Permabanned
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 5,798
Controversy...ah well that's the comeuppance for the Marquez fight then
That wasn't a domination though. I had Pac winning his 3rd against Marquez.
Manny Pacquiao vs Tim Bradley
- Thread starter Craterloads
- Start date
That wasn't a domination though. I had Pac winning his 3rd against Marquez.
The difference is you can at least make a case for Pacquiao in all the Marquez fights, even if you disagree with the scoring.
It's impossible to make a case for Bradley, I don't like to believe something dodgy is going on, but I got that sinking feeling as soon as I heard the first score of 115-113 Pacquiao. To have it that close is ridiculous, scoring it for Bradley is way beyond ridiculous. There can't be THAT much difference between the ringside view of a judge, and us seeing the whole picture. The HBO guys that also have a ringside view gave one round to Bradley.
It's impossible to make a case for Bradley, I don't like to believe something dodgy is going on, but I got that sinking feeling as soon as I heard the first score of 115-113 Pacquiao. To have it that close is ridiculous, scoring it for Bradley is way beyond ridiculous. There can't be THAT much difference between the ringside view of a judge, and us seeing the whole picture. The HBO guys that also have a ringside view gave one round to Bradley.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 2,656
- Location
- South Shields
That result is madness.
I just don't understand how all 3 of the judges had it so close..
I just don't understand how all 3 of the judges had it so close..
Does anyone have a clue what Bradley was doing so exceptionally well that it negated the fact that Pacquiao consistently landed more, landed the better shots, and had Bradley hurt a few times whereas Bradley didn't hurt Pacquiao once?
It's such a baffling result we don't really have a choice but to question the integrity of the judges.
It's such a baffling result we don't really have a choice but to question the integrity of the judges.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 7,600
- Location
- London
WHAT THE
I don't believe it
I don't believe it
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 7,600
- Location
- London
Hilarious....
" I need to go back home and review the tape to check if I won or not "
This is an obvious money spinning rig
" I need to go back home and review the tape to check if I won or not "
This is an obvious money spinning rig
After the Khan fight there were questions over judging and how shady it looked, this makes a mockery of boxing. 90 year old judges need to be gotten rid of, were are the young guys judging these days? as lastnights judges glasses were a bit fogged up.
Its getting that way isnt it. In future your gonna have to knock people out to make sure of a win so judges cant skew it like they did lastnight. I mean what bloody fight did they watch, im not a pac man fan at all, but it was evident he won.
This makes a floyd v manny fight seem impossible for another year as bradley will probably give manny a rematch, because lets face it, Floyd would destroy bradley.
More people going for ko's wouldn't be the worst thing in boxing but as you say for matches to be decided by people who are bribed so obviously is just silly.
Boxing is a joke full stop though, there is that many different promoters, organisations and titles it's just a farce. Best thing for boxing is if some billionaire buys all the divisions, reforms the whole lot into one organisation with real tournaments and properly officiated it would improve massively. Never happen though
More people going for ko's wouldn't be the worst thing in boxing but as you say for matches to be decided by people who are bribed so obviously is just silly.
Boxing is a joke full stop though, there is that many different promoters, organisations and titles it's just a farce. Best thing for boxing is if some billionaire buys all the divisions, reforms the whole lot into one organisation with real tournaments and properly officiated it would improve massively. Never happen though
1 world boxing body is exactly what is needed, but to many self important people in each of the Boxing bodies would never settle for it, they would miss out on their piece of the pie.
Boxing is largely becoming more about the money than the boxing nowadays. Give me Liston, Ali, frazier, sugar ray leonard/robinson any day of the week.
But given that Bradley has now beaten Manny, do we really want to see Manny vs Floyd?
Is there are demand for this fight?
Is Manny still good enough to get in the ring with Floyd?
Anyone who watched lastnights fight knows manny was robbed. I think floyd v manny is the 1 fight people all over the world want to see, even with lastnights result.
For the floyd/manny fight to happen, i think manny will have to rematch with bradley, beat him, then go on to floyd.
But do you honestly believe that Manny vs Mayweather will be a close fight?
At the end of the day, in any sporting contest we want to see a close run battle. We don't want to see a one-sided spanking.
Do you think that Manny is good enough to make an exciting contest against Mayweather?
At the end of the day, in any sporting contest we want to see a close run battle. We don't want to see a one-sided spanking.
Do you think that Manny is good enough to make an exciting contest against Mayweather?
I've fancied Floyd for a while now against Manny, and last night did nothing to change that, despite what was a completely dominant performance from Pacquiao. Forget the fact that 3 blind idiots decided Bradley won, there's no question Pacquiao won by any measure you chose to use. The word robbery gets used too often in boxing, Marquez v Pacquiao III was not a robbery. It was a close fight that Marquez controlled for large portions and can feel he has as much right to a victory as Pacquiao does (just the same as the first two fights), in those cases it comes down purely to how 3 specific people judge it but arguments can easily be made for both fighters winning.
What we saw last night was without doubt a robbery, Bradley has no right whatsoever to feel he deserves the win. It's just a gobsmacking verdict, I can't recall such a bad decision, maybe Froch v Dirrell, but even then you can make a case for Froch and you just can't for Bradley.
In a funny way, that happening last night might make a Mayweather v Pac Man fight slightly more likely. The current dispute was over the money split, Pacquiao wants 50/50, Mayweather says nobody gets that, it's a guaranteed £40m take it or leave it. It's the kind of situation where both sides will feel they're in the right, so the chances of their ego's allowing them to reach a comprimise were pretty much non existent. Maybe Pacquiao will now concede that he doesn't have the right to 50/50, and £40m is far more than he can make fighting someone else anyway. Either way I don't think they'd have been fighting til next year anyway, so if it doesn't happen, it was never going to.
What we saw last night was without doubt a robbery, Bradley has no right whatsoever to feel he deserves the win. It's just a gobsmacking verdict, I can't recall such a bad decision, maybe Froch v Dirrell, but even then you can make a case for Froch and you just can't for Bradley.
In a funny way, that happening last night might make a Mayweather v Pac Man fight slightly more likely. The current dispute was over the money split, Pacquiao wants 50/50, Mayweather says nobody gets that, it's a guaranteed £40m take it or leave it. It's the kind of situation where both sides will feel they're in the right, so the chances of their ego's allowing them to reach a comprimise were pretty much non existent. Maybe Pacquiao will now concede that he doesn't have the right to 50/50, and £40m is far more than he can make fighting someone else anyway. Either way I don't think they'd have been fighting til next year anyway, so if it doesn't happen, it was never going to.