[Grantland] Will Boxing Ever Forgive Tim Bradley?

[HeroBando]

i could counter-argue, re. the uproar after Bradley-Pacquiao, that Bradley was (not necessarily universally disliked, but) considered a marketing nonentity and that there was no economic benefit to the industry in him winning a decision over one of the sport's two main cash-cows (and certainly not while so many in that industry still held out hope of seeing a lucrative Mayweather-Pacquiao clash appear).

sportswriters and their outlets are a part of the industry, too, and also stand to benefit economically from certain outcomes. the consensus sometimes happens to be reflective of the truth, but sometimes it's misled - on which side the consensus falls is a matter of compounded circumstantial factors.


so i think it's weak for anyone to state their opinion of who won a fight and then refer to the consensus as chief support of that opinion.

the fight was much closer than the hysterical media uproar would have had one believe.

Crap, I'd hope most boxing writers are not such windups. I'm pretty sure Cliff or Jake are not, or Graham Houston for example. You'll find that in robberies, there's usually a press consensus for the winner, who happens to be the underdog, so it's not like they go for the money guy on reflex. Again, you can check their scores for Floyd Cotto. Smaller sample, but noticeable closer, though still wide.

[Rome-By-Ko]

i could counter-argue, re. the uproar after Bradley-Pacquiao, that Bradley was (not necessarily universally disliked, but) considered a marketing nonentity and that there was no economic benefit to the industry in him winning a decision over one of the sport's two main cash-cows (and certainly not while so many in that industry still held out hope of seeing a lucrative Mayweather-Pacquiao clash appear).

sportswriters and their outlets are a part of the industry also - they, too, stand to benefit economically from certain outcomes and can be influenced by this. the consensus sometimes happens to be reflective of the truth, but sometimes it's misled - on which side the consensus falls is a matter of compounded circumstantial factors.

so i think it's weak for anyone to state their opinion of who won a fight and then refer to the consensus as chief support of that opinion.

the fight was much closer than the hysterical media uproar would have had one believe.

[Rome-By-Ko]

Crap, I'd hope most boxing writers are not such windups. I'm pretty sure Cliff or Jake are not, or Graham Houston for example. You'll find that in robberies, there's usually a press consensus for the winner, who happens to be the underdog, so it's not like they go for the money guy on reflex. Again, you can check their scores for Floyd Cotto. Smaller sample, but noticeable closer, though still wide.

Guess you missed the overall point of his post..

[DiegoFuego]

Ok I am not a Pacquiao fan by any stretch, but if you didn't have him winning 10 of the 12 rounds against Bradley, then you are a flat out idiot and should never be allowed to even APPLY to those CLASSES to get boxing judge certified.

[S. Saddler 1310]

Ok I am not a Pacquiao fan by any stretch, but if you didn't have him winning 10 of the 12 rounds against Bradley, then you are a flat out idiot and should never be allowed to even APPLY to those CLASSES to get boxing judge certified.

well, even a lot of observers who scored for Pac had Bradley sweeping the last three. so that alone refutes your 'Bradley gets 2 rounds max' assertion.

[DiegoFuego]

well, even a lot of observers who scored for Pac had Bradley sweeping the last three. so that alone refutes your 'Bradley gets 2 rounds max' assertion.

That's laughable. You don't win rounds by getting punched and not landing anything of your own.

[S. Saddler 1310]

close rounds were the rule and not the exception in this fight, whether some want to acknowledge that or not.

i challenge anyone to come up with more intelligent comments on scoring this fight than the ones made here:

[Pretty Boy Swag]

I agree with you guys that it was a closer fight than the media made it out to be. However, the logical scorecards for this fight is:

115-113, 116-112, 117-111, 118-110 all for Pacquaio
If God can make everyone score the bout in their truly honest opinion 99% of the people will have those exact scorecards above.

As for any other scorecards and the people that believe Bradley won the fight are only at 1%...

Not even Bradley truly believes he won the fight, just look at his reaction when he won.

However I forgive him because it was never his fault, it was the judges fault and anyone involved in fixing the fight, unless Bradley was involved in fixing this fight as well then I don't forgive him. But he needs to stop justifying his "win" and talking smack about Pacquiao because that will just make people hate him more because 99% of the people knew he lost. While the rest of the 1% don't really want to hear that talk anyway.

[Hougigo]

Gotcha. OT again, but those 2 were also legit close fights. Maybe they were dead clear to some, but basically a 1 round swing and its a draw/other guy wins.

The other thing that doesn't help Timmy's case is this recent trolling in interviews. But that's probably more defensive, he was getting it just as bad without. But might take longer to wear off if you gonna be a jerk. Like, I've never seen Rios or Cloud trying to justify the bad decisions. But again, they didn't get as much backlash in the much lower profile fights, so it's easier to move on.

I think the Bradley fight was a lot closer than people think. 11-1 or 12-0 is ridiculous.
In comparison to Pacquiao's fights though, his fight with Pac wasn't as close.
I think some of the stuff he says is ******ed, like how he said he made Pac damaged goods for Marquez.
As for him saying he won, i don't know what people expect him to say.

[S. Saddler 1310]

That's laughable. You don't win rounds by getting punched and not landing anything of your own.

how is it laughable? many observers who scored the fight for Pacquiao gave Bradley the last three rounds.

i have watched this fight many times. Bradley wasn't getting punched without reply in those rounds, or the rounds that preceded them. maybe compubox was your reference, but if you actually started watching fights and developing your eye you might have a better gauge of what lands and what doesn't in a fight.

again, i refer you to the video above and challenge you to come up with more intelligent comments on scoring this fight than the very astute (and well-supported) ones made there (by a Pacquiao fan who scored for Pacquiao but defends those who saw it for Bradley).

if you don't have time, that's fine. but spare the remarks about others' intelligence.