Pacquiao v Bradley Discussion Continued

[eddymotto]

The fact is, a lot of people have come out and said the commentary misled them and they saw the fight much closer after a second viewing and really having paid attention.

I don't care about press row and online polls. I watched the fight and I saw the same fight the judges did. If other people saw a different fight, thats their business.

of course. I have never argued directly with how anyone scored that fight.

However, given your confidence in your opinion, I just don't understand why you mix and match the opinion of others into your arguments. you say you don't care about press row but you do care that "a lot of people have come out...". It would appear that you do apply weight to the opinions of those who agree with you while dismissing those that don't. it is illogical.

your card is an outlier. I don't see any reason for you to budge on how you saw the fight if you don't want to.

 

[Seano]

of course. I have never argued directly with how anyone scored that fight.

However, given your confidence in your opinion, I just don't understand why you mix and match the opinion of others into your arguments. you say you don't care about press row but you do care that "a lot of people have come out...". It would appear that you do apply weight to the opinions of those who agree with you while dismissing those that don't. it is illogical.

your card is an outlier. I don't see any reason for you to budge on how you saw the fight if you don't want to.

I have not once used anyone other than the judges as reasoning for my score.

I've mentioned a couple of names of respectable figures who saw the fight for Bradley, but not in support of my own card.

 

[eddymotto]

1. Firstly, not one person said HBO caused a public outcry. The argument is that HBO were incredibly bias towards Manny Pacquiao, which isn't debatable. Watch the video posted earlier in this thread if you have doubts on that. If you think that's fine just because many people Pacquiao won anyway then fine, but think about what you are saying. HBO made it out that the fight was a total whitewash, that is not in line with popular opinion, don't kid your self. Whether or not HBO did in fact that much influence is not the main problem here, it's the fact they were so plainly bias with the intent of serving an injustice to Timothy Bradley. That's the issue here, it's not just about this fight. HBO 100% added to the public outcry for this fight, they never caused it, but they added to it. As the biggest boxing broadcasters in the world, they shouldn't be so bias, it has turned boxing into somewhat of a joke, it's essentially a popularity contest. So much of Bradley's work was overlooked. Something needs to be done about such blatant bias, it's a big issue.

2. Re watching a fight is more accurate, no two ways about it. When you watch a fight live, your still influenced by what others think, your also influenced by the crowd, adrenaline and commentary. Re watching the fight generally encourages a more informed scorecard, as you are in a more level headed position to judge the fight. If you are influenced by what people have said, then that's just the way some people are, but like I said, your still influenced by people on fight night. The advantages of re watching a fight far outweigh the drawbacks.

As for your points:

2. This would be disastrous. You really think you should trust media outlets, as if they are aren't self important and guided by clear agendas? It's like asking The Sun newspaper to pick who they want to be Prime Minister. Journalists are their to report on the fight, unfortunately, given the way mass media works, it is in the best interests of certain companies and media outlets to favor the work of a certain fighters. As well as this, what do Journalists know about scoring fights? You'd be better off picking a random group of boxing fans, they'd be equally as qualified.

3. Punch technology already exists, and it's dreadful. I'm not sure how you could create technology that is more accurate without adding sensors to the gloves and fighters. Anything like Compubox is pointless, because it's proven to be widely innacurate. It's just three guys pushing buttons watching a fight at full speed in real time, how accurate could it possibly be?

You don't like HBO. I get it.

But the fact remains that the scores put forward by Lederman (and implicity supported by the rest of the HBO crew) were not that far off what a large sample of boxing journalists independently came up with.

I understand you have issues with HBO above and beyond this fight.

We are so far apart on the re-watching thing that I won't comment. Other then to say I read what you wrote. Thanks.

As for, improving judging, I do believe that grading judges scorecards over time would be an effective measure of performance. The whole point of getting a broad sample is too eliminate the impact of individual bias. So while you use the example of getting the Sun to pick PM, the better analogy would be to exit polls. Sampling a relatively small group of people is an excellent predictor of how the population will vote. its just stats.

The punch technology I referred to was sensor based. Please refer to the thread I previously mentioned.

Finally, can you refer me to anything that has "proven" Compubox to be wildly inaccurate. If you have counted punches yourself and you don't like the system, fine. I am just wondering if you have a reference to anything bigger. Thanks

 

[eddymotto]

I have not once used anyone other than the judges as reasoning for my score.

I've mentioned a couple of names of respectable figures who saw the fight for Bradley, but not in support of my own card.

sure thing

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

More and more I realize that those who scored it for Bradley are incredibly dishonest, hypocritical and most likely just started watching Boxing.

 

[Seano]

More and more I realize that those who scored it for Bradley the more I realize I am an incredible douche.

You just can't get over this huh?

Insulting fellow posters on this site doesn't make the pain go away.

 

[The President]

You don't like HBO. I get it.

But the fact remains that the scores put forward by Lederman (and implicity supported by the rest of the HBO crew) were not that far off what a large sample of boxing journalists independently came up with.

I understand you have issues with HBO above and beyond this fight.

We are so far apart on the re-watching thing that I won't comment. Other then to say I read what you wrote. Thanks.

As for, improving judging, I do believe that grading judges scorecards over time would be an effective measure of performance. The whole point of getting a broad sample is too eliminate the impact of individual bias. So while you use the example of getting the Sun to pick PM, the better analogy would be to exit polls. Sampling a relatively small group of people is an excellent predictor of how the population will vote. its just stats.

The punch technology I referred to was sensor based. Please refer to the thread I previously mentioned.

Finally, can you refer me to anything that has "proven" Compubox to be wildly inaccurate. If you have counted punches yourself and you don't like the system, fine. I am just wondering if you have a reference to anything bigger. Thanks

If you don't think HBO were in any way wrong on fight night, then there's not much me point continuing this debate. I think it's pretty obvious they influenced plenty of people, what better evidence is there than people actually coming on this thread and saying so?! If you think the majority of people thought Pacquiao was landing when he was missing clearly and that Bradley was hurt every time he got hit then fair enough, but we we're watching a different fight.

What your asking for here is for boxing to be turned into a popularity contest, it's not about how many fans think Pacquiao or Bradley won, it's about the professional judges. Fans are bias by nature, they are fans of certain fighters. Journalists are fans, why do you think so many media outlets are ridiculed because of bias towards certain fighters? Ever heard of 'Floydhype'?, would you trust a reporter from that site judging a Mayweather fight to be bias? There's too many holes in your argument here.

As for Compubox, my self and many other people have counted the punches in round 4 and I haven't seen anyone count more than 20+ landed punches for Pacquiao in a round he supposedly landed 35. Going by the way I counted one round, you'd probably see his punch stats being close to halved. Compubox has been a joke for sometime now, if you want me to provide you with examples of it being clearly wrong in other fighters I will be happy to, but I really don't think you need to see that to work out how wrong Compubox usually is.

 

[Seano]

The commentary and compubox absolutely influenced many people. Just because that doesn't apply to one specific person doesn't mean it doesn't apply to many others.

Almost every poster I've argued with about this fight has mentioned compubox as part of their argument and a blind man could see that compubox was hilariously inaccurate there.

 

[Katriona1992]

For what its worth, while I still think that the Pacman did enough to win by a small margin, the compubox stats were plain ridiculous. It was like "how many punches Manny threw vs how many punches Bradley landed" lol

 

[Roflcer Lawlz]

the compubox stats were plain ridiculous. It was like "how many punches Manny threw vs how many punches Bradley landed" lol

Can you count Mannys 35 punches in round 4 please?

 

[Patman]

Can you count Mannys 35 punches in round 4 please?

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic.

That was the guy's point. Compubox credited way too much of Manny's thrown punches as landed punches.

 

[Confucamus]

Compubox isn't accurate to a T. Everyone knows this. How many times do we have to beat that dead horse? Besides, it's a dumb way to discredit Manny because even if you subtract 50, 60, maybe 70 punches if you want, he still outboxed Bradley by a wide margin.

 

[The President]

Compubox isn't accurate to a T. Everyone knows this. How many times do we have to beat that dead horse? Besides, it's a dumb way to discredit Manny because even if you subtract 50, 60, maybe 70 punches if you want, he still outboxed Bradley by a wide margin.

It might be irrelevant to you because you think Pacquiao won by a large margin, more people than you think, don't follow that same line of thought. A lot of people had this a close fight, if anyone's beating a dead horse here it's you I'm afraid.

 

[Confucamus]

I had it 8-4 Pac. You're right, a lot of people had this a closer fight. However, almost everybody still has Pac winning. You trying to discredit everyone who had Pac winning because of hypnotic HBO commentary that brainwashes people or nobody knowing how to properly score (except you and anybody who scored it for Bradley of course) is the dead horse you're beating.

 

[SuwoopBangin]

Just watched the fight again and I scored it 10-2 Timothy Bradley

 

[Hagler]

Just watched the fight again and I scored it 10-2 Timothy Bradley

Congrats, your son did pretty well.

 

[eddymotto]

If you don't think HBO were in any way wrong on fight night, then there's not much me point continuing this debate. I think it's pretty obvious they influenced plenty of people, what better evidence is there than people actually coming on this thread and saying so?! If you think the majority of people thought Pacquiao was landing when he was missing clearly and that Bradley was hurt every time he got hit then fair enough, but we we're watching a different fight.

What your asking for here is for boxing to be turned into a popularity contest, it's not about how many fans think Pacquiao or Bradley won, it's about the professional judges. Fans are bias by nature, they are fans of certain fighters. Journalists are fans, why do you think so many media outlets are ridiculed because of bias towards certain fighters? Ever heard of 'Floydhype'?, would you trust a reporter from that site judging a Mayweather fight to be bias? There's too many holes in your argument here.

As for Compubox, my self and many other people have counted the punches in round 4 and I haven't seen anyone count more than 20+ landed punches for Pacquiao in a round he supposedly landed 35. Going by the way I counted one round, you'd probably see his punch stats being close to halved. Compubox has been a joke for sometime now, if you want me to provide you with examples of it being clearly wrong in other fighters I will be happy to, but I really don't think you need to see that to work out how wrong Compubox usually is.

I don't have anything to add to the stats and reasoning that I provided earlier in the thread.

But thanks for your response.

As for CompuBox, I see posts which dismiss CompuBox and, since you seem to share that opinion, maybe you can fill me in on what you think is wrong with it. Is the methodology flawed? "counters" bad at their jobs? corruption?

 

[eddymotto]

The commentary and compubox absolutely influenced many people. Just because that doesn't apply to one specific person doesn't mean it doesn't apply to many others.

Of course commentary influences people.

However, the distribution of scores from a sample population which did not hear HBO or see the CompuBox numbers was consistent with the overall population.

Or, to put it another way, most people who didn't see HBO/Compubox thought Manny won. Most people who did see HBO/CompuBox thought that Manny won. hence there is no evidence that HBO commentary is the reason why most people thought Manny won

 

[Sunfish]

I don't have anything to add to the stats and reasoning that I provided earlier in the thread.

But thanks for your response.

As for CompuBox, I see posts which dismiss CompuBox and, since you seem to share that opinion, maybe you can fill me in on what you think is wrong with it. Is the methodology flawed? "counters" bad at their jobs? corruption?

Two guys clicking from different angles with different ideas of what's a clean punch in an arena with 10,000 people in it being treated as gospel by the commentators and fans is my problem with it.

If it was re looked at and reanalysed with slo mo and all angles it would have some semblance of use.

 

[The President]

Of course commentary influences people.

However, the distribution of scores from a sample population which did not hear HBO or see the CompuBox numbers was consistent with the overall population.

Or, to put it another way, most people who didn't see HBO/Compubox thought Manny won. Most people who did see HBO/CompuBox thought that Manny won. hence there is no evidence that HBO commentary is the reason why most people thought Manny won

See that's where your going wrong, no one said HBO Commentary is the reason why most people thought Manny won, not one person said that. The only arguments you have seen are that the commentary was bias and did influence people, it wasn't the reason Manny won, but it did play a role in people thinking this fight was a shutout. So basically your arguing your own point that nobody is negating. I think you've came to too many conclusions without reason to.

As for the Compubox issue, the system doesn't work because it's not really a technology, it's entirely human dependent. It's three guys who watch the fight in real time and press buttons that correlate to the punches thrown. When ever human nature becomes involved, so does personal opinion and perception, sometimes it can look like a punch lands when it doesn't, one person might think it does, the other might not. One counter might want to count punches that hit gloves as landing punches, another may not. Combine these elements with the fact these guys watch the fight at full speed, so miss a lot of action and you usually get results that are not a just representation of what happens in the ring. Then you get HBO using the numbers as if they are numerical facts, they'll base their arguments of who is winning based off the numbers, and use the numbers to support their arguments. Not only that, those numbers constantly getting aired can influence people watching who are not aware of how inaccurate Compubox often is, thus misrepresenting the action of the fight.