Pacquiao vs Bradley scorecards

I was watching a HBO show called 'The fight game with Jim Lampley' and they were talking about the decision from the Pacquiao vs Bradley fight. They also managed to get judge Duane Ford on the show to explain why he scored the fight the way he did. He went off saying that Pacquiao didn't look as good as he has previously seen and that most people don't understand that professional boxing is scored differently from amateur boxing.

I'm always interested in learning about boxing, so if you could post your scorecard up and we can compare notes to see how rounds were scored and why they were scored that way.

Here is my scorecard:

Round 1: Bradley
Round 2: Pacquiao
Round 3: Pacquiao
Round 4: Pacquiao
Round 5: Pacquiao
Round 6: Pacquiao
Round 7: Pacquiao
Round 8: Pacquiao
Round 9: Pacquiao
Round 10: Bradley
Round 11: Bradley
Round 12: Bradley

I am particularly interested in seeing what rounds were scored to Bradley, because based on what I look for I found it incredibly difficult to score him rounds.

Let the debate begin!

Timothy Bradley won - Debate Closed

Operating purely from memory mate, I'm afraid, so might not be fully in line with how my original card was. Off the top of my head, I think I had:

Round 1: Bradley
Round 2: Pacquiao
Round 3: Pacquiao
Round 4: Bradley
Round 5: Pacquiao
Round 6: Pacquiao
Round 7: Bradley
Round 8: Even
Round 9: Pacquiao
Round 10: Bradley
Round 11: Bradley
Round 12: Bradley

I know I definitely gave Bradley a share of the opening four and all of the last three; the middle stages, which were largely Pacquiao, is where I'm a bit hazy, so don't take that particular bit as gospel.

As I've said before, though, I need to watch the fight again to see if I totally misread the action, as I'm in such a minority.

BoxingFan88 wrote:I was watching a HBO show called 'The fight game with Jim Lampley' and they were talking about the decision from the Pacquiao vs Bradley fight. They also managed to get judge Duane Ford on the show to explain why he scored the fight the way he did. He went off saying that Pacquiao didn't look as good as he has previously seen and that most people don't understand that professional boxing is scored differently from amateur boxing.

I'm always interested in learning about boxing, so if you could post your scorecard up and we can compare notes to see how rounds were scored and why they were scored that way.

Here is my scorecard:

Round 1: Bradley
Round 2: Pacquiao
Round 3: Pacquiao
Round 4: Pacquiao
Round 5: Pacquiao
Round 6: Pacquiao
Round 7: Pacquiao
Round 8: Pacquiao
Round 9: Pacquiao
Round 10: Bradley
Round 11: Bradley
Round 12: Bradley

I am particularly interested in seeing what rounds were scored to Bradley, because based on what I look for I found it incredibly difficult to score him rounds.

Let the debate begin!

That's it in a nutshell. He may have not appeared to be as good as he was before, but that is irrelevant. You have to score on what is seen and not what has been seen previously.

It also means that he went into the fight scoring it with an already pre-conveived opinion on how Pac will perform and if Pac didn't live to his lofty standards, he gets punished regardless of him outboxing his opponent. He has to look devestating or else.

Very unfair to him.

Spot on Az.

I'm with Az on this one, you can't use a boxers previous performances to judge his current. Unfair judging and statements like that show the judges were biased.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:I'm with Az on this one, you can't use a boxers previous performances to judge his current. Unfair judging and statements like that show the judges were biased.

Works both ways, though. Yes, it's totally unfair to possibly mark Manny down on the basis of past performances, but it's just as bad to possibly mark him up on such past performances, too. And HBO do this, just as they do with Floyd.

I believe that Lerderman had Floyd nigh on pitching a shutout against Cotto, for example.

The problem is that HBO just decide long before the fight that either Floyd or Manny are definitely going to win with ease and produce a masterclass, and hence they come out with the sort of nonsense which is prominent in the video on the 'HBO bias' thread.

If Pacquiao was indeed marked down in some quarters due to past performances, then I dare say he's been marked up on them in near equal measure, too.

88Chris05 wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:I'm with Az on this one, you can't use a boxers previous performances to judge his current. Unfair judging and statements like that show the judges were biased.

Works both ways, though. Yes, it's totally unfair to possibly mark Manny down on the basis of past performances, but it's just as bad to possibly mark him up on such past performances, too. And HBO do this, just as they do with Floyd.

I believe that Lerderman had Floyd nigh on pitching a shutout against Cotto, for example.

The problem is that HBO just decide long before the fight that either Floyd or Manny are definitely going to win with ease and produce a masterclass, and hence they come out with the sort of nonsense which is prominent in the video on the 'HBO bias' thread.

If Pacquiao was indeed marked down in some quarters due to past performances, then I dare say he's been marked up on them in near equal measure, too.

You judge the fight that is taking place and nothing else. What they have done before or likely to do after has zero relevance. HBO did not judge the fight officially. That judge owned up to an amateurish mistake and for that he should be put to pasture. That judge is saying that people don't realise the difference between amateur and pro boxing. I suggest he takes a long hard look at himself.

Yes I believe JMM was robbed 3 times against pac. It doesn't equal itself out in any way as I also believe Pac was robbed blind against Bradley.

Am not normally one for phone aps but downloaded a boxing scorecard one, which is well worth a look at fellas and also means i have my scorecard to hand.

Round 1: Bradley
Round 2: Pacquiao
Round 3: Pacquiao
Round 4: Pacquiao
Round 5: Pacquiao
Round 6: Even
Round 7: Even
Round 8: Pacquiao
Round 9: Pacquiao
Round 10: Bradley
Round 11: Bradley
Round 12: Bradley

Bradley 114 - Pacquiao 116

I scored the first round to Bradley even though the commentary would have you believe that Pac dominated the opening exchange, in times gone by i would have doubted myself but these days i play little to no attention to the commentators scorecards so stuck with Bradley for the opener. I found a lot of the rounds very hard to split and even had a couple of shared ones in there. Only seen the full fight once and had it to Pac man by 2 but as i say a few rounds were difficult to score for me so wasn't completely shocked when i heard it was a split decision at the end to be honest.

azania wrote:You judge the fight that is taking place and nothing else. What they have done before or likely to do after has zero relevance.

Yes, and as I said, I agree with that whole-heartedly. My issue is that it surely isn't just a case of Pacquiao receiving unkind judging based on previous outings - I accept that this may well be true in certain cases - because I can't fathom how anyone could, for example, say that they had Pacquiao winning 10-2 or 11-1, which I've seen being thrown around. I sincerely think that the cries of robbery and larceny owe, in fact, to the total opposite; Pacquiao has been given rounds (both officially and unofficially) in his last two fights which I simply don't think he deserved, and was given them on reputation.

If someone said to me that they had Pacquiao winning by a couple of points, I'd take no issue with that. Three, at a stretch. Four or more, and I'm really starting to scratch my head. Bradley had him missing and off balance a lot (again, let's ignore that fact that HBO screamed 'right on the chin!' each and every time Pacquiao threw a straight left which missed by a foot), never really let Pacquiao get his jab going or settle in to a rhythm, and spent many rounds in control, only for Pacquiao to then throw a small flurry in the final twenty seconds and somehow be given the round.

Round one and ten, for instance, are rounds which have left me very, very perplexed. I know a lot of people scored these in Manny's favour, but I think these were two particular examples of certain people being very, very generous.

Pacquiao, I accept, was perhaps unlucky to lose his title on such a verdict, but as I was saying in the live thread as the fight unfolded, I think it was a hell of a lot closer than just about everyone else seems to.

I had it 7 rounds to 5

That was me being generous and giving Bradley a lot more credit than I expected to.

From memory

1- Bradley
2- Pacquiao
3- Pacquiao
4- Pacquiao
5- Pacquiao
6- Pacquiao
7- Bradley
8- Pacquiao
9- Pacquiao
10-Bradley
11-Bradley
12-Bradley

115-113 pacquiao

I don't like 10-10 rounds so I don't give them but one or 2 of tims rounds could have gone either way whereas pacquiaos where reasonably easy to score

For me both the action overall, and the scoring round by round favoured Pacquiao winning.

At best Bradley won one or two rounds decisely, whereas Pacquiao won a good four or five rounds decisively. Overall this kind of phenomenon means it maybe looked like Pacquiao won better than he did. Because he won his rounds more decisively.

But the way boxing is scored round by round means one fighter can win lots of rounds decively but lose lots of rounds by a fine margin and end up losing the fight as a result.

Howeer I think to score the fight in favour of Bradley one would more or less have had to score every round capable of going either way in Bradleys favour, and give Pacquaio only the rounds he won decisively.

But operating on this basis could easily see Pacquiao beat or draw with Marquez in the third fight as there were more rounds capable of going either way in that then I think is generally held. However you would have to give them all to Pacquaio however to score the fight to him.

The argument in Bradleys defence is that why should close rounds automatically go to the champ/big name/home fighter?

However the flip side to that, and the side I think played out in this fight is that there was pressure and expectation on Pacquiao to win every round by a clear margin. When he didnt it seemed that those closer rounds were scored to Bradley as a result. A kind of "exceeded expectations" bonus for Bradley. I believe this happened in the Leonard/Hagler fight aswell. Because Hagler was expected to beat Leonard decisively it seemed that the close rounds were scored to Leonard as a result of him performing above expectations, despite the round still being capable of going either way.

1 - Bradley
2 - Pacquiao
3- Pacquiao
4 - Pacquio
5- Bradley
6 - Bradley
7 - Pacquiao
8- Pacquiao
9 - Bradley
10- Bradley
11 - Bradley
12 - Bradley



115 - 113 - Bradley


To be fair, i was being VERY generous to Pacquiao.

Some people i know had it 117-111 or 116-112 in favour of Bradley

Excellently put Manos

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:You judge the fight that is taking place and nothing else. What they have done before or likely to do after has zero relevance.

Yes, and as I said, I agree with that whole-heartedly. My issue is that it surely isn't just a case of Pacquiao receiving unkind judging based on previous outings - I accept that this may well be true in certain cases - because I can't fathom how anyone could, for example, say that they had Pacquiao winning 10-2 or 11-1, which I've seen being thrown around. I sincerely think that the cries of robbery and larceny owe, in fact, to the total opposite; Pacquiao has been given rounds (both officially and unofficially) in his last two fights which I simply don't think he deserved, and was given them on reputation.

If someone said to me that they had Pacquiao winning by a couple of points, I'd take no issue with that. Three, at a stretch. Four or more, and I'm really starting to scratch my head. Bradley had him missing and off balance a lot (again, let's ignore that fact that HBO screamed 'right on the chin!' each and every time Pacquiao threw a straight left which missed by a foot), never really let Pacquiao get his jab going or settle in to a rhythm, and spent many rounds in control, only for Pacquiao to then throw a small flurry in the final twenty seconds and somehow be given the round.

Round one and ten, for instance, are rounds which have left me very, very perplexed. I know a lot of people scored these in Manny's favour, but I think these were two particular examples of certain people being very, very generous.

Pacquiao, I accept, was perhaps unlucky to lose his title on such a verdict, but as I was saying in the live thread as the fight unfolded, I think it was a hell of a lot closer than just about everyone else seems to.

I believe you are aware that I am no fan of Manny. I scored it 8-3-1. No bias on my part. I watched it 3 times and saw nothing to change my mind. Manny dominated much of the fight. Yes he didn't look at devestating as he did against Cotto for example. But credit has to go to Bradley for that. Too much credit was given imo. I don't think it was even a difficult fight to score to be honest.

Fair enough, Az. Wouldn't ever try to force feed my opinions down anyone's throat - besides, it's not often I'm this far out of line with general opinion! As I've said before, I picked Pacquiao to win and to win with plenty to spare, so it doesn't benefit me to say that I have no issue with the decision. I'd love to say that a one-sided win in Pacquiao's favour was what I saw, but I just can't!

Manos, plenty of good points from you too, as ever. Still need to find the time to watch the fight again.

You guys should watch the episode, there is an article on boxingnews24.com as well...

http://www.boxingnews24.com/2012/06/judges-were-comparing-pacquiao-of-old-vs-pacquiao-of-new/#more-120071

The funny thing is Duane Ford said 'Pacquiao easily won the first 6', uhh so how does Bradley win the fight?

Totally agree Manos, the one thing did say at the time after watching it the first time was the only way I can see Bradley winning is if you give him the rounds that aren't as one sided (ie decisive Pacquiao rounds).

I also watched round 7 (in the episode) without commentary this is the round all 3 judges gave to Bradley. While Bradley does land some good body shots, he takes a pasting in the middle of the round and at the end of the round. Even without hearing any commentary, I can't give him that round.

Another thing I missed is Duane Ford also says 'Bradley missed a lot to the head but hit him a lot to the body'. Might be worth paying special attention to that as well.

BoxingFan88 wrote:You guys should watch the episode, there is an article on boxingnews24.com as well...

http://www.boxingnews24.com/2012/06/judges-were-comparing-pacquiao-of-old-vs-pacquiao-of-new/#more-120071

The funny thing is Duane Ford said 'Pacquiao easily won the first 6', uhh so how does Bradley win the fight?

Thats bizzare. Aside from the mathematical paradox (unless there was 10-8 round to Bradley??) I thought round 7 was a definate Pacquiao round and round 8 was most likely a Pacquaio round too.

Basically I thought rounds 3-8 were Pacquiaos and most of them fairly decisive Pacquiao rounds at that. The remaining 6 rounds I think were pretty competitive and capable of going either way but to have Bradley win them all (with none even) I think is quite harsh.

Alot was made of Pacquiao being slower, less active and less accurate than usual but for me this is an example whereby the burden of expectation was too great on Pacquiao because in almost all rounds he was more active and more accurate. Even the last three rounds where most people had Bradley taking them I didnt think they were neccessarily won decisively. Some also had a case for being split rounds which would have also saved Pacquiao.

I had it 11-1 Pacquiao. I think it was the 10th I gave Bradley I'm not 100% sure. In almost every round Pacquiao threw the better and more hurtful punches.

I can see how it would be closer but can't see how Bradley wins unless you are trying to give him rounds.