The judges made the RIGHT decision, and here is why

[RockyB]

If by right you mean wrong, then yeah...

exactly...

[bktova1]

I feel this post was by far too intellectual to deserve the responses given. The criteria the judges use is very specific and given that rubric for scoring it is conceivable to view the resulting score as a rational one. I viewed the fight and initially believed Pac won and still do, but this post was above quite a few responses given.

[rambov]

In two weeks when some of you broke mofo's see the fight. You will observe what the refs saw. Think for yourselves. Watch the fight with the volume off (jim lampley was home coming queen) and just make a decision then

Don't pretend you saw the fight. We won't make fun of you (we don't even really know you). This fight was close.

Should it have gone to Pac? yes
But the fight was really close and had pac not lost the last fight he would have gotten the nod.

[Sammy2g3]

I scored the fight even after watching it on mute. I've watched it a total of 3 times and there are only 4 clear rounds. Rounds 10 and 12 (HBO giving Pac this round proves their bias) for Bradley were clear. Rounds 4, 6 for Pac were clear.

Rounds 1,2,3,5,7,8,9, 11 were all really close rounds. I've totally lost respect for the HBO broadcast. They're undercover Pacquiao lovers. Well, mainly Jim Lampley.

[boliodogs]

A guy posted the score cards of 89 boxing writers across the country. 88 of them had Pacquiao winning and 81 of them had him winning 8 rounds or more. One writer had Bradley winning. Pacquiao won by any criteria. Where did you get your definition of ring generalship? I never heard that before.

[HeroBando]

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

Did you forget "With a strong emphasis on clean, effective punching"?