANG BANG BANG' In the Clottey fight where Pacquaio was doing little more than landing on gloves and forearms. The punchstat and hyperbole regurgitating machine with a penchant for spouting historical facts and sounding a tad self-impressed in the process.

[PD99]

Me too and i think the notion that many of us here on CBZ would be swayed by Lampley asinine.

Jim fucking Lampley the same commentator that provided us with such highlight moments as 'BANG BANG BANG BANG' In the Clottey fight where Pacquaio was doing little more than landing on gloves and forearms. The punchstat and hyperbole regurgitating machine with a penchant for spouting historical facts and sounding a tad self-impressed in the process.

LOL!

I linked a clip of Lampley's BANG BANG BANG "episode" (fits nicely in with the song CHITTY CHITTY "BANG BANG" btw) earlier in the thread to primarily illustrate that this guy lost cred. yrs ago and could hardly be considered a SVENGALI. Unless, that is, you're one of those highly suggestible, vulnerable types who may well be prone to joining a nutbag cult also of which Lampley may well make an ideal leader. No prizes for guessing what Jim would likely favour as his cult CHANT.

As to the status quo of Pac. I would say that, manifestly, he appears to have lost a step or so. However, I would reserve judgment on the degree of his substantive deterioration without complete knowledge of the degree to which he now prepares himself for a fight. I understand that it can be a chicken or the egg argument, but I suspect that where ever Manny is at these days, he may not be preparing himself to his absolute best potential anyway.

Conversely, while substantive deterioration will impact on how well a fighter can prepare himself I think there are sufficient distractions to support the theory that Pac has lost the mental focus to properly prepare himself and remain intensely true to the task at hand.

[LafftyTaffty]

Efficiency?

Yeah, efficiency. I see a fighter being more analytical, picking his targets better, and expending his energies more efficiently.

Let's also remember, this is a naturally smaller man fighting naturally bigger men. Even if he's not showing it, they've got to be hurting him more than Barrera or Morales ever did when they hit him.

The angles? The Margarito fight was an angular tour-de-force, but not every opponent is going present the style to allow, or the threat to necessitate, Manny's entire bag of tricks.

I thought Margarito was going to knock Pacquiao out. I think Roach and Manny considered that a real possibility too at the time, which is why their plan was to demonstrate the utmost sharpness. Mosley and Bradley were essentially PPV sparring exhibitions. Why burn oneself out with a Margarito level of sharpness for sparring sessions?

Yeah, we're just seeing different things.

[walshb]

I think it's a wee bit off to suggest that Lampley had no impact on many many folks watching. I mean, we're only human, and listening to Lampley could have swayed people. I love boxing and I even admit that commentary can sway me a little. Lampley's commentary was just OTT, and for me it worked the other way.

[Overhand_Right]

Good to see Hawkins back with yet another moniker.

[walshb]

If LafftyTaffty is Hawk5ins he certainly has changed his writing style.

[jlupi]

off topic but I never had any prob w Hawk5ins. He created a bit more activity here

[walshb]

off topic but I never had any prob w Hawk5ins.

Ahhhh, one of the few!

[Overhand_Right]

If LafftyTaffty is Hawk5ins he certainly has changed his writing style.

You must be having a laff - all the clues are there!

[walshb]

You must be having a laff - all the clues are there!

Sorry, OHR. I see none. That is why I thought it odd you made the claim. Maybe others will see what you do. I don't!

[JaKob]

I think it's a wee bit off to suggest that Lampley had no impact on many many folks watching. I mean, we're only human, and listening to Lampley could have swayed people. I love boxing and I even admit that commentary can sway me a little. Lampley's commentary was just OTT, and for me it worked the other way.

Noone is saying that Lampley had no impact on Many folks watching are they?

I'm pretty sure many including ME are suggesting that it's a wee bit off for anyone to imply that the conclusions we are reaching here on CBZ have been swayed by Lampley.

[LafftyTaffty]

I went back and read some of Mr. Hawk5ins posts. While I do share his enthusiasm for Pacquiao, I hope I am not coming across as that intolerant of others' opinions.

[walshb]

I went back and read some of Mr. Hawk5ins posts. While I do share his enthusiasm for Pacquiao, I hope I am not coming across as that intolerant of others' opinions.

So far absolutely not as intolerant. And, your writing style is nothing like his. Not sure what OHR saw that led him to believe that you were Hawk5ins.

[jlupi]

My Last Word On Pacquiao-Bradley
Written by Kelsey McCarson thesweetscience
Wednesday, 27 June 2012 07:54


Regardless of what happened (or maybe didn’t happen) last time out, Manny Pacquiao is still on top of the boxing world. Alongside the momentarily incarcerated Floyd Mayweather Jr., Manny is either 1a or 1b depending on who you ask, and nothing three rogue judges decided June 9th in Las Vegas changed that.

Since that fateful evening, the boxing community at large has undergone a massive shift of public opinion. As the disbelief of the decision has settled in, we as a group have seemed to move on from disgust to some quasi-sane reality where fight fans should disbelieve what they saw the first time and instead focus on every conceivable avenue possible to give Bradley the benefit of the doubt in every single round.

However, if you take the tinfoil hats off for a moment, stop locking yourselves in your rooms with the shades pulled down while replays of Pac- Bradley play on a loop (both with and without sound), several things may come to light.

First, it is absolutely clear that whether we like it or not, television announcers play a vital role in how we see a fight. There are numerous examples of this, and I’m sure someone smarter than me could put together some fancy double-blind scientific test to prove it.

It’s equally clear though, that television announcers don’t tell you what you see happening. You have eyes for that. If they tell you something that’s wrong, you can disagree. Without going too much into detail, it’s borderline ludicrous to suggest that somehow HBO’s broadcast team pulled the wool over the eyes of everyone that night, even people who watched the fight live.

Boxing writer Ryan Maquiñana posted his collection of scores from boxing media members after fight night, and his numbers suggest the outcry you read about on twitter, or heard in person from your pals at ringside or at your fight party, was spot on. It wasn’t localized to one place or one person or one method of seeing the fight.

It was a bunk decision, pure and simple.

In Maquiñana’s survey, fifty of fifty-three boxing media members (many quite well known and respected) had the fight scored for Pacquiao. Of the three who had it for Bradley, two of them had Bradley winning by a mere point. Moreover, of the fifty pro-Pacquiao cards, only seven of them had Pacquiao winning by anything less than six points.

That means forty-three of the fifty-three participants (over eight-one percent!) had Pacquiao the clear winner by a seriously wide margin. That’s exactly the fight most everyone saw the first time.

Since the fight, the fallout has gone from sure-fire robbery to well-maybe-it-was-close to oh-well-what-the-heck-maybe-Bradley-won.

I’m not buying it.

Look, it’s all well and good to question one’s scoring on a particular night. I’ve had my fair share of questionable cards in the past, too. And I assure you, it’s possible for the best and brightest to be wrong sometimes along with the rest of us. I’ve had cards in the past where I admitted I was probably wrong in my scoring after reviewing vast amounts of data that suggested it.

Case in point, I scored Cloud over Campillo from ringside when it happened. I was probably wrong. If the overwhelming evidence suggests the grass on your lawn is green, it’s green no matter how blue you may see it. You’re just colorblind.

I don’t buy the re-watch-a-thon approach to scoring fights. If you told me Cotto beat Mayweather on May 5th, I bet I could go back and re-watch the darn thing enough times to make my eyes bleed. By then, I’d give Cotto rounds Mayweather clearly won just to be true to my already erroneous and preconceived notion of “fairness”.

It’s quite silly if you ask me.

Almost everyone who saw the fight that night, from both ringside and on television, thought Pacquiao won the fight—everyone except for two of the three judges, and a very small subset of respected media members. Everyone else had it for Pacquiao, even the WBO judges who re-watched it for what seems to me like lip-service treatment (they cannot or will not reward Pacquiao the belt back). Even they couldn’t muster one measly scorecard to give the fight to Bradley. It was five to zip for Pacquiao.

So now that we’ve established what we all saw happen the first time, what should Pacquiao do next? One obvious choice would be a rematch with Bradley, right?

Wrong!

Who wants to see that fight? Pacquiao won handily the first time on most cards, and the fight wasn’t exactly a barnburner either. It was a boring, one-sided affair I’d rather not have to witness again. After Bradley tasted Pacquiao’s power in the early rounds, he decided it best not to engage him the second half of the fight. If that’s his big plan for the rematch (and it should be since he was bogusly rewarded for it by two of the three judges at ringside) then count me out on that one. Not even HBO’s 24X7 spectacle of hype could put enough lipstick on that pig to make it worth a penny to me. Let’s put it this way: Tecate’s rebate would have to pay me enough to come out ahead in the deal, and something tells me that’s not happening.

No, there is only one real fight out there right now for Pacquiao. With Mayweather in the pokey and Cotto coming off a loss and needing to rebound, only arch nemesis Juan Manuel Marquez stands any real test of reason.

Before their last fight, I took a lot of heat for telling anyone and everyone who would listen to me to just say NO to Pacquiao vs. Marquez 3. After all, Manny had moved up in weight so easily and effectively, and Marquez had struggled to win a round against Mayweather in his move up past 140. It was a total mismatch, I thought.

Boy was I wrong.

These two guys make beautiful music together no matter how you slice it. After seeing that one, they could fatten up to heavyweight, and I’d watch. They could sell me a ticket to Pacquiao vs. Marquez 10 live from Shady Grove retirement home, and I’d be there. I’d watch these guys fight on the moon if I had to.

And who knows, for all the cries of robbery against Bradley, Marquez fans might finally feel like their guy would get his due respect scoring wise. Every fight has been close. Maybe this time fight fans would finally see a definitive win for one of the competitors. While Pacquiao has won twice, and earned a draw once, in reality every fight has been razor thin no matter how you slice it, and Marquez has likely earned at least one win on his ledger if not more.

It’s Pacquiao vs. Marquez 4 or bust for me, and anything else would be almost as much of a waste as rescoring Pac-Bradley again to convince myself I’m wrong.

[LafftyTaffty]

These two guys make beautiful music together no matter how you slice it. After seeing that one, they could fatten up to heavyweight, and I’d watch. They could sell me a ticket to Pacquiao vs. Marquez 10 live from Shady Grove retirement home, and I’d be there. I’d watch these guys fight on the moon if I had to.

I agree with a lot in the piece except this part. It almost sounds as if he's describing Leonard-Benitez. There's a big difference, however, between counter-punching to win, as Benitez did, and counter-punching to survive, as Marquez did.

[diggity]

At one point in the fight, Lampley dug deep into his bag of 80's Batman-television-series-sound-effect-commentary and said Pacquiao landed "3 booms" to close the round.
His immature, nonsense drivel makes me want to grab the largest inanimate object in arms reach and smash it against my head.

[PD99]

The article (post #225) makes a terrific point about over-analysis of the Pac-Bradley fight and how that over-analysis has perverted otherwise reasonable judgments made in the first instance.

How many times do you have to watch a fight before convincing yourself that you have finally got it right? Where do you draw the line? Once, twice, three times, etc? Is there an optimum number of reviews to allow for accurate determinations and is there conversely a point at which one must stop before they begin to blow what they see out of proportion?

People are only reviewing this fight over and over again because the official decision was so heavily at odds with majority opinion otherwise. They are going well beyond normal lengths to see if they can find things that they might've somehow missed - again, because of the official decision rendered.

I would assume that had the official decision been in the realms of say 10-2 for Pac, the majority would not have given this fight a second look for a long time if at all. Rubber stamped and archived.

I've read at least one poster here totally flip flop on their initial opinion - moving from an outright robberty to a fair points decision to Bradley. This is not to disrespect that poster - it's actually a credit to them for admitting a genuine shift in their original opinion.

However, if a person can see an outright robbery in the first instance only to arrive at a completely different opinion upon several reviews of the fight, how much more dependable is the latter judgment as compared to the former, first impression?

To paraphrase Bob Arum, yesterday I was absolutely wrong but today I am absolutely right. With such disparity in one's own opinion, how could you really be sure of yourself either way?

Of course there are legitimate details to be picked up upon review as the scribe suggested but there is an equally strong case, if not stronger, for the suggestion that one can pervert their own opinion with over the top replays and obsessive analysis of the vision.

I will admit that I may have victimised myself with over-address of the vision in the past as it pertains to ALI-LISTON II. While I still lean toward a legitimate flash knock down, there was a time that I watched the slow motion replay of Ali's so called anchor punch over and over again - and you know what? The punch looked stronger and stronger with each and every replay.

Just the other day, I saw a random replay of that same slow motion footage and it struck me how much less potent Ali's punch appeared given a one off viewing as compared to the time I replayed it over and over again in effort to find some legitimacy in the punch.

I think a few replays were warranted because the mere launch of ALI's punch (see Phantom) could be barely seen in real time and the slow motion replay indicated a definite punch and a definite connection, otherwise unseen. However, I also think that too many replays gave the punch more credit (as I previously perceived in oft replays) than it deserved.

[Michael Frank]

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.

Well, Ron, there are now two of us here who feel Bradley won, and clearly. For Pac to have given away the first two minutes of many rounds and then still won them, wow; he must have absolutely kicked the crap out of Bradley in that remaining minute or at least made it very decisive in that minute . . . one would have to think . . .

Separately, to those who view as evidence of Bradley's supposed loss the fact that Bradley was timid in the post-fight interview about saying he thought he'd won, that he'd view the fight later; whereas Manny's mild reaction has an excuse provided for it here by posters . . . yikes! How about this reality instead: Bradley, who knew he had been in a close fight, was shocked to be in the position, maybe the first time ever for a fighter but surely the first time Tim had known of such a thing, where not only was the audience booing the upsetting of a champion, but ALSO the freaking TV commentator (Kellerman) starts out the post-fight interview by telling him that the TV crew thought it was a BAD DECISION. And then delves further into this "controversy" with Bradley more than any other fight-related topic. You think maybe that had Tim back on his heals just a bit?

Common sense, guys?

Maybe Tim just had no earthly idea how to respond to this. I mean, Marvin Hagler had to be hustled out of the arena in England after he "obviously" TKO'd Alan Minter, so as to avoid being hit by one of many bottles that were thrown, and maybe other violence might have been visited upon him were it not for all the police . . . and if Bradley had ever seen THAT, or maybe seen the reaction by many of the Mexican fans at the L.A. Forum the night I was there in 1988 when Azumah Nelson took a decision from Mexican fighter Mario Martinez, and it was raining confetti, except that the confetti was bottles, and Don King was hit by one . . . So maybe Tim Bradley didn't know how to respond to Kellerman's question except to be "gentlemanly" and non-controversial when placed in this very strange situation by the interviewer. Ya think?

A fighter is not supposed to be keeping score in there. Anyone here think Ali knew anything about boxing by 1974? In the Ali-Foreman post-fight interview (in his dressing room) seen all over the world, which many of us have on tape, Ali asked the interviewer, "Was it close? Was the fight close before I knocked him out?" And God only knows that Ali had been further ahead of Foreman than either Pac or Tim was in their recent fight. So Tim's not having a firm idea of the score was likely nothing more than the honest reaction of a guy who might well feel, later on, that he won big.

Just like Ali after the Foreman fight.

[walshb]

So maybe Tim Bradley didn't know how to respond to Kellerman's question except to be "gentlemanly" and non-controversial when placed in this very strange situation by the interviewer. Ya think?

.

I spoke about how I was impressed with Bradley's post fight comments, but never did it dawn on me that these comments should be viewed as those from a beaten man. So he didn't act like a jerk afterwards, and afforded Manny some resepct, that should be viewed or perceived as a beaten man? I don't buy it. Manny hardly reacted afterwards as a victor. Should we us that as a reason to say that Manny acted like a beaten man?

[diggity]

Manny's reaction was pure disbelieve IMO - as was Bradley's but in the other direction.
Gentlemanly or not, if you just beat the P4P guy and knew it, any person in the world would be doing freakin backflips in there.
Bradley showed much more excitement with his wins over Alexander and go on down the line.

[Michael Frank]

I spoke about how I was impressed with Bradley's post fight comments, but never did it dawn on me that these comments should be viewed as those from a beaten man. So he didn't act like a jerk afterwards, and afforded Manny some resepct, that should be viewed or perceived as a beaten man? I don't buy it. Manny hardly reacted afterwards as a victor. Should we us that as a reason to say that Manny acted like a beaten man?

I agree with every word, walshb.

[Michael Frank]

Manny's reaction was pure disbelieve IMO - as was Bradley's but in the other direction.
Gentlemanly or not, if you just beat the P4P guy and knew it, any person in the world would be doing freakin backflips in there.

Diggity, are you kidding? Manny's post-fight interview response sounded like a polite choir boy's. And oh by the way, most fighters who think they just lost STILL act pissed off when they hear the losing decision. What does that prove??

As to Bradley, what if he didn't "know" he'd won this close fight, just like Ali after Foreman? It was a close fight . . . to some of us. Or should one dance a jig like Hagler did after Leonard, when it appeared to many of us, (no matter who you think won that fight), that Marvin sure didn't think he had won, hence the jig he'd never performed previously in his life. Somebody, please, convince me that Hagler was honestly gleeful, honestly happy as a clam, right before the Leonard decision was announced? If so, he should have been doing back-flips after the Duran fight.

I repeat, I don't recall ever hearing a fighter who'd just won a title being asked in the ring, "Do you think you won the fight? Because we think the other guy won! And on and on . . .

If the fighters' reactions are so crucial here, I think the key one is that Senator Pacquiao, or whatever his political position, is articulate enough to lodge an angry complaint to Kellerman if he'd felt he was robbed-- but he didn't. Here again, who cares-- as the fighters aren't supposed to be scoring the fight in there.

[PD99]

Common sense, eh?

It's one thing to advertise common sense, it's another thing again to actually apply it.

I see false advertising.

This is the progressive line of argument laid out by the same individual:-

Pacquiao presented with all the appearance of having lost the fight. He said only ONCE that he thought that he had won and that was in response to a direct question. Almost every decision losing fighter says that he thought he won. Big deal. Pac was not unduly upset nor did he vigorously protest the decision. The bottom line argument, if Pac looked like he lost, then he must've felt like he lost and if he felt like he lost then he must've actually lost. Pac, the fighter, must have the singlular ability to keep mental score of the fight in there.

Bradely, on the other hand, cannot be expected to keep mental score of the fight and his direct answer to the question of whether he won or lost cannot be used in evidence against him.

Pac's polite reservedness and adherence to the ritualistic Q & A POST FIGHT process cannot be intrepreted as "gentlemanly" - rather, it was purely indicative of the fact that Manny lost the fight. The demeanour of Bradley, on the other, is described as "gentlemanly" and his verbal equivocation as to whether he thought he won or lost (ONLY in response to direct questioning also) was simply an effort to be "honest". As a second and separate disclaimer, just to be safe, Kellerman also bullied Tim into answering in the fashion that he did so Tim was also trying to be "non-controversial".

Still, w/out keeping mental score, Bradley apparently knew enough to understand that he was in a "close" fight but still didn't know enough to confidently state that he actually won. Given more time and a review of the fight, it all came into focus and Bradley probably came to the realisation that he won "big".

The above reads very evenly in terms of its applied common sense, doesn't it? I mean, "yikes", "ya think" and "are you kidding?"

Tim apparently held a multitude of motives amd they were all good and those many and varied motives have provided plenty of scope for an always postive interpretation of anything Tim had to say. Absoutely nothing Tim said or did was indicative of a fighter who felt that he lost.

Far be it for anyone else to logically interpret those responses EXACTLY for what they were.

Conversely, any which way Pac did turn or could turn, YES, NO or MAYBE was always going to spell LOSER.

Reality check -

In the post fight interview, Pac was Pac. He is not an arrogant or outspoken fellow. It was Tim Bradley who assumed that role leading right up to the fight. Manny has long proven to be a terrific, well mannererd and highly respectful sportsman. A GREAT spokesperson for the sport of boxing. He was hardly removed from type in the post fight interview but Bradley was that much more removed from the personna he adopted going into the fight. Bradley was relatively dampened.

Pac answered the question as to whether he thought he won w/out equivocation - ABSOLUTELY YES!

Tim was not so confident and said that he would have to REVIEW and SEE IF I WON THE FIGHT.

Common sense would not water down the hard evidence of the combatant's literal responses to the burning question of whether they thought they had won or not - that is, unless the said response didn't support the arugment you are endeavouring to ply.

ABSOLUTELY vs REVIEW and SEE IF I WON. Could any judge screw up the simple and comparative interpretation of those opposing sentiments? It seems so.

In counter to the all too glib dismissal of Pac's response with the suggestion that ALMOST EVERY DECISION LOSING FIGHTER CLAIMS THAT HE WON - BIG DEAL, Riddle me this:-.

How many decision WINNING fighters have EVER stated that they would have to REVIEW and SEE IF THEY WON?

To present the image of a WINNER, Pac did not have to anything more than he did do POST FIGHT. He answered the important question directly and emphatically. He didn't have to repeat himself nor put on a Zab Judah-like protest. Suffice to say, Pac was spawned from a different world, different culture.

The real problem here is that the exact same argument applied to Pac in terms of POST FIGHT "appearances" was taken on board, de-constructed and applied right back at Bradley with far more logical meat to its bones.

Rather than swallow that, it appears one has to forgo their original terms of reference and basically contradict themselves.

PS - re Foreman vs Al. That fight was close in my book with Ali having the edge until the KO. Ali enquired if it was close - he wasn't musing over the possibility of his being behind. Seems Ali could keep pretty score.

[jlupi]

I really dont put much into post fight demeanor of the fighters. I do put stock in my own eyes, esp when backed up by 98% of those that watched the fight live, hbo feed, and non HBO feed.

[PD99]

I really dont put much into post fight demeanor of the fighters. I do put stock in my own eyes, esp when backed up by 98% of those that watched the fight live, hbo feed, and non HBO feed.

Jlupi - I agree. Post fight demeanour is certainly not the primary source for judging a fight but if one is to go there they should do it even handedly in respect of both fighters. Your own vision most definitely comes first by a mile and it is nice to have majority opinion otherwise in support of your independently determined view point.

[Michael Frank]

Common sense, eh?

It's one thing to advertise common sense, it's another thing again to actually apply it.

I see false advertising.

This is the progressive line of argument laid out by the same individual:-

Pacquiao presented with all the appearance of having lost the fight. He said only ONCE that he thought that he had won and that was in response to a direct question. Almost every decision losing fighter says that he thought he won. Big deal. Pac was not unduly upset nor did he vigorously protest the decision. The bottom line argument, if Pac looked like he lost, then he must've felt like he lost and if he felt like he lost then he must've actually lost. Pac, the fighter, must have the singlular ability to keep mental score of the fight in there.

Bradely, on the other hand, cannot be expected to keep mental score of the fight and his direct answer to the question of whether he won or lost cannot be used in evidence against him.

Pac's polite reservedness and adherence to the ritualistic Q & A POST FIGHT process cannot be intrepreted as "gentlemanly" - rather, it was purely indicative of the fact that Manny lost the fight. The demeanour of Bradley, on the other, is described as "gentlemanly" and his verbal equivocation as to whether he thought he won or lost (ONLY in response to direct questioning also) was simply an effort to be "honest". As a second and separate disclaimer, just to be safe, Kellerman also bullied Tim into answering in the fashion that he did so Tim was also trying to be "non-controversial".

Still, w/out keeping mental score, Bradley apparently knew enough to understand that he was in a "close" fight but still didn't know enough to confidently state that he actually won. Given more time and a review of the fight, it all came into focus and Bradley probably came to the realisation that he won "big".

The above reads very evenly in terms of its applied common sense, doesn't it? I mean, "yikes", "ya think" and "are you kidding?"

Tim apparently held a multitude of motives amd they were all good and those many and varied motives have provided plenty of scope for an always postive interpretation of anything Tim had to say. Absoutely nothing Tim said or did was indicative of a fighter who felt that he lost.

Far be it for anyone else to logically interpret those responses EXACTLY for what they were.

Conversely, any which way Pac did turn or could turn, YES, NO or MAYBE was always going to spell LOSER.

Reality check -

In the post fight interview, Pac was Pac. He is not an arrogant or outspoken fellow. It was Tim Bradley who assumed that role leading right up to the fight. Manny has long proven to be a terrific, well mannererd and highly respectful sportsman. A GREAT spokesperson for the sport of boxing. He was hardly removed from type in the post fight interview but Bradley was that much more removed from the personna he adopted going into the fight. Bradley was relatively dampened.

Pac answered the question as to whether he thought he won w/out equivocation - ABSOLUTELY YES!

Tim was not so confident and said that he would have to REVIEW and SEE IF I WON THE FIGHT.

Common sense would not water down the hard evidence of the combatant's literal responses to the burning question of whether they thought they had won or not - that is, unless the said response didn't support the arugment you are endeavouring to ply.

ABSOLUTELY vs REVIEW and SEE IF I WON. Could any judge screw up the simple and comparative interpretation of those opposing sentiments? It seems so.

In counter to the all too glib dismissal of Pac's response with the suggestion that ALMOST EVERY DECISION LOSING FIGHTER CLAIMS THAT HE WON - BIG DEAL, Riddle me this:-.

How many decision WINNING fighters have EVER stated that they would have to REVIEW and SEE IF THEY WON?

To present the image of a WINNER, Pac did not have to anything more than he did do POST FIGHT. He answered the important question directly and emphatically. He didn't have to repeat himself nor put on a Zab Judah-like protest. Suffice to say, Pac was spawned from a different world, different culture.

The real problem here is that the exact same argument applied to Pac in terms of POST FIGHT "appearances" was taken on board, de-constructed and applied right back at Bradley with far more logical meat to its bones.

Rather than swallow that, it appears one has to forgo their original terms of reference and basically contradict themselves.

PS - re Foreman vs Al. That fight was close in my book with Ali having the edge until the KO. Ali enquired if it was close - he wasn't musing over the possibility of his being behind. Seems Ali could keep pretty score.

You seem to need to work out your issues via personal insults and accusations, and taking the position of the board's all-knowing leader (just like Hawkins did all the time), certainly on this thread. Seems like no matter what I post, you respond with personal attacks. As if you're plainly "right," and I'm not even qualified to have an opinion, so I shouldn't offer it, lest it be picked apart ad nauseum. Now, it's not my view of the fight decision that gives you problems, it's how I, personally, support it. Simply how I write needs to be dissected by you to the nth degree, all to mock it, and to call me a hypocrite or "false advertiser" or whatever is your point about me, personally.

Look, I saw the fight as I did, Ron saw it the same way, and others out there who are qualified did as well. I'll never agree that this was a blow-out by Pac and thus the worst decision in recent history; get over it. Most others here on the board and a majority elsewhere think otherwise and agree with Lampley that this was a one-sided affair with Pac landing hammers to Bradley's missing with feathers, fine, you're all entitled to your viewpoints. My view is set, I've had the displeasure of watching this bout twice and I won't ever watch it again. It wasn't a good fight, IMO.

That you apparently think Ali-Foreman was a closer fight before the KO than was Bradley-Pac speaks volumes. Commentator Sheridan had Ali just about winning the entire fight from the first round on . . . if you give great credence to announcers. Which I don't, but I do think they affect people's thoughts. Still, it sounds like, if Ali had hypothetically lost a decision after 7 1/2 rounds, you would have found that less egregious than the Bradley-Pac decision. I find that preposterous. But that's just me. I'm sure you could find others who would agree with you on that.

You completely made up my position on Bradley's perspective, then you mocked what you made up. Big deal. Hey, if it makes you feel you are the sole arbiter and "reality checker" here, have at it.

While I found your post excruciating to get through, I'll address one (seemingly) fair question raised, since you address little in my posts anyway, as you just find the one point or two sentences to harp on so as to support your main point: personal criticism. Your question:

"Riddle me this:-.

How many decision WINNING fighters have EVER stated that they would have to REVIEW and SEE IF THEY WON?"

First, I have definitely heard fighters say they'll have to watch the fight later to determine their scoring, but I cannot recall whether they were the winners or losers, or whether this applied to deciding the basic question of who won. That aside, my answer to your question is likely very few to none, which in the abstract may mean something to you; but perhaps the answer would have been MANY boxers, if more of them were greeted post-fight by a Kellerman telling them how everyone thinks they just lost. Which I don't think has ever happened in similar circumstances. This is my entire recent point, which of course you have ignored. Tim must have been shocked at the nature of the questioning, and I feel that most likely affected his reply. Imagine asking Hagler at Wembley, with bottles flying everywhere, if he felt he really "had his ass kicked by Minter up to the TKO" and let's see what the response would have been; I imagine even the usually ornery Hagler would have been gentlemanly and non-controversial under the circumstances.

I give little-to-no weight as to the accuracy of fighters' post-bout claims as to winning or losing, and I used this as only one of a number of issues I had brought up earlier, not as the sole or key issue. You alone have made it such.

Hawkins isn't here? Could've fooled me.

[PD99]

Michael - you continue to bring up what you perceive to be personal insults.

Ad-infinitum.

Carefully read how you have EXPRESSED yourself. Have I done any worse? Of course not.

My post, excruciating? Michael, how could you.....kidding. Seriously, I can understand. Reading your own points being soundly refuted can be unpleasant.

Exactly what is an insult to YOU, Michael?

Could it be describing someone's opinion as ASININE, RIDICULOUS or PREPOSTEROUS? Or, could it be a more broadly directed insult such as COMMON SENSE, GUYS? (to suggest that those opposing your opinion aren't applying common sense).

And, if I see Ali-Foreman (Ali 4-3 imo) as closer than Pac Bradley (Pac 9-3 imo), crazy as that is, it apparently SPEAKS VOLUMES. Is that not a poor attempt to embed an insult in therel? So on and so forth. Too many more examples to list.

As to FOREMAN vs ALI for a moment, you brought up Sheridan's call. IF Bob called it virtually all the way for Ali, I OBVIOUSLY paid no heed to his commentary. As such, there are only two logical motives for you to introduce Sheridan's call - to suggest that Sheridan's call was spot on and that it supports your opinion OR to suggest that Col. Bob swayed the masses. Obviously, it cannot be the latter motive because you would apparently be impugning your own opinion. Of course then it has to be the former motive - which clearly equates to YOU giving "credence" to the commentary and managing to contradict yourself in the space of just a few sentences.

Bottom line Michael, you either lack or pretend to lack SELF AWARENESS in terms of the manner in which you express yourself..

Am I unduly offended? Of course not. I can speak exactly in the mode applicable - I have addressed you no worse than you have addressed me. When in Rome.....

Yet still, in all hypcropisy, you keep whining about being personally insulted. Do you read me crying like that? Give it up already. Either tone yourself down or butch it up. I'm good either way.

There is no personal issue. I'm debating your points and in the mode you set up for yourself.

As to personal issues - you really are kidding, right? In the same breath (or shall we say typing flourish) in which your accusation was contained, YOU bring up long since departed poster HAWK, obviously calling in your own related personal issues and some other inane but clearly Freudian issue about assuming the position of board leader.

I have never aspired to such nor have I appealed to or instructed the mods., EIC or fellow posters on anything -certainly I haven't tried to tell the powers that be what articles to post or not post. A perfect time to reflect on both your own words and sentiments, methinks.

Btw, I've not ignored any of your points and have duly addressed the points that I disagree with and introduced my own points. I haven't misrepresented anything you have stated.

Bottom line again, I certainly HAVE NOT over-focused on any given point (you tried that line on before when you suggested that I was singularly focused with the address of Pac being inappropriately measured against his former self).

Personally, I think among the number of points that I have made and refuted and which you have chosen to ignore (your choice - no one's crying) YOU simply choose to isolate one and inexplicably suggest that it is my SOLE point of focus which, of course, is completely UNTRUE.

PS - better check under the bed tonight for "you know who".

Yes, I'm OUT now. Getting too creepy.

[Kid Dynamite]

Has there ever been a fight in history that stirs up this kind of reaction before? The fact that so many feel that one fighter completely dominated and won just about every round while another group say they saw a close fight just seems so odd to me..... I personally am on the side that didnt see a blow out win. Strangest post fight reaction by fans I have ever seen.

On a side note, I spoke yesterday to an acquatance who has been a core boxing fan for thirty years and barely speaks English so Jim Lampley just sounded like gibberish to him. He called it a very close fight with the possibility of either man winning by a couple of points.

He didnt understand the controversy and stated that Bradley although didnt look like a world beater did press the fight while Pacman was standing around for many rounds that were swept up by Bradley by sheer activity.

[Ron Lipton]

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