Comments Thread For: WBO Prez: We Can Not Reverse Pacquiao-Bradley Decision

[hugh grant]

The decision should be reversable, because unless it is, there is no point in watching boxing.

So if the judges are bradley fans without anyone knowing it, so they score for Bradley even though he clearly lost, it cant be reversed? That a judge likes another boxer or hates a boxers is human nature.

If a decsion is wrong you are telling me it cant be reversed? Incompetence can be reversed. THe referee can overule judges IMO. He can be a 4th judge.

[EdMon917]

The decision should be reversable, because unless it is, there is no point in watching boxing.

So if the judges are bradley fans without anyone knowing it, so they score for Bradley even though he clearly lost, it cant be reversed? That a judge likes another boxer or hates a boxers is human nature.

If a decsion is wrong you are telling me it cant be reversed? Incompetence can be reversed. THe referee can overule judges IMO. He can be a 4th judge.

But he isn't and the rules are in place. That is why there is rematches.

[ballgamessuck]

90 percent huh?

90% of the boxing world felt like Marquez won that 3rd fight. All of the professional boxers thought so AND Pac had to threaten to disown his own pinoy people if they didn't say he won. Roach even said was they paying for the Marquez decision by what happened with Bradley. You're the troll.

Made up numbers do not make a fact. Where did you get these numbers? Did you conduct a poll of the boxing world that showed 90 percent of the participants felt JMM won? Was there even a poll done on this forum that reflects your statement? I was in a sports bar during the fight, a lot of the crowd was pulling for Paq and a lot pulling against. The consensus between the final bell and the official announcement was that it was a close fight that could have gone either way. Most of my friends who watch boxing felt it was a close fight that could have gone either way. I felt it was a close fight that could have gone either way. If Marquez had gotten the nod, that would not have been a controversy, just a close decision. So, please tell me, where do you get your "90 percent"?

[ballgamessuck]

I keep reading the argument that Bradley took the championship rounds or Pac only fought the last minute of each round or the HBO crew called a bias fight or Bradley had injured ankles/feet. All excellent opinions but with no real reasoning or logic to them.

I'd love to read a solid assessment of how Bradley actually won this fight. Clean punching (no), Power shots (no), Better Defence (surprisingly no), Effective aggression (50-50), Ring generalship (50-50). How did Timmy win this fight, please explain to me because 20 years of watching boxing I must be blinded by the Pac bandwagon.

Keeping a safe distance, pawing the occasional jab and connecting with a body shot from time to time are not enough to win a fight imo. Pac landed the cleaner, harder punches, limited Bradley to a low connect %, and showed just as much effective aggression/ ring generalship. Why must the belt go to Bradley?

Exactly, let me add that Bradley injured his feet trying to avoid Paqs hard shots, and for those that claim "Paq took off the first two minutes of every round", Bradley wasn't doing enough in those two minutes to win the rounds either.