Pacquiao v Bradley Discussion Continued

[greghow]

That's a pretty good highlight, but it shows bias by showing slow-motion hits by Pacquiao. Then again, fucken HBO didn't show any slow-mo connections by Bradley, did they?

Compubox is valuable in that the clicker guys are seeing the same fight (ringside and in real-time) as the judges. We can come up with our scores by using replays and slow-motion, but the Compubox guys and the judges can't.

QUESTIONS: Did the 5 WBO review judges use HBO footage during their scoring of the fight? Were they all pro judges?

 

[Seano]

Duane Forde did a horrible job scoring the fight.

I have seen the score cards. I have seen the fight. I have read the criticism from the majority of boxing fans, boxing experts, boxing analyst, and professional boxers and the majority have spoken. The majority scored the fight in Pacquiao's favor.

We are talking about people like Mayweather's camp who hates Pacquiao admit that he won the fight. Even Juan Manuel Marquez, a bitter rival of Manny stated that Manny won the fight. The WBO even had 5 new judges review the fight and all judges scored the fight for Pacquiao.

This isn't exactly rocket science Seano. Where there is smoke...there is fire.

A few highlight minutes of the fight. You can clearly see who is faster and more accurate with their punches. lol

Highlights? Smoke and fire?

Enough already. The official judges had it 115-113 either way. The 5 judge review form the WBO had 7 different rounds they saw Bradley winning, which fits perfectly with the 115-113 scores from fight night. Not EVERYONE gave every close round to Pac.

 

[Seano]

That's a pretty good highlight, but it shows bias by showing slow-motion hits by Pacquiao. Then again, fucken HBO didn't show any slow-mo connections by Bradley, did they?

Compubox is valuable in that the clicker guys are seeing the same fight (ringside and in real-time) as the judges. We can come up with our scores by using replays and slow-motion, but the Compubox guys and the judges can't.

QUESTIONS: Did the 5 WBO review judges use HBO footage during their scoring of the fight? Were they all pro judges?

I don't know what footage they watched but they were respected pro judges according to the wbo, they didn't name them.

 

[Jayofteror]

Highlights? Smoke and fire?

What are you going to do with these 24 inch pythons go crazy on you brother? ahaha :icon_chee

 

[ZeekWatson]

No one is talking about statistics. We're talking about actual #s from individual cards.

Almost a perfect definition of "statistics". Statistics is analyzing numbers.

 

[greghow]

I don't know what footage they watched but they were respected pro judges according to the wbo, they didn't name them.

Any reason why they wouldn't have named them? Do they work with Ford et al? I am not familiar with boxing politics.

 

[Seano]

Almost a perfect definition of "statistics". Statistics is analyzing numbers.

Come on. Nothing worse than intentional ignorance. You know exactly what I'm saying.

So what if 5 different judges scored 4,5, 6 or 7 rounds for Pac if they all saw different rounds to give him? All that proves is that there were alot of hard to score rounds. Usually a round is hard to score because it was close. I think everyone would agree thats true. Do you think the judges were flipping a coin to decide which rounds Pac or Bradley won? Of course not, they were watching the fight and somehow came up with completely different rounds for both fighters on their cards.


I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this for you.

 

[Seano]

Any reason why they wouldn't have named them? Do they work with Ford et al? I am not familiar with boxing politics.

Probably because of the extreme reaction fans had to the official judges cards.

 

[Jayofteror]

The rematch will end with Bradley being knocked out. Then Duane Ford will still give the win to Bradley because he thought Bradley hit Pacquiao's hand with his face as he accidentally lost his balance and fell to the canvase, where he so happened to be a tad fatigued and took a little 5 minute nap.

Than Seano will agree with Duane Ford. Just because Bradley fell to the mat, and lost consciousness for 5 minutes does not mean he was knocked out. You tell them Seano, kick that boxing knowledge brah.

My point being, dno't feed the trolls. We all know who won that fight. Looking forward to the rematch

 

[Seano]

We all know who won that fight.

Thats right. Not sure why you keep arguing.

 

[Confucamus]

The rematch will end with Bradley being knocked out. Then Duane Ford will still give the win to Bradley because he thought Bradley hit Pacquiao's hand with his face as he accidentally lost his balance and fell to the canvase, where he so happened to be a tad fatigued and took a little 5 minute nap.

Than Seano will agree with Duane Ford. Just because Bradley fell to the mat, and lost consciousness for 5 minutes does not mean he was knocked out. You tell them Seano, kick that boxing knowledge brah.

My point being, dno't feed the trolls. We all know who won that fight. Looking forward to the rematch

Well said. I think the whole debate of who actually won this fight is over. We should instead talk about how decisions like these hurt boxing. What can the commissions do to tighten up the scoring criteria? What consequences can they make for blatantly bad scoring?

 

[The President]

Well said. I think the whole debate of who actually won this fight is over. We should instead talk about how decisions like these hurt boxing. What can the commissions do to tighten up the scoring criteria? What consequences can they make for blatantly bad scoring?

I dunno, maybe they can try and educate more people on how to actually score a fight? The issue here is with the commentary, full stop. That was absolutely terrible, bias broadcasting and the full HBO crew should be embarrassed and ashamed. I have no doubt they had their orders from those above telling them they needed to favour Pacquiao in almost every exchange and essentially such his dick on national television, it's a corrupt organization, top to bottom. Yet all you Pacquiao fans want to talk about is the decision, which was one that was close, no matter what way you look at it. This fight definitely highlighted problems with boxing, you just haven't realized what that problem actually is yet.

 

[Confucamus]

How is tge commentary relevant here? The large majority of people are smart enough to decipher the fight themselves and not be swayed by the HBO commentary. Plus HBO was not the one and only broadcast to watch the fight on. The audiences watching on foreign networks and people who were AT the fight for example. They had different viewpoints and commentaries, the audience had NO commentary. And yet, the consensus remains. The overwhelming majority of people have Pac winning. I think we should move on and talk more about if these investigations will be useful. Nobody wants to see decisions like this be commonplace in boxing.

 

[faderator]

lol pacman beat that ass with commentary on/off. my scoring and 90% of the worlds is better than yours.

 

[The President]

How is tge commentary relevant here? The large majority of people are smart enough to decipher the fight themselves and not be swayed by the HBO commentary. Plus HBO was not the one and only broadcast to watch the fight on. The audiences watching on foreign networks and people who were AT the fight for example. They had different viewpoints and commentaries, the audience had NO commentary. And yet, the consensus remains. The overwhelming majority of people have Pac winning. I think we should move on and talk more about if these investigations will be useful. Nobody wants to see decisions like this be commonplace in boxing.

How is the commentary relevant? Why do you think so many people have came out and said they have it closer on second watch? If you don't think the commentary influenced people then you are either deluded beyond belief or just plain ignorant. You don't need to be effected or influenced by the commentary to see that it was incredibly bias. It says a lot when you have no problems with broadcasting that clearly favors one fighter. I'd love to see your reaction if the boot was on the other foot. Whether the majority of people who scored the fight were influenced or not, it's irrelevant, it still happened and it will continue unless a stance is taking against it, but more people want to contest a close decision and try to get the federal Government involved with judging boxing contests.

After seeing some of your arguments, I know you don't think this fight should be investigated, it just suits your agenda, you know deep down this was a close fight. A lot more people have this scored for Bradley than you think, I've seen loads of people come in this thread and score it for him. Those so called 'experts' wont have even scored the fight properly and I bet they haven't re-watched it, people are getting too caught up in the "90% of boxing experts...etc". The majority opinion is that on rewatch the fight is a lot closer, which leave their fight night opinions redundant in my eyes. It just shows why professional judges are professional judges, they didn't need a second watch.

 

[Jayofteror]

The bottom line is that the judges' scorecards are considered the final word on the matter. I believe Bradley was the beneficiary of a lousy Team Pacquiao strategy. Pacman gave away too many rounds. I do not believe that Bradley is a better fighter based on the last fight.

I can live with the final outcome. Mostly because, I hope it motivates Pacquiao to focus on his training and be more assertive in his next fight.

 

[Confucamus]

Yes, we all get that it was a closer fight than originally thought, Prez. You're beating a dead horse. Upon watching it again, I scored it closer than originally thought as did many people. And like most people, I still have it a clear victory for Manny. There is no major tide shifting here. Tons of people have reviewed this fight and still have Manny winning. You may not like the whole 90% statistic, but it's accurate. I don't know why you and the handful of posters who have it for Bradley think you're the "chosen ones" who see the true story of the fight and ONLY YOU properly know how to score a round. Fans and posters aside, you're brushing aside the opinions of some very intelligent people within the boxing community who have this a clear win for Manny, even if some contend it was a closer fight than originally thought.

lol Prez, as far as the HBO commentary goes, I can't help you. Write a letter to HBO if you have such a problem. Or watch fights on different networks or on mute if you dislike them so much. There's already a thread about bad commentaries on here. You can vent there if you'd like.

What I'd like to hear from people are some ideas that will help prevent decisions like these. They can't overturn this fight, the WBO said. The judges won't get in trouble unless it is shown there was purposeful bias in their scores. The review board was a good idea for a second opinion (5 of them actually.) These investigations may not have much effect but it's still a good thing because it's bringing the issue to light. Decisions like these are bad for boxing. Fringe fans and would-be boxing fans will be turned off if they see things like this happen all the time.

Suspending the judges in the Lara/Williams fight was a good idea. That was similarly bad scoring and they faced consequences. Maybe if consequences like that can be a lingering threat to any judge who tries to inject bias into their card or make some money on the side. Any other ideas?

 

[eddymotto]

Yes, we all get that it was a closer fight than originally thought, Prez. You're beating a dead horse. Upon watching it again, I scored it closer than originally thought as did many people. And like most people, I still have it a clear victory for Manny. There is no major tide shifting here. Tons of people have reviewed this fight and still have Manny winning. You may not like the whole 90% statistic, but it's accurate. I don't know why you and the handful of posters who have it for Bradley think you're the "chosen ones" who see the true story of the fight and ONLY YOU properly know how to score a round. Fans and posters aside, you're brushing aside the opinions of some very intelligent people within the boxing community who have this a clear win for Manny, even if some contend it was a closer fight than originally thought.

What I'd like to hear from people are some ideas that will help prevent decisions like these. They can't overturn this fight, the WBO said. The judges won't get in trouble unless it is shown there was purposeful bias in their scores. The review board was a good idea for a second opinion (5 of them actually.) These investigations may not have much effect but it's still a good thing because it's bringing the issue to light. Decisions like these are bad for boxing. Fringe fans and would-be boxing fans will be turned off if they see things like this happen all the time.

Suspending the judges in the Lara/Williams fight was a good idea. That was similarly bad scoring and they faced consequences. Maybe if consequences like that can be a lingering threat to any judge who tries to inject bias into their card or make some money on the side. Any other ideas?

I don't really care all that much how any individual poster scored the fight. Some guys like to post their detailed scores and, if that is there hobby, that's great. And that is not sarcasm.

But there are a couple of things being said which don't make any sense:

1. HBO commentary caused the public outcry.

In fact, Boxingscene did a poll of 53 writers right after the event. These guys were in the arena and saw the fight live. Their decision is about as independent (of HBO commentary) as you can get. The results were clear, the vast majority of these polled thought that Manny won. The crowd booing the decision were not influenced by HBO either.

The facts are that the HBO commentary was in line with popular opinion in the arena.

I fully believe that any sport commentary influences the viewer. But in this case, HBO was lined up with the majority of the people who watched it live in the arena.

2. Re-watching the fight is somehow more accurate than watching it live.

People shouldn't complain about public perception causing bias and then make the claim that watching the fight again after hearing a bunch of public debate about it makes judging more accurate.

People are influenced by what they hear from others. It follows that re-watching a fight after a public debate on the topic reduces independence rather then reinforces it.

Otherwise, what has changed? Nothing. The fight is the fight. Only the perception of the viewer has been altered.

As for making changes to judging, the following are some things to think about:

1. Increase # of judges for major fights from 3 to 5. Not sure exactly where they would sit but it would increase the sample for all decisions.

2. Have an ongoing, transparent grading system for judges. For major fights, I would suggest collecting scores from credentialed journalists. That would provide a large enough sample to identify judging outliers. Judges who end up with too many outlier decisions have to be re-evaulated or are demoted.

3. Use punch technology as outlined in a different thread a started today. I have trouble envisioning it today. But the use of more advanced technology has improved officiating in other sports and it should be able to do the same in boxing

 

[Seano]

The fact is, a lot of people have come out and said the commentary misled them and they saw the fight much closer after a second viewing and really having paid attention.

I don't care about press row and online polls. I watched the fight and I saw the same fight the judges did. If other people saw a different fight, thats their business.

 

[The President]

I don't really care all that much how any individual poster scored the fight. Some guys like to post their detailed scores and, if that is there hobby, that's great. And that is not sarcasm.

But there are a couple of things being said which don't make any sense:

1. HBO commentary caused the public outcry.

In fact, Boxingscene did a poll of 53 writers right after the event. These guys were in the arena and saw the fight live. Their decision is about as independent (of HBO commentary) as you can get. The results were clear, the vast majority of these polled thought that Manny won. The crowd booing the decision were not influenced by HBO either.

The facts are that the HBO commentary was in line with popular opinion in the arena.

I fully believe that any sport commentary influences the viewer. But in this case, HBO was lined up with the majority of the people who watched it live in the arena.

2. Re-watching the fight is somehow more accurate than watching it live.

People shouldn't complain about public perception causing bias and then make the claim that watching the fight again after hearing a bunch of public debate about it makes judging more accurate.

People are influenced by what they hear from others. It follows that re-watching a fight after a public debate on the topic reduces independence rather then reinforces it.

Otherwise, what has changed? Nothing. The fight is the fight. Only the perception of the viewer has been altered.

As for making changes to judging, the following are some things to think about:

1. Increase # of judges for major fights from 3 to 5. Not sure exactly where they would sit but it would increase the sample for all decisions.

2. Have an ongoing, transparent grading system for judges. For major fights, I would suggest collecting scores from credentialed journalists. That would provide a large enough sample to identify judging outliers. Judges who end up with too many outlier decisions have to be re-evaulated or are demoted.

3. Use punch technology as outlined in a different thread a started today. I have trouble envisioning it today. But the use of more advanced technology has improved officiating in other sports and it should be able to do the same in boxing

1. Firstly, not one person said HBO caused a public outcry. The argument is that HBO were incredibly bias towards Manny Pacquiao, which isn't debatable. Watch the video posted earlier in this thread if you have doubts on that. If you think that's fine just because many people Pacquiao won anyway then fine, but think about what you are saying. HBO made it out that the fight was a total whitewash, that is not in line with popular opinion, don't kid your self. Whether or not HBO did in fact that much influence is not the main problem here, it's the fact they were so plainly bias with the intent of serving an injustice to Timothy Bradley. That's the issue here, it's not just about this fight. HBO 100% added to the public outcry for this fight, they never caused it, but they added to it. As the biggest boxing broadcasters in the world, they shouldn't be so bias, it has turned boxing into somewhat of a joke, it's essentially a popularity contest. So much of Bradley's work was overlooked. Something needs to be done about such blatant bias, it's a big issue.

2. Re watching a fight is more accurate, no two ways about it. When you watch a fight live, your still influenced by what others think, your also influenced by the crowd, adrenaline and commentary. Re watching the fight generally encourages a more informed scorecard, as you are in a more level headed position to judge the fight. If you are influenced by what people have said, then that's just the way some people are, but like I said, your still influenced by people on fight night. The advantages of re watching a fight far outweigh the drawbacks.

As for your points:

2. This would be disastrous. You really think you should trust media outlets, as if they are aren't self important and guided by clear agendas? It's like asking The Sun newspaper to pick who they want to be Prime Minister. Journalists are their to report on the fight, unfortunately, given the way mass media works, it is in the best interests of certain companies and media outlets to favor the work of a certain fighters. As well as this, what do Journalists know about scoring fights? You'd be better off picking a random group of boxing fans, they'd be equally as qualified.

3. Punch technology already exists, and it's dreadful. I'm not sure how you could create technology that is more accurate without adding sensors to the gloves and fighters. Anything like Compubox is pointless, because it's proven to be widely innacurate. It's just three guys pushing buttons watching a fight at full speed in real time, how accurate could it possibly be?