Pacquiao versus Bradley June 2012

(Apologies if there is a thread on this, but I didn't see one.)

I boycotted the Mayweather fight earlier this month (May 2012) because -- well, for several reasons, the top two being he's a bleeeeeeep and the only boxing fight I want to see is Pacquiao versus Mayweather. But despite my anger over Pacquiao and Mayweather not fighting each other, I'm probably going to watch this one, because I think Bradley has a chance. Nothing against Cotto, but he wasn't a serious opponent for Mayweather. The outcome of that fight was predetermined.

Bradley, though -- I predict Pacquiao will win, but I think he'll actually have to fight Bradley for the win. Bradley is 28-0 with one no contest due to a cut over the other guy's eye. No, his last fight (undercard for Pacquiao/Marquez) was not exciting, but his opponent sucked that night. And we all know Pacquiao did not perform to his standards either in that fight.

It's more because Pacquiao today isn't the guy who knocked out Ricky Hatton, then because Bradley is a great fighter, that I'm predicting a battle.

Your thoughts?

 

I hope you're right. Manny was a my favorite boxer in a long time when he was coming up the ranks, killing everybody. It helps, too, that a couple of my friends married Filipina ladies. Manny's last couple fights, though, just haven't been the same. That frustrates me as a fan who wants to be entertained.

 

I like that you're disagreeing with me on the outcome, because that suggests a good fight, and that's really what I want. Entertain the fans, baby. That's right.

 

My buddy and I are planning on a night at a sports bar with this on the screens. My little jiu-jitsu boy wants to come, too. He always asks me, "Who would win in a fight: Pacquiao, or Bruce Lee? Just boxing." And, "Who would win in a fight, Pacquiaou, or Captain America?" And stuff like that.

 

What was that?

Spoiler

Huh? What?

That's why MMA is rising and boxing is falling.

And everything that Kellerman and Lampley said.

Give me a reason to continue watching boxing over MMA. Right now, I really don't think there is one.

 

Yahoo's news article on the fight.

I scored it the way Lederman scored it, but two of the rounds that I gave to Pac-Man were so close that I could agree with Bob Arum's scorecard and/or with the "Yahoo! Sports" scorecard.

Spoiler

By any of those three scores, however ... man, what can a boxing fan say? Really, how am I supposed to react to that?

And it's not just the Pacqui fiasco, it's the 2nd prelim fight shown on PPV. Do you call that a championship fight? That was supposedly a championship fight, a belt fight. Huh? What? You're kidding me, right? Come on, we both know that was an "April's Fool" joke, not a boxing fight.

Throw in all the phony match-ups and the fight-dodging, and a host of other wrong decision, and I don't enjoy professional boxing anymore. Sorry.

 

Ah, good -- they too saw what I saw

Quotes from "Storify.com" about the Pac-Bradley outcome:

Spoiler

That didn't really happen.

Did that just happen?

Blame here has to fall on Pacquaio's strategy of punching Bradley more often and harder.

Maybe Tim Bradley won some rounds while Manny Pacquiao was missing before the fight.

When the guy who wins a fight says "I've got to look at the tape" to see if he won, that's a pretty telling statement about his sport.

If I wanted to pay $55 to see corruption, I'd have donated money to a politician.

I'm still on the PPV channel waiting for it to come back on and tell me this was all an elaborate ruse.

 

I completely disagree with this writer's conclusion

Yahoo Sports news article

This part is correct:

Spoiler

It was unfair, unjust and just plain wrong.

It was unfair to Pacquiao, who deserved to win.

Yahoo! Sports had it 117-111 for Pacquiao. The vast majority of reporters covering the fight at ringside had it for Pacquiao, the No. 2 fighter in the world in the Yahoo! Sports rankings. HBO's Harold Lederman, a former professional judge, scored it 11 rounds to one for Pacquiao.

Arum was outraged, at one point referring to the judges as "The Three Blind Mice," while he was introducing Pacquiao at the post-fight news conference. "Can you believe that?" Arum said. "I had it 10-2! After I got into the ring after the fight, I went over to Bradley and said 'You did very well.' He said, 'I tried hard, but I couldn't beat the guy.' This is crazy. You talk about killing boxing? All three scorecards you throw out."

Even to those who felt Pacquiao won, there had to be a respect for Bradley, who fought a spirited, high-paced battle despite injuring both of his feet. He attended the news conference in a wheelchair.

Arum called the scoring "unfathomable" and offered to get the judges medical assistance. "I have best eye doctor in the world," Arum said. "Let's get them on a plane, fly to Los Angeles and I'll pay for their visit."

This part is incorrect:

Spoiler

Timothy Bradley's controversial split-decision victory over Manny Pacquiao on Saturday in their World Boxing Organization welterweight title fight at the MGM Grand Garden was one of the best things that could have happened for the sport.

But, contrary to what many might say, this was no bad night for boxing.

But bad for boxing? Not in a million years. More people were talking about the fight when it ended than would have been had Pacquiao gotten the wide verdict most had expected.

This rematch will be bigger than Saturday's bout by a wide margin. Bradley will become a star; he's already a charismatic guy who performed well when he finally got his chance on the big stage. And Pacquiao's legion of fans will rally to his support, believing he was wronged and demanding justice in a second fight.

The only loser in the event was probably the state of Nevada, which likely won't get the opportunity to host the rematch. Arum said the rematch will be held in a "non-tax state," meaning it's likely headed to Texas. That will cost Nevada millions in tax income, but the impact of not having the fight in the state is the only bad thing to come out of the fight.

That's not bad for boxing by any stretch of the imagination.

 

And those two guys have to be promoters. The fighters themselves are too often under contract to fight whoever the promoters put tell them to fight. It's a sad situation, indeed.

Really? Bradley, I thought, was excellent. He completely lost on my personal scorecards, but his defense was superb, and he landed a lot of great hits on Pac, particularly uppercuts. He couldn't stop the speed of Pacqui, however. Only a small fraction of Bradley's hits landed because Pacqui blocked or dodged so well, and in all but a few rounds Pacqui was landing shots almost at will. They both had excellent defense, but Pacqui was just way, way faster.

I didn't see either one of them getting slow at the end, but on the other hand, I didn't see Pacqui going for the kill like, for example, when he fought Ricky Hatton a few years ago. He just never turned up the heat like he used to do. He performed very well, yes, but the "Eye of the Tiger" wasn't quite in him.

And he's sorry about that now.