Why was Manny robbed?

Can someone try and shed light on this as I'm still in shock, it doesn't make sense any way I look at it.

I struggle to believe the judges simply don't know boxing.

I struggle to believe Arum's making Bradley his new cash cow, he isn't popular and last night certainly wouldn't help his cause

Maybe this all being a plan to have a rematch makes a bit of sense, cause had Manny won the only viable fight I could see is a fourth fight with Marquez. Plus a rematch would be more anticipated, many more people who weren't interested last night will be, and I can already see how it would be built up, justice for Manny and all that...

Anyways, to think we all thought for Bradley to win by decision he would near enough have to t.ko Manny in every round, I guess what last night taught me is to never be surprised in this sport. As someone else pointed out it may be worth just watching huge title fights in future and not bothering with the scoring.

pacquiao's contract with the snake finishes after 2012 - He's Just making sure he gets one last big pay day, not dumb enough to try to build bradley as a next cash cow- he cant even sell out his home arena and not even after this.

KO.. exactly, that's the reason most people are saying, it doesn't make sense.

All the money in the world can't make some people a superstar. Manny was bona fide.

I reckon the main reason is that Arum realises the Pac is either a) on the slide, or b) wants to retire soon and is getting increasingly distracted with his politics.

Therefore, Arum wants to line up his next cash cow (Bradley), while making more money in a re-match first.

How do the people that have voted on Bradley being Bob Arum's next cash cow think it will happen??

Do you truly believe Bradley can be a PPV star?

Sugar Floyd Louis wrote:How do the people that have voted on Bradley being Bob Arum's next cash cow think it will happen??

Do you truly believe Bradley can be a PPV star?

I don't know that much about Bradley, but there doesn't seem to be many upcoming/youngish boxers with a captivating personality/fighint style. I guess Ortiz comes across as a decent guy, but I'm not sure he has the ability to be a top level worl fighter.

GBP seem to think Alverez is their next big thing.

Maybe Bradley is the best of a bad bunch in that respect for Arum. On the other hand, the guy must be about 110, perhaps he thinks that having Manny lose, then fight a re-match will make so much more money that just one regular defence as many expected, maybe this is his last big payday?

My personal opinion is that the judges in the JMM/Paq fight got it wrong and received criticism for favouring Manny (Money man). So they wanted to show their impartiality and overcompensated granting Tim a W he didn't deserve.

I maintain that Pacquiao wasn't robbed at all last night, to be honest. People are talking as if he produced some kind of towering performance. The truth, as far as I can see it, is that he produced a decent enough performance for the first three quarters of the fight (certainly not the shut out some were proclaiming, though) before totally switching off. As I was saying throughout the fight on the live thread, I can't fathom where all of these 8-1 or 9-0 scorecards after nine rounds were coming from.

There were a couple of rounds, for instance, were Bradley was certainly on top for two minutes, perhaps even two and a half. Pacquiao then lands one big, eye-catching shot, and lo and behold, he's seemingly given the round by all and sundry! Pacquiao certainly controlled the middle stages, which were the most dominant rounds either man scored in general, but his control of them was far from absolute.

Haven't rewatched the fight yet, but was amazed to see rounds such as one and ten being scored in Manny's favour.

115-114 to Bradley for me. Had him sweeping up the last three to overturn Manny's lead. Pacquiao should have put it beyond doubt, but didn't. Just seemed to totally switch off in the championship rounds.

A few days ago, most were bemoaning how Arum has protected his cash cow in Pacquiao. Now he's being accused of skullduggery against the same man all of a sudden, which to me just seems a convenient excuse for Pacquiao's fairly average performance.

No accusations about underhand tactics from Arum from me. He sounded pretty miffed when interviewed.

Tim may have been looking 'good' for 2 minutes but if you are throwing punches that miss and the other guy lands punches that land, the guy who lands wins the round regardless if its in the last minute or not.

That's the thing though, Az. Bradley did land enough in those two and a half minutes or so to edge rounds. Pacquiao wasn't exactly hard to find, was he?

Will doubtless take another look at the fight at some point, but I honestly am struggling to see the 'robbery' of which practically everyone else speaks.

Point is, he didn't land. When Manny wasn't doing anything, neither was Tim. The punch stats show that. And I dont think Manny won his rounds by throwing a higher percentage of his overall punches in particular rounds.

SRL did what you say against Hagler and got away with it. But Hagler was landing whereas Tim was not. On average Manny landed 10 punches per round more. How those averages are split round by round I dont know.

It doesnt make a huge amount of sense to me for Arumto have stiched Pacquaio up. Pacquiao is a proven huge draw that sells with a big fanbase. Bradley is......

I understand the argument that Arum may feel Pacquaios time is up, but I would have thought he would just do the Mayweather fight then which would hve been mega.

Bradley just isnt the likliest of candidates to take over the superstar stakes. Im wondering is is just a kind of backlash from the Manny/Marquez fight whereby there has been a two wrongs make a right sort of concept. A bit like the second Lewis/Holy fight where the scores seemed to compensate Lewis for the first robbery?

manos de piedra wrote:It doesnt make a huge amount of sense to me for Arumto have stiched Pacquaio up. Pacquiao is a proven huge draw that sells with a big fanbase. Bradley is......

I understand the argument that Arum may feel Pacquaios time is up, but I would have thought he would just do the Mayweather fight then which would hve been mega.

Bradley just isnt the likliest of candidates to take over the superstar stakes. Im wondering is is just a kind of backlash from the Manny/Marquez fight whereby there has been a two wrongs make a right sort of concept. A bit like the second Lewis/Holy fight where the scores seemed to compensate Lewis for the first robbery?

That's what I'm thinking.

The irony is there will probably be a rematch, Bradley will win legitimately this time, but Pacqauio will get the decision by shutout. That seems to be how it works at the moment.

I should probably stress at this point, Az, that I don't put much stock in compubox, 'punch stat numbers' and the like. I've seen far too many instances of such statistics being totally at odds with what actually took place in the ring to really value them. I believe those same devices, if they are to be believed, had Pacquiao beating Marquez on all three occasions, or certainly on a couple of them?

I just watch the fight and score it as I see it, gauging who is in control, who is doing more of what they want to do, trying to find the balance between quality and quantity etc. To that end, I don't see how anyone can claim that Manny dominated last night. I'll stress that I have no issue with anyone saying he won it, as I myself only had Bradley nicking it by a single point, but I didn't see any reason for the decision to cause such uproar.

Fair enough Chris. For me the point is to land more punches than your opponent and to land more effective punches. On a per round basis, Pac did just that.

Paq was in control in that he landed the more effective punches per round. Tim was in control for artistic impression purposes.

I thought the more effective, cleaner and harder punches were coming from Pacquiao. I cant really make a case for Bradley outpunching or outworking Pacquiao either.

Its not often I disagree with you Chris but definately find it hard to score this one to Bradley.

Fair enough, fellas - seems I'm the lone ranger on this one, so if anyone's wrong, it'll be me, I'm sure!

Won't knock anyone's scoring especially yours Chris, but interesting you gave it to Bradley, I had it 117-111 in favour of Pacquaio, You are perfectly right at times , especially the last quarter of the fight where Manny seemed to be just going through the motions, but Bradleys work was shoddy IMO, not effective and didn't control one piece of the action. Terrible, terrible decision and these are following Arum around like a bad smell, possibly even worse than the Abril v Rios one IMO, but won't ever knock anyone's scoring, it's all personal opinion.

One thing for sure is Manny doesn't seem to have the urgency anymore, he lacks that instinctive exploseviness output he had 2 years ago, if the Pacquaio who fought Cotto had turned up Bradley wouldn't seen 6.
Cheers

Rodders

88Chris05 wrote:Fair enough, fellas - seems I'm the lone ranger on this one, so if anyone's wrong, it'll be me, I'm sure!

I feel your pain bro!

88Chris05 wrote:Fair enough, fellas - seems I'm the lone ranger on this one, so if anyone's wrong, it'll be me, I'm sure!

After Pacquiao v Marquez III everyone was crying robbery when I had to Pacquiao by a point, so I know how you feel.

People seem to forget sometimes that every fight is a FIGHT. Bradley may not have been getting hit much for the first two, but all he was doing was extending his left arm into Manny's gaurd in a non threatening manner. In the last minute Pacquiao not only hit Bradley with assertion, but also the natural power advantage showed. In the first two minutes of most rounds there was a boxing match that didn't really ignite. In the last minute was a fight that Manny almost invariably won.

Interesting than all boxing outlets and papers are calling it a robbery. I haven't seen one that scored it for Tim.

i also edged it for bradley. he was very elusive and managed to roll, block, duck most of mannys punches, and although mannys power made him more cautious than normal he still managed to get of first on most occassions, and he either spoil or move away from mannys attacks.

i think with manny people give him more credit than he derserves, the HBO team were speaking rubbish the entire fight. landing 3 tough punches at the end of the round does not win it for you.

im glad tim won, what goes around comes around- now hopefully manny and floyd miss out a multi million pay day

88Chris05 wrote:I maintain that Pacquiao wasn't robbed at all last night, to be honest. People are talking as if he produced some kind of towering performance. The truth, as far as I can see it, is that he produced a decent enough performance for the first three quarters of the fight (certainly not the shut out some were proclaiming, though) before totally switching off. As I was saying throughout the fight on the live thread, I can't fathom where all of these 8-1 or 9-0 scorecards after nine rounds were coming from.

There were a couple of rounds, for instance, were Bradley was certainly on top for two minutes, perhaps even two and a half. Pacquiao then lands one big, eye-catching shot, and lo and behold, he's seemingly given the round by all and sundry! Pacquiao certainly controlled the middle stages, which were the most dominant rounds either man scored in general, but his control of them was far from absolute.

Haven't rewatched the fight yet, but was amazed to see rounds such as one and ten being scored in Manny's favour.

115-114 to Bradley for me. Had him sweeping up the last three to overturn Manny's lead. Pacquiao should have put it beyond doubt, but didn't. Just seemed to totally switch off in the championship rounds.

A few days ago, most were bemoaning how Arum has protected his cash cow in Pacquiao. Now he's being accused of skullduggery against the same man all of a sudden, which to me just seems a convenient excuse for Pacquiao's fairly average performance.

THANKGOD!! I thought I was alone Chris, this is EXACTLY how I saw the fight!! The exact same way, Manny didn't do enough at all it just seems to me he can land like 2 good left hands and thats enough to take away all of Bradleys work in the round, madness, I just didn't see what everyone else was seeing seriously.

i agree, even though bradley was back peddling, he was also the one starting the exchanges, manny was just waiting for the opening while (in my opinion) bradley was busy enough to nick the rounds

So throwing and landing more punches per round for most of the fight can cause a boxer to lose that fight?

When MAnny won rounds he won them extremely dominant, but there were rounds when for me he clearly didn't!!!! It's scored on a ten point must system and for me although the overall winner can look like it was Pac, for me scoring the fight as closely as I did I came out with Bradley winning, Manny literally threw rounds away though Bradleys tactics were good.

i just think if you watch a fight expecting somebody to win and everytime they land a decent punch you think its going to put him down or hurt him really badly (like HBO did) you see the fight through rose tinted glasses. it was close and for me bradleys defenses edged it him.

AlexHuckerby wrote:When MAnny won rounds he won them extremely dominant, but there were rounds when for me he clearly didn't!!!! It's scored on a ten point must system and for me although the overall winner can look like it was Pac, for me scoring the fight as closely as I did I came out with Bradley winning, Manny literally threw rounds away though Bradleys tactics were good.

I don't go for what the overall picture looks like at the end. I take each round as a new fight and in each round bar a few, Manny threw and landed more punches. More power punches also. It wasn't even a difficult fight to score.

No disrespect to yourself, but I reckon those who thought Manny los were expecting a buzzsaw type performance a la Clottey and Cotto fights and because he didn#t/couldn't deliver, it looked as if Tim was doing better.

I never have been a fan of Manny and couldn't care less if he lost. But I want a fight to be judged free from bias or perception and to be scored on what actually happened.

I watched it throug HBO and I was almost screaming at them at times, I couldn't even believe what they were saying half the times, even Manny Steward seemed poor and I love hearing that mans voice usually, on the plus side there was no Larry Merchant... On the negatives, Kellerman was SHOCKING!!

azania wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:When MAnny won rounds he won them extremely dominant, but there were rounds when for me he clearly didn't!!!! It's scored on a ten point must system and for me although the overall winner can look like it was Pac, for me scoring the fight as closely as I did I came out with Bradley winning, Manny literally threw rounds away though Bradleys tactics were good.

I don't go for what the overall picture looks like at the end. I take each round as a new fight and in each round bar a few, Manny threw and landed more punches. More power punches also. It wasn't even a difficult fight to score.

No disrespect to yourself, but I reckon those who thought Manny los were expecting a buzzsaw type performance a la Clottey and Cotto fights and because he didn#t/couldn't deliver, it looked as if Tim was doing better.

I never have been a fan of Manny and couldn't care less if he lost. But I want a fight to be judged free from bias or perception and to be scored on what actually happened.

It wasn't I was basically saying before the fight Bradley will employ a gameplan to make Manny look ordinary, he did so.

He did make Manny look ordinary. I've been saying for a while that when any boxer decides not to stand and trade, Manny will look ordinary. But he still won as he threw and landed more punches in most rounds than Tim.

AlexHuckerby wrote:I watched it throug HBO and I was almost screaming at them at times, I couldn't even believe what they were saying half the times, even Manny Steward seemed poor and I love hearing that mans voice usually, on the plus side there was no Larry Merchant... On the negatives, Kellerman was SHOCKING!!

right from the start i thought it might go that way. manny landed 2-3 straight in the last 10 seconds of the first, and mr stewart was saying that won him the roung. you cant win a round on is 10 seconds of a round in my opinion.

the story of the fight for me was bradley winning 2 mins of the rounds and manny winning the last 1 min, slightly more convincingly, but he was controlling most of the fight.

You can win a round in the last 10 seconds if your opponent isn't landing anything. Manny did more effective work in that minute than Bradley did in the preceding 2 minutes.

its a matter of perception. is controlling 2 thirds of a fight unspectacully better than winning 1 third of the fight in style?

had manny knocked him down i would agree, but he didnt even wobble bradley really so was there that much damage done?

i would personally give it to bradley purely on the took most of the game away from manny, who in return just took bradleys shot to give his own.

i also think it looked better for manny because bradleys style was diffent to normal so it looked like manny was intimadting him

In what way was he controlling it? Controlling it assumes he was landing more. He wasn't. Only in the last 3 rounds did he assume control. Yes he took much of Manny's game away, but left enough of Manny's game intact. Taking your opponent's game away is not enough. You also have to impose your game. He didn't..

So what's the answer guys to stop 'bad' decisions in boxing? Should we use compubox numbers and the fighter who throws more punches in a round wins that particular round?

It seems that boxing is always going to have this problem when different people look for diffferent things. Some like aggression, some think that if you fight on the back foot for a round but land 2 more punches then you should win the round.

i feel he did. i also think he picked up the first couple of rounds, and he did land on manny, he never hurt him, but neither did manny.

apprarently the rematch was agreed for nov 8th so manny will get chance at redemtion. i think bradley will get it again, he was complaining about his foot, which he obviously went over on early in the fight.

i expect the next bout to be even more clear cut for bradley.

its a same about the contravercy as both boxers fought well, but its been over shadowed.

Bad decisions will always happen. But judges should be made to give written reasons why they scored rounds to fighter A. That way they can be exposed easily.

i agree, id love to know what rounds they give to who.

i also think if they showed the scores at the end of each round like the WBS then it would show which judges are not competant. i think incompetant judges can be fixed or changed, and are a big but not lethal problem, im more worried that such decisions are born from corruption- which must be VERY deep rooted and is almost impossible to stop with major consequences.

A horrendous robbery, comfortable win for Manny that. Sickening, now I know why I rarely give a toss about boxing anymore.

I really don't know how some have gave this to Bradley, I was dumbfounded when the first judge had Manny winning 115-113 alone!

Fists of Fury wrote:A horrendous robbery, comfortable win for Manny that. Sickening, now I know why I rarely give a toss about boxing anymore.

AlexHuckerby wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:I maintain that Pacquiao wasn't robbed at all last night, to be honest. People are talking as if he produced some kind of towering performance. The truth, as far as I can see it, is that he produced a decent enough performance for the first three quarters of the fight (certainly not the shut out some were proclaiming, though) before totally switching off. As I was saying throughout the fight on the live thread, I can't fathom where all of these 8-1 or 9-0 scorecards after nine rounds were coming from.

There were a couple of rounds, for instance, were Bradley was certainly on top for two minutes, perhaps even two and a half. Pacquiao then lands one big, eye-catching shot, and lo and behold, he's seemingly given the round by all and sundry! Pacquiao certainly controlled the middle stages, which were the most dominant rounds either man scored in general, but his control of them was far from absolute.

Haven't rewatched the fight yet, but was amazed to see rounds such as one and ten being scored in Manny's favour.

115-114 to Bradley for me. Had him sweeping up the last three to overturn Manny's lead. Pacquiao should have put it beyond doubt, but didn't. Just seemed to totally switch off in the championship rounds.

A few days ago, most were bemoaning how Arum has protected his cash cow in Pacquiao. Now he's being accused of skullduggery against the same man all of a sudden, which to me just seems a convenient excuse for Pacquiao's fairly average performance.

THANKGOD!! I thought I was alone Chris, this is EXACTLY how I saw the fight!! The exact same way, Manny didn't do enough at all it just seems to me he can land like 2 good left hands and thats enough to take away all of Bradleys work in the round, madness, I just didn't see what everyone else was seeing seriously.

ts more a case of I dont think what you saw actually happened. Theres not actually much Bradley did better than Pacquiao. The better, cleaner, harder punches came from Pacquiao. That much is almost undeniable. The issue for me is whether Bradley can claim to have outworked or outhustled Pacquaio but I dont see the basis.

The comments sound like you scored the fight against Pacquiao because he wasnt on fire, rather than between two guys starting off on an even level.

Think arum had some influence in the events that unfolded.

What I was shocked about was the judge that gave Rios the nod over Abril not only was allowed to judge such a high profile event so soon after that shocking affair but also gave Bradley the win!

If that judge isn't a Top Rank guy I don't know!

I saw the fight with HBO coverage which is always heavily biased towards Manny.

I'll have to watch the fight soon either without commentary or at least different to HBO and score the fight again but i'd be surprised if I could give Bradley more than 4 rounds!

4 rounds is almost being generous to Bradley, unfortunately, that's how bad a decision it was.

I'm astounded that the Rios Abril judge was involved, I didn't know that, and it is unbelievable that the incompetent buffoon managed to make a royal hash of it yet again.

The Abril/Rios judge - Jerry Roth was actually the judge who had Pacquiao winning.

manos de piedra wrote:The Abril/Rios judge - Jerry Roth was actually the judge who had Pacquiao winning.

My apologies then, still odd he was allowed to judge the fight though!

Ah thank God for that. Cheers Manos. I don't mind if he has been given a bollocking and then realised that he needs to shape up. It'd have been all too worrying if he had been one that awarded it to Bradley. The other two judges should be strung up.

Two good videos from ukwingchunstudent here (who was featured on a Q&A recently). The first is his original post-fight vid and the second, following his disgust at some people's scoring to Bradley, is a 'how to score a fight' diatribe having rewatched the fight several hours later, without any sound and making detailed notes every round:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRysb-7Soxo&list=UUnyhdT7fY40kWdiswsAc7QA&index=4&feature=plcp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etjazs41AeQ&list=UUnyhdT7fY40kWdiswsAc7QA&index=1&feature=plcp