Comments Thread For: No Reward for Robbery: BScene Pound-for-Pound Update

[crold1]

So Clif u think just cause Pac is active he remains at p4p #1? So you dont have any issue with his quality of opponent and performance? No matter how u slice it he got a L on his record undeserved for Bradley but deserved for Marquez. Last I checked a Loss means fall back, you cant have it both ways Clif, if u want to disregard his loss to Bradley then disregard his win over Marquez as well. Pacquiao has looked bad in his last 3 fights and a #1 p4p fighter brings it every time they step in the ring. Psc has fell back in many ways he ks not #1 p4p.

He didn't look bad in his last two fights. He looked like he always does with JMM: competed against hard. Those two are just each other's match. I underestimated JMM there and was pleased with the tough fight we got. Mosley was the only bleh performance and I thought Pac carried him. All that glove touching was just yuck. I thought he looked very good against Bradley and beat a world class guy going away.

[crold1]

He did not look good against Bradley, how when his swinging wild, losing balance, breathing hard with mouth wide open, missing badly, and then loses the championship rounds? That was a P4P performance in your opinion?

We clearly saw the fight different. I stated my take. All good.

really? Wow, I guess as long as Pac is "active" thats good enough for him

Never said that was the lone factor. Greater activity, quality of performances overall across the span...there's more to it than just showing up.

[BoxingGenius27]

Dude, I can't hear commentary when I'm watching a fight. Has no affect whatsover. Had no affect on the overwhelming majority of ringside media either. I've seen thousands of fights and disagree with scoring off TV all the time. Three wasn't close at all IMO. So be it. The fight was a little like McCallum-Toney II in that one guy did his best work in the last minute. Bread Edwards over at BTalk said this in his mailbag today and it sums up my thinking to some degree:

For the record, NO I will not re-score or re-watch the fight with the sound off. No, I won’t watch the first 2 minutes of the rounds then go to the next round. All of those things are ridiculous and let me tell you why. When you do that, you can always come up with some justification why a fighter won a round or not, especially with top notch fighters. They will almost always do something within a round that displays the four points of scoring. The fighter that COMMANDED the MOMENT as it happened should be the winner of each round.

I also don’t want to hear that Manny only fought the last part of the rounds. If Manny was more effective in his 30 seconds of assertion than Bradley was in his 2:30, then Manny is the winner of that round. If you have a salary job and you can get your work done in 4 hours and it takes your counterparts a whole 8 hour day to do it, then you are the better more efficient worker. Period.

I have rescored because I watched again with a relative who missed it. Saw it wider for Pac the second time. I realized Bradley was doing good work all night. I thought HBO was high at 11-1. I thought Pac's work was better and much sharper. He boxed as well as he has in years against a very good fighter who was not going to drop.

Cliff, here's the problem with that.

If both fighters aren't doing anything, but Bradley is more assertive/aggressive, you can't just forget about that because Pac landed 1 big flashy punch.

There were too many times in that fight where neither fighter was doing anything. If you want to get technical, if neither fighter is doing nothing, that can easily be an even round. Then if you want to get even more technical, Bradley had more rounds where he hands down won the round (i.e 10-12); whereas Pac got the majority of fan votes for rounds that could've went either way, just as much as they could've been even.

IMO, when I saw the fight the first time, I didn't think Bradley "took" the belt from the champion. I've always been a firm believer that you have to "beat" the champ to be the champ. I don't think Bradley went in there, kicked ass and took names; so I scored the fight a draw the first time around.

After I rewatched the fight the 2nd time, instead of giving Pac the majority of early rounds like I did before, I actually saw a different fight.

Again, let's say Bradley lands good shots in the first 2 minutes of the round and is up lets just say 4 points. IMO, Pac can't land 1 punch and overrule all the work Bradley has done leading up to that point. Especially if the punch didn't hurt Bradley or knock him down. The only time you score a round for a fighter like that is if a fighter gets hurt or knocked down, not just because he landed a punch that 100% connected. That's not how you score, imo. I think that's how you scored the fight though, which is wrong, imo.

[crold1]

Cliff, here's the problem with that.

If both fighters aren't doing anything, but Bradley is more assertive/aggressive, you can't just forget about that because Pac landed 1 big flashy punch.

There were too many times in that fight where neither fighter was doing anything. If you want to get technical, if neither fighter is doing nothing, that can easily be an even round. Then if you want to get even more technical, Bradley had more rounds where he hands down won the round; whereas Pac got the majority of fan votes for rounds that could've went either way, just as much as they could've been even.

IMO, when I saw the fight the first time, I didn't think Bradley "took" the belt from the champion. I've always been a firm believer that you have to "beat" the champ to be the champ. I don't think Bradley went in there, kicked ass and took names; so I scored the fight a draw the first time around.

After I rewatched the fight the 2nd time, instead of giving Pac the majority of early rounds like I did before, I actually saw a different fight.

Again, let's say Bradley lands good shots in the first 2 minutes of the round and is up lets just say 4 points. IMO, Pac can't land 1 punch and overrule all the work Bradley has done leading up to that point. Especially if the punch didn't hurt Bradley or knock him down. The only time you score a round for a fighter like that is if a fighter gets hurt or knocked down, not just because he landed a punch that 100% connected. That's not how you score, imo. I think that's how you scored the fight though, which is wrong, imo.

Fair enough. I disagree. I think landing harder, sharper stuff beats sheer volume. One of my compadres compared it to Williams-Lara. I think it's an apt comparison. I don't think it was ever one shot. Pac usually landed a few. For those who gave Pac the first (I didn't) it was because of a series of big shots late. I didn't think it was enough in that round. In other rounds where he got started a little earlier, it was more than enough IMO. Bradley was visibly rocked quite a few times.

[DE100]

In recent years, they've each had varying levels of dominance against similar foes outside Marquez worth debating. I think each of their last fights was mutually challenging and I wrote well beforehand how much respect I had for both matches. They both won comfortably on my card. I see no reason to shift their spots. The biggest threat to shift up isn't one of the big two but Ward if he really dominates Dawson. Given his age and ring IQ, he may already be the best in the game.

I sparked plenty of debate. That's all P4P is good for so sweet. As to "Top Rank" rumors, I don't make nearly enough from boxing writing to sell my integrity, especially not for something as silly as a P4P list.

115-113 Mayweather is comfortably? Having Mayweather losing going into the 10th is comfortably?

[whirlwind]

lmao at these butthurts floydiots. Floyd weight cheated a lightweight Marquez, sucker punched Ortiz and faked retirement to avoid prime Cotto won't make him ahead of Pacquiao in p4p list. Deal with it. Pac just destroyed a young prime p4p undefeated Bradley and took his soul.

[crold1]

115-113 Mayweather is comfortably? Having Mayweather losing going into the 10th is comfortably?

Yes. Same way I had May down 1 after nine to Castillo the second time and then he just pulled away. Floyd left no doubt late and swept the last three HARD. It was competitive, close, but comfortable. There was no doubt to the winner.

[crold1]

Do u agree with this Clif? Cause this is how those who agree with you translate your article

Crazy fans are gonna fan. Whatever.

[whirlwind]

Do u agree with this Clif? Cause this is how those who agree with you translate your article

Do you think its not obvious? Clif was right in many spots.

[crold1]

Do you think its not obvious? Clif was right in many spots.

Dude, no one's writing should be judged by the extremes of limited literacy by any group of superfans. The more hardcore partisan, the more likely a troll post to be found.