Pacquiao vs Bradley fight discussion

[Seano]

Haha, thanks. But isn't it CJ Ross?

Regardless, A for me. I gave Bradley rounds 1, 10, 12.

Can you explain why you gave Pac round 11? I've asked this over and over and no one has given me an answer yet.

 

[Seano]

WTF, when did HBO start putting the UFC on youtube videos?

 

[Seano]

How come no one is willing to explain their scoring of the fight?

 

[Sunfish]

Slim, I know you read all these, please post your card.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Can you explain why you gave Pac round 11? I've asked this over and over and no one has given me an answer yet.

Sure. I'll start by saying this was the closest round that I gave in Pacs favor.

Bradley showing jabs as Pac circles for about the 1st minute. Bradley connects well with a few jabs, especially at 2:10, but most are blocked or miss.

Bradley continues to paw at Pacquiao the 2nd min. Bradley lands his best shot of the round at 1:15; a stiff jab that snaps Mannys head back.

Pacquiao turns it on in the last minute. Lands the two best shots of the round at about the :50 mark, a right hook and left straight.

Pacquiao the aggressor the rest of the round, which sees Bradley land two clean good body shots and Pac landing a few jabs and a left.

Close round, I gave to Pac.

 

[Seano]

Slim, I know you read all these, please post your card.

I've asked a dozen different posters to explain how they gave Pac round 11. Haven't had one answer.

edit[- had one answer. Thanks for the answer BKMMa

 

[Seano]

Sure. I'll start by saying this was the closest round that I gave in Pacs favor.

Bradley showing jabs as Pac circles for about the 1st minute. Bradley connects well with a few jabs, especially at 2:10, but most are blocked or miss.

Bradley continues to paw at Pacquiao the 2nd min. Bradley lands his best shot of the round at 1:15; a stiff jab that snaps Mannys head back.

Pacquiao turns it on in the last minute. Lands the two best shots of the round at about the :50 mark, a right hook and left straight.

Pacquiao the aggressor the rest of the round, which sees Bradley land two clean good body shots and Pac landing a few jabs and a left.

Close round, I gave to Pac.

I thought this round was an example of Pac waiting way too long to shift gears.

I had to laugh at the commentary. Lampley spends the whole round talking about Pac doing nothing, then when the bell rings "Another GREAT round by Pacquiao!"

Also, anyone catch when Lampley said that Pac landed "3 bangs that round?"

 

[Sunfish]

I've asked a dozen different posters to explain how they gave Pac round 11. Haven't had one answer.

edit[- had one answer. Thanks for the answer BKMMa

What ruined this fight for me was I had Wayne MCcullogh and Amir Khan saying Bradleys legs had gone for about 8 rounds but saying he was rocked.

 

[Benoco]

You would also have to know Pac wouldn't finish Bradley, meaning Pac would have to be in on it for no risk to be involved genius. :redface:

No risk? What are you talking about?

You're stacking the odds in your favor. If I offered you better than 50 - 50 odds on a coinflip you'd be a fool not to bet heavily.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

I thought this round was an example of Pac waiting way too long to shift gears.

I had to laugh at the commentary. Lampley spends the whole round talking about Pac doing nothing, then when the bell rings "Another GREAT round by Pacquiao!"

Also, anyone catch when Lampley said that Pac landed "3 bangs that round?"

I thought he waited too long in a few of the later rounds. Maybe he was tired?? Every time he took it to Bradley he did extremely well. Its certainly acceptable to question his timidness at the begininning of the later rounds; it was a curious decision on Pacs part.

I still think he did just enough that round (11) to win. Even so, that's the only other round save 1,10,12 that I can see for Bradley.

116-112 max in my eyes, with me scoring it 117-111.

Edit....I caught the Lampley commentary my 2nd watch, and he was hard to listen to.

 

[Benoco]

I'm not pretending to know anything about a fix, but to say no one could profit from a fixed fight is retarded.

 

[Patman]

I'm not pretending to know anything about a fix, but to say no one could profit from a fixed fight is retarded.

Wow, some logic. Your kind doesn't belong around these parts, sir.

 

[greghow]

Seano, we probably have different opinions on what "effective" punching and aggression mean. I don't think you're trolling, but I completely disagree with your criteria and your scores on rounds 3 & 4. Different opinions are different, I guess.

Anyway here's my take on Round 11:

Bradley with a good jab. He moves forward, connects to the body. Pac still nowhere, but Bradley not really connecting either. Pac starts at the half to be the aggressor. Pac with a good right, good left. Left hook, left straight. Bradley body shot and right to Pac's face. Bradley ended well but not enough to sway it. Pacquiao 10-9

 

[Seano]

Seano, we probably have different opinions on what "effective" punching and aggression mean. I don't think you're trolling, but I completely disagree with your criteria and your scores on rounds 3 & 4. Different opinions are different, I guess.

Anyway here's my take on Round 11:

Bradley with a good jab. He moves forward, connects to the body. Pac still nowhere, but Bradley not really connecting either. Pac starts at the half to be the aggressor. Pac with a good right, good left. Left hook, left straight. Bradley body shot and right to Pac's face. Bradley ended well but not enough to sway it. Pacquiao 10-9

Appreciate the answer.

 

[OGquickdraw]

How come no one is willing to explain their scoring of the fight?

I thought we were waiting till it cleared out a little and we could make a thread for cards?

 

[jtmb]

Its not absurd and thats just how it is.


The judging is based on "clean effective punching." Not "hard" punching.

edit- if both guys landed one punch each and one took it and the other stumbled around, sure, I'd agree with you.

But more went on in that round. There was 2 minutes that Pac did almost nothing.

I have to disagree with your interpretation of "effective" punching. The point of punching your opponent is ultimately to stop him. Staggering or stunning your opponent are the "effects" of landing punches. I'm not suggesting that visible damage or being wobbled is the 'be all end all' of scoring criteria, but there was only one fighter in this contest who was being effected by the punches landed and it was Bradley. That is literally the definition of effective punching.

As to your edit, that is basically what was happening when Bradley was exchanging with Pacquiao. In the first 2 rounds, he did a decent job of engaging and then countering Pac. After he ate a couple hard lefts though his timing and distancing were noticeably off. I can see rounds 1, 10 and 12 for Bradley (mostly 10 and 12 as Pac taking rounds off rather than losing the round). I can see how someone would argue 11. But 7 rounds? I don't think effective punching is a solid argument for scoring Bradley ahead. I also knew the outcome of this fight in advance and was watching with the intent of trying to find any credible reason to score the fight for Bradley.

 

[BluntTrauma21]

I thought we were waiting till it cleared out a little and we could make a thread for cards?

I just rewatched the fight and wanted to make a thread about it, but I'm afraid a mod will just throw it in here and it will get buried by all the arguing. I think that's a good idea though.

 

[Seano]

I thought we were waiting till it cleared out a little and we could make a thread for cards?

Someone had made a thread earlier but it got merged here.

Iasked after 30 people insisted I explain how I scored round 4. I aksed for a breakdown of round 11 and everyone disappeared. :wink:

 

[Seano]

I have to disagree with your interpretation of "effective" punching. The point of punching your opponent is ultimately to stop him. Staggering or stunning your opponent are the "effects" of landing punches. I'm not suggesting that visible damage or being wobbled is the 'be all end all' of scoring criteria, but there was only one fighter in this contest who was being effected by the punches landed and it was Bradley. That is literally the definition of effective punching.
.

Thats not really true.

Lets say one guy is throwing a jab and it disrupts a fighters rhythm and keeps him from getting in and working, is it not an effective punch because its not a knockout blow?

A clean scoring blow is an effective punch.

If all that made a punch effective was how hard you perceive it to be, then Pacquiao would never lose a fight ever and Randall Bailey would be P4P king right now.

 

[otnemeM]

How come no one is willing to explain their scoring of the fight?

Because not many are willing to feed the troll that you and chocolate starfish are. Everyone who has seen you post about Pacquiao knows what a biased hater you are thus making it a waste of time it would be.

My guess anyway.