Who Won Pac-Bradley? Post fight discussion STOP MAKING NEW THREADS ABOUT THIS FIGHT.

[Rome-By-Ko]

I don't understand how you can use "They only won 5 rounds" as your reasoning as to why they were outclassed.

He won both fights clearly. He beat Witter, Alexander, Holt and Casamayor clearly but he didn't look overly great in any of them. He didn't outclass them despite winning very clearly. There's a difference.

Ward did outclass Froch. I don't think that fight was closer than Alexander-Bradley either.

Well once again we disagree...Are you talking about how he looked,or outclassing a fighter??Because if he only allowed these fighters to win three rds(in Witters case maybe 4 or 5)that's outclassing them..They were really never in the fight...Now if your talking about being impressed with how he went about doing that,that's a whole different convo all together...But I truly believe it's clear that every fighter Bradley fought was not on his level..Which means they were not in his class...

[Rome-By-Ko]

He has beaten Pac.

And Marquez backed him up a little in the 1st and second fights. I actually think he had better success when not backing him up at all (The 3rd fight)

Morales did great to let the combinations go after he landed a clean counterpunch on Pac. Pac just covers up after he takes a clean shot like that and Morales did a great job in doing that. But again, I think the counterpunching ability was more of the reason he won as opposed to his aggression.

I do think Bradley could have success if he lands a counter then follows up straight away then gets out. I just don't think he'll be able to do that consistently.

I think we pretty much agree,but see things slightly different..It's cool tho..I thought JMM won the 3rd fight,but I can understand how someone can say they felt he lost...Matter of fact,the night of the fight it was like 50/50 in my house on who we believe won..

The 2end fight I gave to Pac,with the KD being the reason for me giving it to Pac...

The 1st I thought was a good call on the draw,but funny enough on my cards I had Pac by 1 point..

[IronDanHamza]

Well once again we disagree...Are you talking about how he looked,or outclassing a fighter??Because if he only allowed these fighters to win three rds(in Witters case maybe 4 or 5)that's outclassing them..They were really never in the fight...Now if your talking about being impressed with how he went about doing that,that's a whole different convo all together...But I truly believe it's clear that every fighter Bradley fought was not on his level..Which means they were not in his class...

Well, yes. Surely how a fighter looked in the fight goes into the question if he was outclassed?

If it was as easy as "He only won 2-3 rounds therefore he was outclassed" then there's a whole lot of outclassing.

Did Mayweather "outclass" Cotto? Not really.

Did Dawson "outclass" Hopkins? Not really.

They won clearly, and rightfully wide on the cards. But did they outclass them? No.

I consider an outclassing to be something like Hopkins-Trinidad, or Mayweather-Mosley. As springing examples.

Outside of Peterson, I don't think Bradley has had a performance like that. Despite winning all his fights clearly.

[LoadedWraps]

I don't understand how you can use "They only won 5 rounds" as your reasoning as to why they were outclassed.

He won both fights clearly. He beat Witter, Alexander, Holt and Casamayor clearly but he didn't look overly great in any of them. He didn't outclass them despite winning very clearly. There's a difference.

Ward did outclass Froch. I don't think that fight was closer than Alexander-Bradley either.

I agree.

In response to the post you quoted, you can negate an opponents methods of attack and defense and still not outclass them. Outclass is a strong word. If you outclassed your opponent, it means they had no business in the ring with you basically. It was a skill level mismatch.
A recent example is Mosley/Canelo. Canelo beat Mosley decisively, and Mosley had no answers for Canleo's punches, and could not find Canelo with his own punches enough to be effective, yet Canelo did not outclass Mosley. If anything, Mosley is still classes above Canelo, he is just too old and shot to be effective in the ring anymore.
A lopsided victory is not outclassing either. You can lose on all the scorecards in a close fight, or even a fight that wasn't close in anyway, and still not get outclassed.
Just like "great", "outclassed" gets thrown around way too loosely these days.
I really hate to use Floyd as an example, but Floyd/Marquez is only major fight of recent memory that was a good example. Mainly because outclassing opponents in boxing tends to happen in the 4 and 6 rounders. If you watch alot of prospects and club fights, you will see it much more often. At the elite level, unlikely.

[bojangles1987]

I agree.

In response to the post you quoted, you can negate an opponents methods of attack and defense and still not outclass them. Outclass is a strong word. If you outclassed your opponent, it means they had no business in the ring with you basically. It was a skill level mismatch.
A recent example is Mosley/Canelo. Canelo beat Mosley decisively, and Mosley had no answers for Canleo's punches, and could not find Canelo with his own punches enough to be effective, yet Canelo did not outclass Mosley. If anything, Mosley is still classes above Canelo, he is just too old and shot to be effective in the ring anymore.
A lopsided victory is not outclassing either. You can lose on all the scorecards in a close fight, or even a fight that wasn't close in anyway, and still not get outclassed.
Just like "great", "outclassed" gets thrown around way too loosely these days.
I really hate to use Floyd as an example, but Floyd/Marquez is only major fight of recent memory that was a good example. Mainly because outclassing opponents in boxing tends to happen in the 4 and 6 rounders. If you watch alot of prospects and club fights, you will see it much more often. At the elite level, unlikely.

I've never considered outclassed to mean that much of a domination in a fight. I didn't realize some people did. I've always used it as meaning a fighter showed he was clearly better. Bradley has certainly done that, no one was walking away from any of his fights thinking the other guy was as good as Bradley.

[Hougigo]

fuck all the fake ass filipino "fans" that're backing Bradley just because he's fighting Pacquiao. Yea, I'm backing him too, but I'm backing his ass to be crowned as the new champ.

[LoadedWraps]

fuck all the fake ass filipino "fans" that're backing Bradley just because he's fighting Pacquiao. Yea, I'm backing him too, but I'm backing his ass to be crowned as the new champ.

That's why you got this green K and are the epitomy of a good Bradley fan!

War Bradley!

[Hougigo]

That's why you got this green K and are the epitomy of a good Bradley fan!

War Bradley!

Win or lose, I'm team Bradley till the end.
Bradley has this and it's time for the torch to be passed IMO.
I mean, you can see it in the tape before the fight.
You hear nothing but good from Bradley's camp. You see footage of training and good conditioning.
Then we see pictures of Pac's bible study..... I don't care.
I may not have a lot of money, but I support Bradley and I know he got this. Made a bet with my friend, my Nintendo DS XL to his 50 bucks.... and I'm about to be 50 bucks richer.

[Primera]

So apparently that last 24/7 installment wasn't considered "episode 1" of the series.

Episode 1 of 24/7 airs tonight 6:30pm PT

Looking forward to it

[Hougigo]

So apparently that last 24/7 installment wasn't considered "episode 1" of the series.

Episode 1 of 24/7 airs tonight 6:30pm PT

Looking forward to it

It wasn't? Where did they say that?