Pacquiao v Bradley Discussion Continued

[MC Paul Barman]

Seems legit.

(Picture belongs to freakingnews.com)

I knew it!!
God bless you, sunfish!

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Pacquiao won this fight and most professional fighters agree....

Props to tim Bradley for fighting through a broken bone..

 

[Hagler]

Damn Pac haters...

None of the WBO judges who scored the fight scored the fight the same. Between the 5, they had 7 different rounds for Bradley.

If you include the official judges, I believe they had 11 different rounds for Bradley.

It was a close fight, Bradley got it though and he earned it. Simple as that. If Pac had such an easy time, he should just rematch Bradley.

Pac haters aren't as many as his fans, even as flat out Pactards, but they do exist and you know it.

I've said that this was a close fight, and I've never said Pac had an easy time or that he would blow Bradley out of the water in a rematch. Bradley got the same kind of decision that Pac got in his 3rd Marquez fight, only more controversial. These things happen in boxing and both fighters and fans have to do with it. But this is hardly enough to deny Pac's boxing skills and claim that he would have no chance to win a rematch. Sounds like hating to me. That was my point.

 

[OGquickdraw]

The better fighter was the winner, the fighter who should of been better got exposed for not the first time in his career. If you wan't to keep counting punches that clearly miss and score based on crowd noise and ineffective aggression go ahead, but don't expect the professionals to score like that.

How on earth would Pacquiao dominate the rematch? He's already shown he couldn't put Bradley away, he's showed he can't outbox him so how would he dominate him? Bradley controlled Pacquiao for at least 75% of the fight, out moving him, out boxing him and out thinking him. Once Bradley had adapted, he won the last three rounds on most peoples cards. He'd go into the rematch starting as he finished, knowing how to beat Pacquiao.

I posted my round by round analysis and you failed to launch any serious arguments. All I'm going to say is be careful with what you wager on a rematch, you don't score fights correctly and that could come back to bite you. Just please don't cry once Bradley gets the decision again.

The president is a proper name for you. Your crazy as hell

 

[The President]

No one said Bradley was going to blow Pacquiao out of the water in a rematch, I think he would win a clear but close decision. The only people spouting such none sense here are Pacquiao fans making out the rematch to be a foregone conclusion. I can almost guarantee those same people, made those same uninformed, categorical statements before the first fight, and they were made to eat their own words. The only person I have seen in here saying the rematch wont be close is Slim. I've presented my arguments as to why Bradley will win the rematch and I haven't see anyone refute my logic yet.

As for the above poster, I'm crazy because I think Bradley will another decision? Pacquiao is a limited fighter, a lot of you need to get that into your heads, it will make the defeats a lot easier to take.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

As for the above poster, I'm crazy because I think Bradley will another decision? Pacquiao is a limited fighter, a lot of you need to get that into your heads, it will make the defeats a lot easier to take.

Ok...you are officially a troll...remind me to not take u seriously anymore.

 

[Hagler]

As for the above poster, I'm crazy because I think Bradley will another decision? Pacquiao is a limited fighter, a lot of you need to get that into your heads, it will make the defeats a lot easier to take.

No need to read your walls of text anymore. Thanks for making this clear.

 

[Sunfish]

Ok...you are officially a troll...remind me to not take u seriously anymore.

The pot called...

 

[WatchMeDoMe**]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before or not but let's look at the judges for this fight.

Duane Ford and C.J. Ross both had it 115-113 for Bradley. Both are very experienced judges with many title fights under their belts.

Jerry Roth scored it 115-113 for Pacquiao. She is a comparatively inexperienced judge who scored Rios-Abril 116-112 for Rios.

If you watch the whole PPV replay, before the fight when Harold Letterman reviews the judges, he comments on Ford and Ross being excellent judges while commenting on Roth's obvious miss on Rios-Abril and even stating that he was 'worried' (or something to that effect) about Roth.


Just making a point. Interpret it as you like.

 

[The President]

Ok...you are officially a troll...remind me to not take u seriously anymore.

Stop embarrassing your self, you probably don't even know what the word means. You can come back to this discussion when you have something worthwhile to add kid, until then, you can carry on throwing out random insults to try make your self look cool on the internet :wink:

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

No need to read your walls of text anymore. Thanks for making this clear.

No kidding...this guy is a joke..

 

[Hagler]

So, to make it clear : some people are saying that a guy who started fighting at 107, then won world titles in 6+categories and has a positive record against a whole bunch of future hall-of-famers, because he lost a fight at 147 (after a 17 years-long career) that happened to be the most controversial decison in the last 10 years or so, is a "limited" fighter.

Interesting.

 

[Sunfish]

So, to make it clear : some people are saying that a guy who started fighting at 107, then won world titles in 6+categories and has a positive record against a whole bunch of future hall-of-famers, because he lost a fight at 147 (after a 17 years-long career) that happened to be the most controversial decison in the last 10 years or so, is a "limited" fighter.

Interesting.

I'm not calling him that. But out of interest how did you score the last 3 rounds of the fight? Logical, I'd be interested in your score as well.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

So, to make it clear : some people are saying that a guy who started fighting at 107, then won world titles in 6+categories and has a positive record against a whole bunch of future hall-of-famers, because he lost a fight at 147 (after a 17 years-long career) that happened to be the most controversial decison in the last 10 years or so, is a "limited" fighter.

Interesting.

Exactly right...how is this not fighter bashing or just being plain stupid?

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

I'm not calling him that. But out of interest how did you score the last 3 rounds of the fight? Logical, I'd be interested in your score as well.

I scored the last 3 rounds for Bradley.

 

[Sunfish]

Exactly right...how is this not fighter bashing or just being plain stupid?

Fighter bashing... Stop trying to get people banned. That's bullshit.

 

[Hagler]

Well, I scored the last 3 rounds 2-1 or 3-0 for Bradley, and I still don't see how it makes Pacquiao a limited fighter.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Fighter bashing... Stop trying to get people banned. That's bullshit.

Calling a fighter who won 6+ world titles a "not a very good fighter " is fighter bashing....its the equivalent of calling him a can....

 

[Sunfish]

Well, I scored the last 3 rounds 2-1 or 3-0 for Bradley, and I still don't see how it makes Pacquiao a limited fighter.

Im not saying that. All I was interested in, was that after 10, roach told Manny he was up 6-4. This is why i don't understand why people don't think this was a close fight.

Edit: and to clarify if you both think that Bradley took the last two and think you can rely on Freddie roach you have this a draw.

 

[Sunfish]

Calling a fighter who won 6+ world titles a "not a very good fighter " is fighter bashing....its the equivalent of calling him a can....

Who said that? And no it isn't.