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.
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
- 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
Comment