I can see it 8 rounds to 4 Bradley.

If Pac got the decision, I doubt we'd hear much chatter about "it should have went to Bradley"...then again this is NSB

I haven`t watched the fight yet as I am still at work offshore so maybe I shouldn`t be making a comment but I will anyway.... What bleeping difference does it make whether you watch the fight with or without commentary? Yes seeing and hearing are two of our senses but surely if you are watching something you see it whether you hear different from the commentary or not. Are all of these people who say they watched it the first time around with commentary and said it was totally different the second time around without commentary totally brain dead and so susceptible to audible influence over what their eyes are seeing in front of them? I mean come on...if I see something happen I see it happen no matter what someone is shouting in my ears... This sounds like a good thing for Mythbusters to test out.....I would like to bet if they did it would be busted. Actually why we are at it why don`t we ban commentators from TV so that what our eyes are seeing can`t be influenced.....I would say sight is more relevant than audio too...you could watch a fight blindfolded and have commentary saying the exact opposite of what is happening but you would be none the wiser and imagine that is what is happening.....alternatively you could wear ear defenders so you cannot hear a thing and see for yourself exactly what is happening......to hear or not to hear should not affect your thoughts with what you see so please stop this I watched it without commentary and it was a totally different fight you weak minded bleepers. people are just trying very hard to justify a bradley win by saying 'oh HBO commentating brainwashed me and they brainwashed you too and the judges got it right' lol ...when i watch commentating from HBO i'm not always believing a word they say because i'm using my own damn eyes and making my own judgements when i'm watching the fight. but i guess that's just too hard for other people lol.

****ing people keep making threads with that equally biased video.....pac won and bradley got a gift. also i saw the fight with russian commentary and still came out with pretty much the same scorecard...

I really need to watch this again, I swear my irritation for HBO is getting bigger...Thank God i didnt watch my one on HBO, i would have thought Bradley was getting killed, 90% of their calls were wrong, 5% was hyped to make people believe that Pac was killing Bradley, Sorry but maybe the judges were right after-all.

Seriously was Harold lederman drunk when he posted 10-0 rounds in favour of Pacquiao? I mean Pac won that fight in my eyes but to score that fight 10 rounds to 0 going into the 11th round is just plain stupid.

Yeah, I saw this video too. Its real good to watch the fight with the sound off so you can focus. I was really up in arms after watching the fight live and thought Manny was horribly wronged but on a second look I'm not so sure... I think everyone should watch the fight again and slow it down if you can. Slo-mo really helps because Pacquiao's hands are so fast. I must say, Tim did a real good job of getting his hands up and moving his head and body out of harms way... Not saying I gave the fight to Tim, but I'm gonna watch it one more time. I think everybody who cried robbery should do it as well (if you actually care about boxing, fairness & such):boxing: This video breaks down many of the punches that were supposed to have landed on Bradley, but actually missed. I had the fight a draw. I gave round 1, 6, 7, 10-12 to Bradley. But watch the highlights of the 3rd round in this video, and watch the actual 3rd round, Bradley won that round imo. It was close, but I thought he landed the cleaner more effective punches. Rounds 3, 6, and 9 were close rounds. Rounds 1, 7, 10-12 Bradley won those rounds convincingly. The judges were not blind, but the HBO commentators were clearly drunk that night. Bradley showed excellent defense in this fight, he had his right hand up in a way that Pacquiao would often land on Bradley gloves. What I saw was Bradley parrying, and effectively slipping most of Pacquiao's punches.

I haven`t watched the fight yet as I am still at work offshore so maybe I shouldn`t be making a comment but I will anyway.... What bleeping difference does it make whether you watch the fight with or without commentary? Yes seeing and hearing are two of our senses but surely if you are watching something you see it whether you hear different from the commentary or not. Are all of these people who say they watched it the first time around with commentary and said it was totally different the second time around without commentary totally brain dead and so susceptible to audible influence over what their eyes are seeing in front of them? I mean come on...if I see something happen I see it happen no matter what someone is shouting in my ears... This sounds like a good thing for Mythbusters to test out.....I would like to bet if they did it would be busted. Actually why we are at it why don`t we ban commentators from TV so that what our eyes are seeing can`t be influenced.....I would say sight is more relevant than audio too...you could watch a fight blindfolded and have commentary saying the exact opposite of what is happening but you would be none the wiser and imagine that is what is happening.....alternatively you could wear ear defenders so you cannot hear a thing and see for yourself exactly what is happening......to hear or not to hear should not affect your thoughts with what you see so please stop this I watched it without commentary and it was a totally different fight you weak minded bleepers.

Since the night off the fight ive had it 8-4 Manny in a clear but competitive win i could give it 7-5 at a push but thats it.I feel bad for Timmy because like alot have already said if he had lost he would gained so much respect and new fans in the boxing community but now he will has to put up with **** like being the man who robbed Manny,the bad guy and even receiving death threats

This video breaks down many of the punches that were supposed to have landed on Bradley, but actually missed. I had the fight a draw. I gave round 1, 6, 7, 10-12 to Bradley. But watch the highlights of the 3rd round in this video, and watch the actual 3rd round, Bradley won that round imo. It was close, but I thought he landed the cleaner more effective punches. Rounds 3, 6, and 9 were close rounds. Rounds 1, 7, 10-12 Bradley won those rounds convincingly. The judges were not blind, but the HBO commentators were clearly drunk that night. Bradley showed excellent defense in this fight, he had his right hand up in a way that Pacquiao would often land on Bradley gloves. What I saw was Bradley parrying, and effectively slipping most of Pacquiao's punches. eh what happened to your "pedwizard" and "moneywizard" alt account?

92% this includes the pros view aswell! funny how you retards are still trying to justify a possible way of how bradley won! he did win, 4rds at most!

Pacquiao-Marquez 3 slow motion video much? You have to be generous to give Bradley 5. It's the truth, why are people justifying this?

Let the Investigation proceeds immediately. To satisfy doubts among Sportswriters and Boxing fans. WBO has already done their review of the Fight' tape using Neutral Five Judges.

Can't be any worse than sheep like you parroting what the biased HBO broadcast displayed. and you aren't embarrassed about such a comment? I agree the HBO commentary is awful, but its stupid to say Bradley won because of it. Next time, learn to not make judgements based from nothing and you won't go so wrong :p

I've had it 8-4 Pacquiao since day one....and this is coming from someone who believes Manny is a built-up hype job. http://i1071.photobucket.com/albums/u519/mognoose27/cashcow.jpg

I saw a close fight. 7-5 Pacman. Gave the former champ the benefit of the doubt in the close rounds. (There were many). The fact is that whenever you're dealing with Pacman or his rival, fans conjure up imaginary feats to support their man.

I can also make the same video for bradley.. :) yes, pacquiao missed a lot but he still won, i had him 116-114 with 2 rounds even.. its a draw if i'll give timmy six rounds. those kinds of efforts will never be enough to steal belts.. pac still landed the meaningful punches..

I think it is a very good video. I don't agree with your assessment that it was Bradley 8-4, but I don't think Pacquiao gave that good a performance. The commentating on the HBO is tremendously biased. They are when Mayweather or Pacquiao fights. They have a set idea of what is going to happen before it does, based on the fighter's reputation, then they all reinforce each other by being in agreement. Bradley did not do enough to win, but Pacquiao was not that sharp.

Let's have a rematch instead of these pestering discussions, which will obviously have no end. Bradley officially won this time around, if Pac feels he's been done any injustice, then he would surely want a rematch straight away? I definitely would, if I were in his place. Not only is he an idol for many, he's also a congressman and one to be known to represent good & anti-corruption. So why would he NOT want the rematch straight away? Unless he has no say in it and Arum really does make all the shots. I would strive so hard to make the fight, just to beat him convincingly and aim for the KO. To show the world that the belt was "stolen" from him, except of sitting back and do nothing, nothing at all.

This video breaks down many of the punches that were supposed to have landed on Bradley, but actually missed. I had the fight a draw. I gave round 1, 6, 7, 10-12 to Bradley. But watch the highlights of the 3rd round in this video, and watch the actual 3rd round, Bradley won that round imo. It was close, but I thought he landed the cleaner more effective punches. Rounds 3, 6, and 9 were close rounds. Rounds 1, 7, 10-12 Bradley won those rounds convincingly. The judges were not blind, but the HBO commentators were clearly drunk that night. Bradley showed excellent defense in this fight, he had his right hand up in a way that Pacquiao would often land on Bradley gloves. What I saw was Bradley parrying, and effectively slipping most of Pacquiao's punches. yeah you saw things that no one else can see, why not score it 11-1 to bradley while you are at it.? Im sure in slo motion you can see every little detail and everything, and you expext 70 year old judges on the night to have seen what you imply you see on slo mo but not on the night of the fight.? Pac should have won as he was clearly taking the fight to brad, which is what bradley should have been doing. Bradley cant expect to have stole a fight from the champ like he did. He saw what happened to JMM, so theres no way it was a calculated performance by Brad, more like surviving.

Whose the elite fighter? I paid for that fight, so when I watched it with commentary, I found myself sucked in by the biased ringside commentators. Night of the fight, I was shocked at the decision cause I had it wild like 9-3 or even 10-2. I was hearing and reading some scores like a total blow out or 11-1. Which I probably could have agreed to at some point But people are acting like this fight was a complete domination when Pacquiao didn't knock him down, looking like he had trouble catching the guy. Looked slower and duller in this fight than his past 3. I thought it was a much closer fight, 2nd time around with no commentary. I had it 7-5 Bradley. (1, 7-12.) I'm not saying Pacquiao is a bad fighter, before you fanboys think I'm here just to hate on the guy. I say he had a solid performance but compared to his previous ones, this one looked like it lacked something. He couldn't finish Bradley. Bradley held his ground, yeah he went backwards but so did JMM. Bradley was strafing Pacquiao's shots, sidestepping and countering effectively/accordingly. I was rooting for Pacquiao, thinking Bradley was going to win the fight on skill. At first thought Pacquiao was robbed, seriously. I was outraged, thinking it was truly an injustice but after revisiting it, with a clear head, not fed and warped by the view of the commentators. I saw that Bradley was not given the credit he was due. He fought his ass off, none the less almost got knocked out, was injured and came back to pull off the victory. Only other person to do that against Pacquaio was JMM. The HBO commentators were terrible especially Lampley. All of them were riding Pacquiao's jock to the point that it didn't make sense. If you watch the 11th round Bradley lands like 9 jabs and very good body shots, easy round to score for Bradley. Yet Lampley talks about a straight left that did not land by Pacquiao and Lampley says "Pacquiao threw that straight left to end the fight", yet Bradley wasn't even close to being knocked out, nor did left hand land. Were they drunk that night? This was probably the worst commentating done by HBO. What's even worse was the Letterman gave that round to Pacquiao.