I was watching the 24/7 Pacquiao/Marquez (dead horse, right? This is different) and I remember Roach talking about filing to get the first decision reversed due to the bad scorecard
The commission said it was the equivalent to an umpire missing a call, but I think that's bullshit in this case... A bad decision like Pacquiao/Bradley, if the investigation proved no foul play on the part of the judges, than I can understand comparing a bad decision to an umpire missing a call
But there is a RULE that says 3 knockdowns is 10-6... There's no way a judge's misunderstanding of the rules should be a permanent mark on someone's record
It reminds me of when Joe Louis first beat Jersey Joe Walcott becuz the judge simply wrote Louis' name on back instead of Walcott's...
And so..... As a trainer's protest of a decision ever lead to a reversal?
The commission said it was the equivalent to an umpire missing a call, but I think that's bullshit in this case... A bad decision like Pacquiao/Bradley, if the investigation proved no foul play on the part of the judges, than I can understand comparing a bad decision to an umpire missing a call
But there is a RULE that says 3 knockdowns is 10-6... There's no way a judge's misunderstanding of the rules should be a permanent mark on someone's record
It reminds me of when Joe Louis first beat Jersey Joe Walcott becuz the judge simply wrote Louis' name on back instead of Walcott's...
And so..... As a trainer's protest of a decision ever lead to a reversal?
Comment