(06-10-2012 04:27 PM)k5james Wrote:  Karma is a mother...

Manny was gifted two fights against Marquez in a similar fashion.

Two situations is not even remotely comparable. The fights against Marquez are very close and could have gone either way. The fight against Bradley was so one-sided it was not even a debate to any average fan. Manny landed 100 more power pouches then Bradley. I have no idea what match those judges were watching. Manny is too classy to bit*h. If Money Mayweather got the shaft, he would have been all over the Internet blasting the judges.

Here is the money quote from Bradley before the decision announcement. He said it to Bob Arum Pacman's promoter.

Quote:“Can you believe that? Unbelievable,” said Bob Arum, the fight’s promoter. “I went over to Bradley before the decision and he said, `I tried hard but I couldn’t beat the guy.”‘

Oh yeah, this betting site is refunding all the money for people who placed the bet on Pacman.

http://tracking.si.com/2012/06/10/pacqui...y-timothy/

Other than the knockdown, Marquez dominated the second fight with Manny. It wasn't even close. The Compubox stats even supported that.

I thought he won the third fight as well, though it was closer.

I do not understand how they gave the fight to Bradley either. I will be watching the rematch in November though.

I find it funny how some of you dog boxing and wrestling, but love a sport that is a mixture of both MMA.

Wrestling is scripted but those guys put their bodies on the line to entertain me so I give them respect.

Boxing is corrupt, but you have to admit most of the time the decisions are correct.

I just can't watch MMA, it does not appeal to me, but like beer, if I watch enough of it, it may eventually become tolerable.

There is less WWE in MMA than there is in boxing.

(06-10-2012 02:47 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  For the record, the only reason I think they did this is to create a monster rematch that will make a ton of money. Fans aren't this stupid though.

Not all of them but there are enough stupid ones out there that will eat the rematch up.

(06-11-2012 08:28 AM)k5james Wrote:  There is less WWE in MMA than there is in boxing.

The only aspect of WWE in MMA is perhaps in the marketing area. Ass kickings of the magnitude often seen in MMA can hardly be staged like WWE.

(06-11-2012 10:46 AM)eltigre Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 08:28 AM)k5james Wrote:  There is less WWE in MMA than there is in boxing.

The only aspect of WWE in MMA is perhaps in the marketing area. Ass kickings of the magnitude often seen in MMA can hardly be staged like WWE.

There's also White doing his best McMahon impersonation, especially with respect to how he treats his "performers."

I would like the MMA more if they could stay on their feet and fight.

Unfortunately, most matches end up on the ground. Watching 30 year old dudes rollin' around on the ground kills it for me. Just plain boring.

(06-10-2012 12:07 AM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  I will never watch another Boxing match.

That is all.

It's been totally corrupt for over 2 decades... any reason you didn't notice a long time ago?

One of the biggest reasons UFC is trouncing boxing in the last 10 years is that the fights aren't rigged by the officials.

(06-11-2012 01:20 PM)Topkat Wrote:  I would like the MMA more if they could stay on their feet and fight.

Unfortunately, most matches end up on the ground. Watching 30 year old dudes rollin' around on the ground kills it for me. Just plain boring.

Take some time and learn what's going on down there and you'll come to like it.

(06-11-2012 01:59 PM)k5james Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 01:20 PM)Topkat Wrote:  I would like the MMA more if they could stay on their feet and fight.

Unfortunately, most matches end up on the ground. Watching 30 year old dudes rollin' around on the ground kills it for me. Just plain boring.

Take some time and learn what's going on down there and you'll come to like it.

I'm still a boxing guy first, but like MMA a lot. It doesnt have to be one or the other.

I Like ground fighting when the fighters use agressive Jujitsu. I hate the stalling or as they say "lay and pray".

(06-11-2012 01:25 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  

(06-10-2012 12:07 AM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  I will never watch another Boxing match.

That is all.

It's been totally corrupt for over 2 decades... any reason you didn't notice a long time ago?

One of the biggest reasons UFC is trouncing boxing in the last 10 years is that the fights aren't rigged by the officials.

I've read quite a few articles comparing the PPV ratings between the two.

So, I'd be interested to see any links to where you arrived at your 10 year compare...

(06-11-2012 02:24 PM)Dirtball Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 01:59 PM)k5james Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 01:20 PM)Topkat Wrote:  I would like the MMA more if they could stay on their feet and fight.

Unfortunately, most matches end up on the ground. Watching 30 year old dudes rollin' around on the ground kills it for me. Just plain boring.

Take some time and learn what's going on down there and you'll come to like it.

I'm still a boxing guy first, but like MMA a lot. It doesnt have to be one or the other.

I Like ground fighting when the fighters use agressive Jujitsu. I hate the stalling or as they say "lay and pray".

Yeah, I think we can all agree that laying and praying is boring. I think it will work its way out of the sport as more and more kids who wrestle also take jiu jitsu.

Wrestling is simultaneously the best and worst thing for MMA.

I guess I'm going to be the one guy to do it, but I think the judges were right. When I watched it live I thought Pac won. I originally scored it 7 rounds Pac, 4 rounds Bradley, and 1 round even. I had several people at my place and wasn't paying as close of attention as I would have had I been alone, and because of how badly HBO thought Pac was winning I pretty much defaulted that every close round went to Pac. I went back and watched it Sunday with the volume muted and I was shocked at how much of a different fight it really was. Pac would follow Bradley around the ring for the first 2+ minutes of each round doing very little, eating jabs and body shots, and then he would try to flurry at the end of rounds to steal them. The other thing I noticed was compubox was so far off. They were giving Pac credit for punches he never landed. I knew when I watched it live I thought the punch stat numbers seemed off, but I assumed it was just me not paying close enough attention. Turns out my intuition was right they were way off. Originally I gave Bradley rounds 1, 10-12, and had 2 even. After rewatching I have Bradley 1, 2, 7, 8, 10-12, and thought every round was actually pretty close. From what I have heard if you watched the international feed you saw a completely different fight, as Brian Kenny did that broadcast and he scored Bradley winning 8-4. Either way I had this fight close live, and close upon rewatching it.

(06-12-2012 09:42 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I guess I'm going to be the one guy to do it, but I think the judges were right. When I watched it live I thought Pac won. I originally scored it 7 rounds Pac, 4 rounds Bradley, and 1 round even. I had several people at my place and wasn't paying as close of attention as I would have had I been alone, and because of how badly HBO thought Pac was winning I pretty much defaulted that every close round went to Pac. I went back and watched it Sunday with the volume muted and I was shocked at how much of a different fight it really was. Pac would follow Bradley around the ring for the first 2+ minutes of each round doing very little, eating jabs and body shots, and then he would try to flurry at the end of rounds to steal them. The other thing I noticed was compubox was so far off. They were giving Pac credit for punches he never landed. I knew when I watched it live I thought the punch stat numbers seemed off, but I assumed it was just me not paying close enough attention. Turns out my intuition was right they were way off. Originally I gave Bradley rounds 1, 10-12, and had 2 even. After rewatching I have Bradley 1, 2, 7, 8, 10-12, and thought every round was actually pretty close. From what I have heard if you watched the international feed you saw a completely different fight, as Brian Kenny did that broadcast and he scored Bradley winning 8-4. Either way I had this fight close live, and close upon rewatching it.

If you are right, Mayweather better be giving up his belt to Cotto cause that fight was far closer than this.

(06-12-2012 09:50 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 09:42 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I guess I'm going to be the one guy to do it, but I think the judges were right. When I watched it live I thought Pac won. I originally scored it 7 rounds Pac, 4 rounds Bradley, and 1 round even. I had several people at my place and wasn't paying as close of attention as I would have had I been alone, and because of how badly HBO thought Pac was winning I pretty much defaulted that every close round went to Pac. I went back and watched it Sunday with the volume muted and I was shocked at how much of a different fight it really was. Pac would follow Bradley around the ring for the first 2+ minutes of each round doing very little, eating jabs and body shots, and then he would try to flurry at the end of rounds to steal them. The other thing I noticed was compubox was so far off. They were giving Pac credit for punches he never landed. I knew when I watched it live I thought the punch stat numbers seemed off, but I assumed it was just me not paying close enough attention. Turns out my intuition was right they were way off. Originally I gave Bradley rounds 1, 10-12, and had 2 even. After rewatching I have Bradley 1, 2, 7, 8, 10-12, and thought every round was actually pretty close. From what I have heard if you watched the international feed you saw a completely different fight, as Brian Kenny did that broadcast and he scored Bradley winning 8-4. Either way I had this fight close live, and close upon rewatching it.

If you are right, Mayweather better be giving up his belt to Cotto cause that fight was far closer than this.

Rewatch the fight on mute, pay attention to what is and isn't really landing, and then tell me what you saw. I thought the Mayweather Cotto fight was close, but I agreed with the scoring. I had it 117-111, but had almost every round as a close one that Mayweather squeaked out. Each round is it's own separate entity, and what happened in the round previous had nothing to do with the scoring of the next. I think people get caught up in the fight as a whole and don't consider that fact. Not to mention judging is subjective, and some place more importance on aggression, some on who landed the hardest punches, some on who showed the most boxing skill, and some on a combination of all of the above. HBO also showed their bias towards Pac, and during the points when Bradley would be boxing and doing well they wouldn't say anything, then as soon as Pac flurried they would go crazy about how amazing he is. That put it in the viewers minds that what Bradley had been doing meant nothing, when he had been scoring points and controlling most rounds.

(06-12-2012 09:58 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 09:50 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 09:42 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I guess I'm going to be the one guy to do it, but I think the judges were right. When I watched it live I thought Pac won. I originally scored it 7 rounds Pac, 4 rounds Bradley, and 1 round even. I had several people at my place and wasn't paying as close of attention as I would have had I been alone, and because of how badly HBO thought Pac was winning I pretty much defaulted that every close round went to Pac. I went back and watched it Sunday with the volume muted and I was shocked at how much of a different fight it really was. Pac would follow Bradley around the ring for the first 2+ minutes of each round doing very little, eating jabs and body shots, and then he would try to flurry at the end of rounds to steal them. The other thing I noticed was compubox was so far off. They were giving Pac credit for punches he never landed. I knew when I watched it live I thought the punch stat numbers seemed off, but I assumed it was just me not paying close enough attention. Turns out my intuition was right they were way off. Originally I gave Bradley rounds 1, 10-12, and had 2 even. After rewatching I have Bradley 1, 2, 7, 8, 10-12, and thought every round was actually pretty close. From what I have heard if you watched the international feed you saw a completely different fight, as Brian Kenny did that broadcast and he scored Bradley winning 8-4. Either way I had this fight close live, and close upon rewatching it.

If you are right, Mayweather better be giving up his belt to Cotto cause that fight was far closer than this.

Rewatch the fight on mute, pay attention to what is and isn't really landing, and then tell me what you saw. I thought the Mayweather Cotto fight was close, but I agreed with the scoring. I had it 117-111, but had almost every round as a close one that Mayweather squeaked out. Each round is it's own separate entity, and what happened in the round previous had nothing to do with the scoring of the next. I think people get caught up in the fight as a whole and don't consider that fact. Not to mention judging is subjective, and some place more importance on aggression, some on who landed the hardest punches, some on who showed the most boxing skill, and some on a combination of all of the above. HBO also showed their bias towards Pac, and during the points when Bradley would be boxing and doing well they wouldn't say anything, then as soon as Pac flurried they would go crazy about how amazing he is. That put it in the viewers minds that what Bradley had been doing meant nothing, when he had been scoring points and controlling most rounds.

You are right about the fight being subjective. When I saw the fight, I thought PAC beat up Bradley and it was not close. Rewatch the fight and I got the same result. Apparently about just everyone who saw the fight saw the same thing I did. I wish PAC went for the kill and knock him out. Bradley has a good chin. I will give him that.

If Bradley won, Cotto better get in his car and get that belt away from Money Mayweather cause he fought much better than Bradley.

(06-12-2012 09:42 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I guess I'm going to be the one guy to do it, but I think the judges were right. When I watched it live I thought Pac won. I originally scored it 7 rounds Pac, 4 rounds Bradley, and 1 round even. I had several people at my place and wasn't paying as close of attention as I would have had I been alone, and because of how badly HBO thought Pac was winning I pretty much defaulted that every close round went to Pac. I went back and watched it Sunday with the volume muted and I was shocked at how much of a different fight it really was. Pac would follow Bradley around the ring for the first 2+ minutes of each round doing very little, eating jabs and body shots, and then he would try to flurry at the end of rounds to steal them. The other thing I noticed was compubox was so far off. They were giving Pac credit for punches he never landed. I knew when I watched it live I thought the punch stat numbers seemed off, but I assumed it was just me not paying close enough attention. Turns out my intuition was right they were way off. Originally I gave Bradley rounds 1, 10-12, and had 2 even. After rewatching I have Bradley 1, 2, 7, 8, 10-12, and thought every round was actually pretty close. From what I have heard if you watched the international feed you saw a completely different fight, as Brian Kenny did that broadcast and he scored Bradley winning 8-4. Either way I had this fight close live, and close upon rewatching it.

I noticed what you are saying here during the actual fight. Pac didn't really start fighting until the last minute of each round. I had to assume that Bradley being more aggressive throughout the fight was a factor in the judges scoring. Even though Bradley threw more punches, I did not feel that many of his punches landed solidly which was a reason why I thought Pac had won.

(06-12-2012 10:23 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  If Bradley won, Cotto better get in his car and get that belt away from Money Mayweather cause he fought much better than Bradley.

I disagree. Cotto solidly won rounds 6 - 9. Unfortunately he ran out of gas and Mayweather was teeing off on him in rounds 10 - 12. IMO rounds 1 - 5 Mayweather was killing Cotto with his counterpunching.

(06-12-2012 11:02 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 10:23 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  If Bradley won, Cotto better get in his car and get that belt away from Money Mayweather cause he fought much better than Bradley.

I disagree. Cotto solidly won rounds 6 - 9. Unfortunately he ran out of gas and Mayweather was teeing off on him in rounds 10 - 12. IMO rounds 1 - 5 Mayweather was killing Cotto with his counterpunching.

Mayweather won. I was saying if they judged the fight based on the standards set with Pacquiao/Bradley fight, then Cotto definitely won that fight because he won more rounds than Bradley. I give Bradley maybe 1-2 rounds. He fought better than Bradley. It was pretty evident Pacquiao has more speed and punching power than Bradley.

BTW, I really like Cotto. The guy is not as talented as Mayweather or Pacquiao but he fought hard. He earned my respect after the Pacquiao fight. Pacquiao beat him up pretty bad but he kept coming. You got to give the man the respect after that.