The judges made the RIGHT decision, and here is why

[brick wall]

bradley threw more punches but landed less and his accuracy is pathetic...don't know how could anyone say bradley's defense was better.

[LBJ2010]

I'm not saying Pac shouldn't have won the fight. I'm saying based on the criteria though. maybe the judges were just following it word for word

[Toyman]

yes, thats how i see it,

sometimes the better fighter doesn't win, and i can see why the judge's might have scored it the way they did.

the 6 rounds i gave pac, he won 4-5 of them very clearly

the 6 rounds i gave bradley, he only won the 10th clearly. If i could have scored them even, i would have done so on rounds 2,7,8,11,12 but someone had to win and i gave them to bradley solely on his activity even though he was missing a lot.

If even rounds were allowed, i'd probably have scored 5 rounds for pac, 1 round for bradley and 6 even - but since even rounds are discouraged, you have to expect odd scorecards at times which dont truly reflect what transpired.

[StarshipTrooper]

So Pacquiao landed the cleaner more effective punches, but that was only 1/4 of the criteria, and Bradley arguably won the other 3. Plus, if a guy controls the action for 2/3 of the round, and the other guy dominates the last 1/3, is it fair to give the round to the other guy?

Here's where you're going wrong: Those four factors are NOT weighted equally. Traditionally, clean effective punching outweighs the all the other factors combined. Only when the clean effective punching is close do the other factors influence the scoring.

Oh, another poster mentioned even rounds. Throughout the history of boxing there's never been a problem with scoring a round even.....until very recently. Just because this era's attitudes are moronic doesn't mean we have to put up with the stupidity.

Poet

[-Kev-]

[B]bradley threw more punches but landed less

Reminds me of Marquez-Pacquiao II.

[CHOWWOKKA]

Reminds me of Marquez-Pacquiao II.

But but but but but......

[Chex31]

9 rounds pac...1 round even...2 rounds Bradey ,and they were close

Yap.


hard to give Bradley more than 2


he lost bigtime.

[pacmanis1]

You always hear in fights "judges like activity" which goes to Bradley. I havent said much on this fight cause I've only watch the first 6 rounds sober(was pretty drunk during the fight). But I think this fight really makes you question what makes someone win a round. By all means Pacquiao had much stronger better punchers, but it wasn't a clear domination in my eyes. He maybe gave 1 minute of every round proving he was going to ko Bradley, while Bradley gave 2 minutes of decent activity. Different people see different results. I though it was clear Mayweather won but some people said Cotto took it. Different people see different things.

[bojangles1987]

The bottom line is that the most important criteria, by far, is who lands the largest amount of effective punches in a round, and the only time stuff like defense and ring generalship should factor in is if both fighters land a similar amount of effective punches in a round. There is no way Bradley did that enough to win, not even close.

[whirlwind]

First off, I had Pac winning the fight. But then again, fans and judges score a fight using different criteria. When you factor that in, I think the judges made the right decision.

• Clean Punching
  
  Pac wins this no doubt.
  
  
• Effective Aggression
  
  The judges thought Pacquiao was very aggressive but not effective, that he was missing wildly and getting off balanced.
  
  
• Ring Generalship
  
  Ring Generalship is defined as fighting the way you want to fight. So the question to ask is, who fought the way they wanted. Did Pacquiao make it the kind of fight he wanted, or did Bradley.
  
  The fight was slow paced and more of a boxing match, which in the judges eyes is the type of fight Bradley wanted. Bradley controlled the pace with his jab for 2/3 of the rounds, and avoided exchanges. Pacquiao was not able to make it a brawl and force the toe to toe action like he wanted.
  
  
• Defense
  
  I think Bradley demonstrated to the judges greater defense in slipping Pacquaio's punching, avoiding his flurries, and making him miss a lot
  

So Pacquiao landed the cleaner more effective punches, but that was only 1/4 of the criteria, and Bradley arguably won the other 3. Plus, if a guy controls the action for 2/3 of the round, and the other guy dominates the last 1/3, is it fair to give the round to the other guy?

So overall, maybe the real problem is how fights are scored. But I don't think you can blame the judges for following the official criteria

Shame on you! You can say anything you want but only the bugs will agree in your pathetic reasoning. Just because Pac missing his punches doesn't mean Bradley is the one landed 100 more head twisting shots to Pacquiao . Bradley did nothing other than bending his head almost to ground and running like a b*tch. Point blank, Pac took this young prime p4p undefeated fighter soul.