Pacquiao v Bradley Discussion Continued

[Unknown Pleasures]

You're so full of shit. He never said any such thing.

He heard the boos and said he wanted to watch the tape to see if he'd won. I thought he showed a lot of class but he didn't say he lost.

LOL. Read rest of post before spouting off. Talk less, listen more. BEFORE they read the scorecards Moves Like Jagger Bradley was talking about what would happen in a Pac vs. Mayweather fight. And he was riding Pac's jock in his comments "Mayweather will never stop him. Mayweather will never beat him". Not surprisingly, he wasn't talking about what would happen in a Bradley vs. Mayweather fight. Reason is, he thought he was going to lose the decision. And he thought that because he deserved to lose a decision. Clearly. Then when he got the gift, he felt he had to "watch the tape to see if he'd won"... such confidence in your performance LOL.

 

[MC Paul Barman]

Just watched the 7th round on The Fight Game with no audio and gave it to Bradley.

 

[Confucamus]

Not flaming, did you post your card slim?

Page 10

 

[RichardSwingslo]

Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

 

[armbarforhire]

Clean effective punching- which means a punch that isn't blocked and has an effect on the flow of the fight. Counting punches is not the right way to score C&E punching. People try to make a distinction at times at who hits harder but theres no way to judge that unless you're getting hit with the punches or a fighter gets knocked down or visibly hurt. IMO, Williams/Lara is a good example of a guy throwing a lot more punches but clearly losing this category.

Effective aggression- the guy walking forward may be the aggressor but if its not doing anything for him, its nothing. Look at Ali/Frazier one to see Frazier being an effective aggressor.

Defense- easy one, if you avoid or block punches, you're defending them.

Ring generalship- toughest one to explain. A fighter who cuts off the ring and corners and opponent which leads to him getting work done is an example of someone being the ring general. On the other hand, the guy who boxes well, stays off the ropes and makes a guy chase can also bethe ring general.

The emphasis is on clean punching followed equally by the other 3 criteria.So if punching is close, you look at how effective a guy was as the aggressor and how well a guy defended that aggression. If thats close, which it rarely is, then you have to look at who is controlling the pace and flow of the fight, the ring general. You should be considering all of these when watching a fight.

That one confuses me. Because cuts, blood and facial damage is said to not be counted. Yet moving a fighters head or wobbling him with a punch is.

In the facial damage argument, people also say that just because a guy has heavier hands doesnt mean he is winning the "boxing match" (boxing being a sport, not a fight after all), but the havier hands can also wobble or move the head, as does a chin help eat the punches.

To make matters more confusing damage is mentioned by lots of boxing writers after the end of fighs (for example Bradley going to the press conference in a worse shape than pacman) as a measure of "who really won a fight".

 

[OGquickdraw]

That one confuses me. Because cuts, blood and facial damage is said to not be counted. Yet moving a fighters head or wobbling him with a punch is.

In the facial damage argument, people also say that just because a guy has heavier hands doesnt mean he is winning the "boxing match" (boxing being a sport, not a fight after all), but the havier hands can also wobble or move the head, as does a chin help eat the punches.

To make matters more confusing damage is mentioned by lots of boxing writers after the end of fighs (for example Bradley going to the press conference in a worse shape than pacman) as a measure of "who really won a fight".

Ok I'll try to explain for you holmes. Boxing while is a sport, is like no other. There is a defined set of rules and ways to score and win, however there is a way to forgo that with a finish. A KO ends the game, no second chances, points dont mean shit. So when you wobble or hurt someone you have put them in that "danger zone" you have started to take them to that abrupt ending. While this isn't part of your standard scoring it still matters. View it as an alternate ending.

Facial damage isnt scored because, someone cuts easy or gets a black eye it doesn't really mean you almost knocked them out. It doesn't mean you controlled them in the majority of four points of boxing eaither, you could have just landed one single shot that landed on their brow and split them. If this is confusing sorry, it's late where im at.


EDIT: just showing you how unique boxing is. In Harry potter they play that sport on flying brooms. You score points to win, but if you catch the gold ball thing its an instant win and you get points for close attempts and catching it. I was trying to think of somthing to use as an example and this was the only thing I could think of lol

 

[Sunfish]

Page 10

So score 2 and 7 for Timmy and what you got. I don't understand you and the pres going at it so strong but whatever, you can easily get this closer even by what you put in writing on page 10. Close fight, good fight. I have barely seen anyone credit that or say that Manny deserves props for taking on an undefeated champ after 60 fights.

 

[The President]

if he gave him 2 and 7 then he should realize that a lot of people gave Bradley 1,11,12, but the scores together and you've got a very close fight that could go either way. These people saying it's a robbery don't even make sense.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

That one confuses me. Because cuts, blood and facial damage is said to not be counted. Yet moving a fighters head or wobbling him with a punch is.

In the facial damage argument, people also say that just because a guy has heavier hands doesnt mean he is winning the "boxing match" (boxing being a sport, not a fight after all), but the havier hands can also wobble or move the head, as does a chin help eat the punches.

To make matters more confusing damage is mentioned by lots of boxing writers after the end of fighs (for example Bradley going to the press conference in a worse shape than pacman) as a measure of "who really won a fight".

Another thing to consider is some fighters traditionally just cut easy. More of an issue when fighters fought more often and had less time to recover damaged tissue, but someones skin tissue or cheek bones really should not be a telling factor in a fight. Antuofermo and Gatti are likely pretty good examples. Also, cuts and swelling are often caused by not the best quality punches, like when a fighter catches a thumb to the eye, or a skin tear because a clenched boxing glove causes the folds of leather on the outside of glove which often causes cuts when nicking an opponents soft tissue, not the fist.

But to say strength of punches doesn't matter is one of the most absolutely absurd things I've heard in a long time.

Obviously there is no exact science to determing how hard a punch is, but judges use judgement. Swear, some people are so pathetic in their understanding of boxing that they basically think oscillating your first against an opponent in a clinch for two seconds should count as 10 clean scoring blows and worth more than throwing and landing 100 bombs because they nick an opponent's guard on the way through.

When you got clowns like that you're going to have outlier scorecards in quite a few fights.

 

[Confucamus]

if he gave him 2 and 7 then he should realize that a lot of people gave Bradley 1,11,12, but the scores together and you've got a very close fight that could go either way. These people saying it's a robbery don't even make sense.

I did not give Bradley the 7th. I did give him the 2nd though. In my first scoring I gave Bradley the 10th, 11th, and 12th. On my second re score I gave Manny the 11th. Yes, I agree that it was a closer fight than previously thought. I still believe that it was a clear Pacquiao victory. 8-4 or 9-3 sounds about right to me.

 

[Sunfish]

if he gave him 2 and 7 then he should realize that a lot of people gave Bradley 1,11,12, but the scores together and you've got a very close fight that could go either way. These people saying it's a robbery don't even make sense.

The theme seems to be one side saying Manny clearly won against people who aren't necessarily disagreeing but saying it was a close fight. I don't understand.

Please keep posting your card and ignore the trolls.

 

[Seano]

That one confuses me. Because cuts, blood and facial damage is said to not be counted. Yet moving a fighters head or wobbling him with a punch is.

In the facial damage argument, people also say that just because a guy has heavier hands doesnt mean he is winning the "boxing match" (boxing being a sport, not a fight after all), but the havier hands can also wobble or move the head, as does a chin help eat the punches.

To make matters more confusing damage is mentioned by lots of boxing writers after the end of fighs (for example Bradley going to the press conference in a worse shape than pacman) as a measure of "who really won a fight".

Was Bradley bleeding? Did he have facial damage? Pac did. Bradley did not.

Also, a fighters head moving with a shot- how can you be sure he wasn't rolling with the shot? Thats why you score clean scoring blows because its something you can actually see and not just make an assumption about.

That last paragraph - some guys can take punches all night and never swell or cut. Some guys will split open and bleed like pigs from one clean shot. Thats the reason that a few people thought Clottey beat Cotto when he pretty clearly lost to Cotto on points.

 

[consortium11]

The theme seems to be one side saying Manny clearly won against people who aren't necessarily disagreeing but saying it was a close fight. I don't understand.

Please keep posting your card and ignore the trolls.

That's basically it.

Seano (and to a lesser extent I) appear to be the two main lightning rods for criticism. But most of the "arguments" (and I use that term loosely considering the level of some of the responses) aren't actually against what Seano and I (who have roughly similar positions) are suggesting.

I scored it 115-113 Bradley on the night and on replay. Seano had it a draw and now 115-113 Bradley. But we both think the fight was close with even closer rounds... which is why we've consistently said that any score between 115-113 Bradley and 116-112 Pac is a reasonable score that we could go along with. We could (and probably would) debate individual rounds but we'd have no real issue with the result. If when the scores had been read out it had ended as 115-113, 116-112 and even 117-111 for Pac I wouldn't have minded, wouldn't have called it a robbery and wouldn't have thrown a tantrum. I've got no problem with someone thinking Pac won.

What I (and Seano appear to) have a problem with is why some people are calling the fight for Pac. We have people relying entirely on Compubox numbers (and has anyone managed to find 35 punches Pac landed in round four, let alone 35 scoring punches). We have problems with people thinking clean punching is the leading criteria for judging a round despite there being no evidence it should be. We have issues with people saying the despite the guidelines saying that a blocked or deflected punch doesn't score that it actually does. We have issues with people saying that it was clearly a whitewash with Bradley struggling to win a round. You can look at President's exchanges with slimpickenz84 to see what we object to... a good example being Slim thinking it's "biased" to outline that Bradley's effective footwork meant that Pac couldn't land punches or follow up his flurries as well as struggling to keep balanced... all of which factor in both defence and ring generalship.

As time has gone by more and more people who thought it was an absolute blowout on fight night now think it was at least closer and often genuinely close. Without Lederman and Lampley whispering sweet nothing in their ear people are more willing to notice that some of those "huge" punches from Pac were avoided or blocked and that Bradley did actually land some (good) punches himself. Neither me or Seano expect everyone to agree on rounds (for example I gave Pac the fourth, he thinks it goes to Bradley)... but anyone who thinks that both rounds and the fight itself weren't relatively close (whichever way it turns out) is being deliberately obtuse.

 

[The President]

Round 4


I've noticed that watching this round on mute makes a hell of a difference. Probably the best round of the fight though, great from both guys. Up until 2:42 Bradley pressures Pacquiao and lands some good effective body shots. Up until 2:07 the two fighter exchange, Pacquiao lands a good left hand to the top, but Bradley landed a good left hook upstairs and a very nice right hook to the body, I think he got the better of that exchange. At 2:05 the fighters exchange big hooks, Bradley catches pacquiao with a nice right hook and Pacquiao counters with a great left hook. Up until 1:25 its sloppy work from both fighters but Bradley is the one applying the pressure. Up until 1:17 Pacquaio throws some combinations but no punchers appaer to land. Good variety from Pacquiao though. Good combination from Bradley at 1:12, not hard shots, bet a couple of left hooks definitely got through, good work. Bradley throws a counter right hand at 0:49 that appears to stop Pacquiao in his tracks a little, can't tell if it lands cleanly though. Up until 1:38 Pacquiao rallies with a flurry of punches but out of all them I only counted one short left hook that got through, Bradley didn't appear to be hurt by any of those shots, he did very well to avoid them and showed good defense. He then falls back and twists his ankle, but I don't think you can discredit him for that. Up until 0:25 Bradley looks a little tired but avoids every single punch Pacquiao throws, not one lands. In sistuations like this, Pacquiao has to get credit for his aggression but Bradley has to get credit for his defense. You also have to consider clean punching, Pacquiao isn't throwing clean punches. Both fighters exchange towards the end of the round, Pacquiao with a good left hook to the body, Bradley with a nice right to the body and a left hook upstairs. The round concludes with Bradley landing a good hard right hand, perhaps the best punch of the round.

This was a close round, could of went either way, the commentary was very bias in this round and made people believe that Bradley was hurt and surviving, when in reality he gave as good as he got in most exchanges and came out better in a couple of them. I also don't think he was hurt in the round. Both guys were pretty much equal with their hands, they both landed good shots, when this happens you have to look at the other criteria. Bradley definitely had a great defense in this round, his upper body movememnt was superb in avoiding Pacquiao's flurries. Ring Generalship was close, I'd have to call that one even. He also gets the nod in effective aggression, Pacquiao's aggression didn't do much but waste punches, Bradley pushed Pacquiao back and landed good body work in this round.


Ring Generalship: As stated above, this was a close one with both fighters taking turns controlling the ring, Pacquiao showed better lateral movement this round, but Bradley kept backing him him and he won the battle of the jabs in the center of the ring. This one has to be even

Defense: Bradley gets this one, he should of been credited a lot more, if that was Floyd Mayweather ducking and doging those punches, he would of been hailed as a defensive genius. If your making the best offensive fighter in the world piss 10-12 punch combinations then you are doing something right. I've looked at the slow mo's and struggle to count on one hand the amount of clean punches Pacquiao landed in this flurries.

Effective Aggression: As stated in the body of my post, when pacquiao is aggressive, he is wasting shots, he isn't hitting anything. When Bradley is aggressive he backs Pacquiao up and hits him to the body. Pacquiao needs to work on menouvering Bradley into better positions before he flurries, which shows a lack of ring generalship. I can see why people thought Pacquiao was really effective in this round but if you slow down all those punches, he doesn't land many at all.

Clean Punching: I'm going to call this one even too, and I'm being nice to Pacquiao here. I can't possibly give him this criteria because he was far too innacurate with his shots, but he did land some nice punches during those close quater exchanges and he showed off some counter punching ability as well. Bradley's best spells in this fight didn't really involve clean punching, he was digging in body shots and going on top of and inbetween pacquiao's high guard, but he wasn't really showing off clean punches until they exchanged, and that's when both guys stood out.

With that said I give this round the Bradley, I think he often got the better of those exchanges by throwing good bodyshots and tighter combinations. He also landed the best punch of the round which was a right hand just before the bell. Both fighters boxed well in this round and took turns controlling the pace. Initialy I gave Pacquiao this round but after slowing down a lot of the action, he misses A LOT in this round, and I have to credit Bradley for his defense whenever that happens. I think Bradley matched Pacquiao punch for punch when they exchanged and when they weren't exchanging he was always shooting his jab, controlling the range and backing Pacquiao up. To me though, his body work won him this round, he was much more ffective with those shots than Pacquiao was.

I have a feeling this may be a bit controversial and I expect a lot of you to dispute this round with me but it was a close roudn whatever way you look at it, you can't say either fighter dominated. Going through the four criteria and looking at both fighters work throughout the fight I had to give this one to Bradley!

Bradley 10-9 Pacquiao

 

[consortium11]

Still looking for the 35 punches Compubox think Pac landed in round 4...

 

[Seano]

I gave round 4 to Bradley too but thats an iffy one. People basically thought Pac won that round because they THOUGHT Pac hurt Bradley in that exchange late in the round, I personally didn't see that many shots land clean there and I thought Bradley closed the round with the 2 best punches of the round, a hook that knocked MAnny back and a nice clubbing overhand.

 

[The President]

You will be looking for a long time, I counted 13/14 clean punches for Pacquiao, his accuracy is appalling this round.

 

[Sunfish]

I still have Manny winning round 4. I said it was clear at the time and have it less clear but still for Manny now. I had it a draw on the night and probably 1 round for Manny now.

I went back and looked at round 4 way back in this thread. If you include him slapping the ribs in the clinch I have 25 landed shots.

 

[The President]

I'd agree that if your counting punches that crape and graze, slapping punches in clinches then 25 is about the most you can give him, I looked for the punches I could definitely see landed and got 14. It's clear they counted the majority of punches Pacquiao throw in those flurries, even though he was missing 90%.

Very close round though, great action.

 

[Seano]

I still have Manny winning round 4. I said it was clear at the time and have it less clear but still for Manny now. I had it a draw on the night and probably 1 round for Manny now.

I went back and looked at round 4 way back in this thread. If you include him slapping the ribs in the clinch I have 25 landed shots.

Yeah, round 4 was one of two that I'm not sure I am satisfied with how I scored them. The other being round 8 which I gave to Pac. I look at round 8 and I'm not sure why I gave it to Pacquiao.