Pacquiao was robbed!

[SHAFT]

Did anyone else watch this? Holy fuck. Bradley won maybe 2 rounds and he somehow won the fight.

Paqiouo dominated....

[KValisk]

I'm still floored by the decision, Pacquiao complete dominated. It'll be interesting to see if there's a rematch.

[Drektor]

wow boxin is hilariously bad. dayum

[SHAFT]

Yeah I'm done with boxing. What a joke.

The announcer guy at the end there, was he wearing glasses with no lenses? He's like 60

[Drew]

I had Manny 10-2 and I could have possibly gone 9-3. The thing is you can't say the fix was in because no one would fix this for Bradley. Just hilariously bad judging.

[SHAFT]

Teddy atlas is gonna be on espn talking of corruption in a few minutes

[tallkris3]

It will be a long time before I watch another boxing match after tonight this is beyond a joke.

Congrats Dana White, if you were already winning the battle between the two, you have now.

[Whyspe]

If i remember right the unofficial score from that old guy had Manny winning all but 3 rounds

[Androidpk]

So is there going to be any investigation into this? It seems really shady and I've yet to come across anyone that thinks Bradley should have won.

[SHAFT]

The last Pacquiao fight vs Marquez could've gone either way. That was a brilliant fight. I honestly thought Marquez won the fight, but it was close. When Pacquiao won I didn't mind the decision. This however is complete bullshit.

Jesus, I'm done with boxing and Ridley Scott sci fi movies all in the span of a weekend.

[drigore]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/boxing--pacquiao-bradley-arum-controvery-investigation-judge-duane-ford-.html

I stopped watching years ago, but I threw on the fight in the 10th. Boxing is supposed to be professional, not Olympic. Fighting for points from round to round is tiring and boring to watch, especially after 30 minutes of hugging and running around the ring. This just makes all the more reason to never watch again and just stick with UFC and darts.

[Kerranger]

Bob Arum really is a dirty sack of shit. His "outrage" and calling for an investigation into ANYTHING is pretty fucking hypocritical.

[Warriorbird]

Bob Arum really is a dirty sack of shit. His "outrage" and calling for an investigation into ANYTHING is pretty fucking hypocritical.

A number of folks think he handled the fix.

[Reliel]

Bradley got pounded like it was his prom night.

It was rigged.

[Kerranger]

A number of folks think he handled the fix.

That's what makes it so comical to me that he would be the one to call for an investigation. He was already fined for bribing officials, admitted to bribing more officials, and investigated for fight fixing. They should DEFINITELY investigate allegations of corruption. Bob Arum should shut his fucking mouth,though. He is a bloodsucker. That is all. Let him file the appeal for his fighter and not make the sport any more of a mockery than what it already is.

[Wrathbringer]

Yeah, this isn't the first fight that has seemed one sided then went the other way. The popularity of the sport has suffered tremendously in the last 20 years, partly due to this kind of thing. Boxing is going to have to change the way they judge fights in order to remain relevant. I don't know what the answer is, but something must be done to protect the integrity of the sport.

[Some Rogue]

Fight to the death.

[Warriorbird]

I had Manny 10-2 and I could have possibly gone 9-3. The thing is you can't say the fix was in because no one would fix this for Bradley. Just hilariously bad judging.

Unless they were betting the other way or looking to collect failed bets, Mr. Higher IQ than mine.

[Drew]

Unless they were betting the other way or looking to collect failed bets, Mr. Higher IQ than mine.

Yeah, I don't want to come off as defending the purity of boxing because that would just be hilarious, I just hadn't thought of the scenario last night where it made a lot of sense for Pacman to lose, however this snippet from Grantland is really interesting:


Here's the conspiracy theory that rippled through the boxing media Saturday night. We're never going to know if it's true, and it might be complete hokum. But damn, does it make sense in all the right twisted, paranoiac ways.

Top Rank promotes Manny Pacquiao. He is the second most bankable fighter in boxing, after Floyd Mayweather. But because Pacquiao has fought more frequently than Floyd over the past five years, he has generated more overall money than Mayweather. Pacquiao-Marquez III generated $11.6 million in ticket sales and 1.4 million pay-per-view buys. The Bradley fight didn't even sell out the MGM Grand Garden Arena, and it's expected to do lower pay-per-view numbers — largely because Bradley doesn't have much of a following — but when all the revenue is added up for Saturday's fight, Pacquiao will have once again made Top Rank many millions of dollars.

In recent years, Arum and Top Rank have become somewhat notorious for their reluctance to make big fights with boxers promoted by other companies. Part of this is due to bad blood between Top Rank and the sport's other leading promotional company, Oscar De La Hoya's Golden Boy Productions. But rivalries aside, business is always better for Top Rank when they schedule a pay-per-view fight between two Top Rank stars. That way, once the fighters receive their guaranteed purses and negotiated percentages of the TV revenue, the rest of the pie goes straight to Top Rank. If Top Rank were to stage a fight in conjunction with Golden Boy or another major promoter, the company's earnings would essentially be cut in half. This is believed to be why Bradley was never considered a likely opponent for Pacquiao until last year, when he left his former promoter and signed with Top Rank. It's also one of the reasons why a fight between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather has never been made. Even though Mayweather-Pacquiao would create the biggest payday in boxing history, Top Rank and Mayweather's team would have to split that payday and the resulting profits might not exceed what Top Rank can make by pitting Pacquiao against an in-house fighter, even if the opponent is nowhere near as talented or famous as Mayweather.

Top Rank prefers to match Pacquiao with its own fighters, but Pacquiao has beaten nearly every credible foe (Miguel Cotto, Joshua Clottey, Antonio Margarito, Shane Mosley, and Marquez were all with the company when they fought Pacquiao) in Top Rank's stable in recent years. According to the conspiracy theory, Pacquiao's loss to Bradley solved the problem of finding Manny a November opponent. Instead of force-feeding the public a fourth Marquez fight, Top Rank can stage the Pacquiao-Bradley rematch, and they can reasonably expect the fight to generate greater profits than the first one, since Bradley's public profile will grow and boxing fans will be keen to watch Pacquiao attempt to set the record straight with a knockout. Additionally, boxing trainer and analyst Teddy Atlas has suggested that with Pacquiao's contract with Top Rank ending in 2013, the fighter may choose to leave the company next year. This would allow Pacquiao to negotiate his own promotional deals like Mayweather does. By doing so, Pacquiao would presumably be able to claim a much fatter slice of the earnings pie from his fights. According to this tributary of the conspiracy theory, Saturday night may have been Top Rank's way of sending a message to Pacquiao: If you choose to leave next year, you might be doing so with two fresh losses on your record, and Mayweather might decide he no longer has to prove that he can beat you.


Full article: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8036150/a-ringside-account-controversial-fight-manny-pacquiao-timothy-bradley-jr

[SHAFT]

I wouldn't be surprised if that Grantland article is true. That's why boxing is in the position it's in. It's a second-rate sport that no one watches, save for a big fight 2-3 times a year. Boxing isn't on ABC, CBS, NBC, etc, and it's hardly on cable.

[Bobmuhthol]

ABC, CBS, and NBC: my source of good sports coverage.

[Parkbandit]

ABC, CBS, and NBC: my source of good sports coverage.

So, you don't watch Football, Basketball, Baseball, Hockey, Golf, Tennis.... what sport are you talking about when you are looking for "good sports"?

Boxing is a joke.. and has been since Tyson bit off Holyfield's ear.

[SHAFT]

ABC, CBS, and NBC: my source of good sports coverage.

If you have a sport on network TV it's a big deal. FOX is included in that

[Bobmuhthol]

So, you don't watch Football, Basketball, Baseball, Hockey, Golf, Tennis.... what sport are you talking about when you are looking for "good sports"?

Boxing is a joke.. and has been since Tyson bit off Holyfield's ear.

Football is the only sport you listed that is actually a network sport. Only the biggest games of the others are covered -- most baseball and basketball fans only see a handful of games on those channels.

[SHAFT]

Football is the only sport you listed that is actually a network sport. Only the biggest games of the others are covered -- most baseball and basketball fans only see a handful of games on those channels.

How often do you see boxing on network channels? You do see MMA from time to time. Hell, even golf is a network channel staple during the summer on the weekends. Nascar too.

Boxing is so low on the sports totem-pole the only way to see big matches is to pay $55-65 for it. Besides the Klitschko's I can't even name a current heavyweight boxer.

[Bobmuhthol]

It is very unfortunate that NASCAR is bigger than boxing. :(

[Kerranger]

It is very unfortunate that NASCAR is bigger than boxing. :(

Yeah, no shit. I love combat sports, and most of the people I know seem disinterested in them. Turn on the race though, and they're all about it.

[Atlanteax]

http://espn.go.com/boxing/story/_/id/8047240/wbo-review-timothy-bradley-win-manny-pacquiao


The WBO announced Wednesday that it will review Timothy Bradley's controversial victory over Manny Pacquiao in Saturday's welterweight championship fight.

Bradley, the WBO's junior welterweight champ, moved up in weight and claimed a split decision to take Pacquiao's WBO welterweight belt at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. However, there was a storm of controversy after judges Duane Ford and C.J. Ross both scored the fight 115-113 in favor of Bradley while Jerry Roth had it 115-113 for Pacquiao.

The vast majority of observers had Pacquiao clearly winning the fight, many in lopsided fashion. Top Rank promoter Bob Arum, who promotes both fighters, was outraged and has called on the Nevada attorney general to make an inquiry into the scoring.

WBO president Francisco "Paco" Valcarcel, who was ringside for the fight, said his organization's championship committee will review the fight. He said that the committee "will meet soon" and "will examine (the fight) with five recognized international judges to evaluate the video of the match and agree to what emerges."

Valcarcel said the scoring judges' integrity played no part in his decision to review the fight.

"I want to clarify that in no way does this say we are doubting the capacity of these judges, which we consider as honest and competent judges," Valcarcel said.

The WBO could order a rematch, although that is not necessary because Pacquiao has a rematch clause in his contract that entitles him to an immediate second fight.

Pacquiao said after the fight that he would like the rematch, and Bradley also has stated he would honor the commitment. Arum had Nov. 10 set aside for Pacquiao's next fight, be it against Bradley again or somebody else, well before last Saturday's fight.

1) Good that it will be reviewed... it'll be interesting if the committee decides that Pacquiao indeed won, and declares him to be the official winner instead

2) If #1 bores out, I would expect some scoring judges to be fired/investigated (lol @ "we do not doubt the judges' capacities")

3) Adding to conspiracy theorist fires ... WBO says that they are going to void the first fight and arrange the second fight (or rematch, which presumably will be won by Pacquiao) be the official fight ... WBO takes in more $$$ millions due to this (staged) 'controversy'.

[Sam]

Is there a precedent for a decision being changed after the fact like this? I know it would be changed in the case of a failed drug test or something, but has there ever been an investigation finding judges guilty of corruption? I don't follow boxing that closely, but in MMA the NSAC seems to ignore any accusations of horrible reffing/judging. I don't think any MMA decisions have been this contested though.

[Sean]

Is there a precedent for a decision being changed after the fact like this? I know it would be changed in the case of a failed drug test or something, but has there ever been an investigation finding judges guilty of corruption? I don't follow boxing that closely, but in MMA the NSAC seems to ignore any accusations of horrible reffing/judging. I don't think any MMA decisions have been this contested though.

Totally different circumstance but recently they changed the result of the Hopkins / Dawson fight.

[Kerranger]

I think even if they do overturn it, the judges will escape with little punishment. It's probably extremely difficult to prove that they're corrupt, and not just stupid or inexperienced, unless they actually get caught in the act somehow. As far as accusations of horrible reffing/judging go, one of the NSAC's stated reasons as to why they don't overturn decisions is because they don't like to question the authority of their referees and judges to take action if they see something that other people wouldn't notice, for fighter safety or whatever else. They rely on them to be professionals and to act accordingly. It would be seen as undermining, and if the athletic commissions were able to do it easily and often, then whats the point of even having referees or judges? It all sounds very honest and legitimate, but since the whole business is corrupt from the ground up, all it really does is give them something to hide behind when people start smelling the bullshit.