BoxRec

Posted: **28 Nov 2016, 18:01**

lazboy wrote:I typed it into google also and look what I found. Read it.
http://www.premierboxingchampions.com/n ... core-fight

I always thought that judges rate “effective defence” higher than effective offense, which means it's a quicker way to win a round, as previously articulated in great detail by Floyd Mayweather Sr?

For instance, when a boxer that makes a guy miss… and they land their counters frequently when their opponent does miss, they get extra credit from the judges for using defence that implements offence.

Of course, there are other factors to consider, but I think that article over-simplifies things too much, because it encourages the average fight fan to only consider landed punches as a way to win a round, but to use Steve Weisfeld's very own words, “there are various elements included within [the clean punches] phrase”, but he doesn't really explain them.

Posted: **28 Nov 2016, 18:14**

Enlightened-One wrote:
lazboy wrote:I typed it into google also and look what I found. Read it.
http://www.premierboxingchampions.com/n ... core-fight
I always thought that judges rate “effective defence” higher than effective offense, which means it's a quicker way to win a round, as previously articulated in great detail by Floyd Mayweather Sr?

For instance, when a boxer that makes a guy miss… and they land their counters frequently when their opponent does miss, they get extra credit from the judges for using defence that implements offence.

Of course, there are other factors to consider, but I think that article over-simplifies things too much, because it encourages the average fight fan to only consider landed punches as a way to win a round, but to use Steve Weisfeld's very own words, “there are various elements included within [the clean punches] phrase”, but he doesn't really explain them.

The reality is, it's subjective. To us, the judges, probably the different alphabet orgs. I don't disagree with you but I was having an argument with someone else who came in guns blazing putting words in my mouth. I just typed this in to google and presented it. To me, pro boxing is the pain game. Whether that's written or not, whether people agree with me or not, that's what I was told and accepted.

Posted: **28 Nov 2016, 18:15**

Enlightened-One wrote:
lazboy wrote:I typed it into google also and look what I found. Read it.
http://www.premierboxingchampions.com/n ... core-fight
I always thought that judges rate “effective defence” higher than effective offense, which means it's a quicker way to win a round, as previously articulated in great detail by Floyd Mayweather Sr?

For instance, when a boxer that makes a guy miss… and they land their counters frequently when their opponent does miss, they get extra credit from the judges for using defence that implements offence.

Of course, there are other factors to consider, but I think that article over-simplifies things too much, because it encourages the average fight fan to only consider landed punches as a way to win a round, but to use Steve Weisfeld's very own words, “there are various elements included within [the clean punches] phrase”, but he doesn't really explain them.

Ward's defense was not effective, and his counter-offense was basically missing. Judges just presumed that this "master technician" must have a better defense.

Posted: **28 Nov 2016, 18:27**

boxing_rocks wrote:
Enlightened-One wrote:
lazboy wrote:I typed it into google also and look what I found. Read it.
http://www.premierboxingchampions.com/n ... core-fight
I always thought that judges rate “effective defence” higher than effective offense, which means it's a quicker way to win a round, as previously articulated in great detail by Floyd Mayweather Sr?

For instance, when a boxer that makes a guy miss… and they land their counters frequently when their opponent does miss, they get extra credit from the judges for using defence that implements offence.

Of course, there are other factors to consider, but I think that article over-simplifies things too much, because it encourages the average fight fan to only consider landed punches as a way to win a round, but to use Steve Weisfeld's very own words, “there are various elements included within [the clean punches] phrase”, but he doesn't really explain them.
Ward's defense was not effective, and his counter-offense was basically missing. Judges just presumed that this "master technician" must have a better defense.

Yea, we havn't even gotten to Ward Kovalev but I guess we are on this thread haha. They gave Ward the fight for surviving. Back peddling and surviving, and seemingly awarded him points for "clean punches" that were smothered in close by Kovalev or illegal while they were grappling. Kovalev out landed him anyway so a volume can't be argued. A bloke on here, who i'm having an argument with, no enlightened one (for a change lol) reckons it doesn't factor to judges if your punches hurt someone or not. FFS.

Posted: **28 Nov 2016, 18:34**

lazboy wrote:
Enlightened-One wrote:
lazboy wrote:I typed it into google also and look what I found. Read it.
http://www.premierboxingchampions.com/n ... core-fight
I always thought that judges rate “effective defence” higher than effective offense, which means it's a quicker way to win a round, as previously articulated in great detail by Floyd Mayweather Sr?

For instance, when a boxer that makes a guy miss… and they land their counters frequently when their opponent does miss, they get extra credit from the judges for using defence that implements offence.

Of course, there are other factors to consider, but I think that article over-simplifies things too much, because it encourages the average fight fan to only consider landed punches as a way to win a round, but to use Steve Weisfeld's very own words, “there are various elements included within [the clean punches] phrase”, but he doesn't really explain them.
The reality is, it's subjective. To us, the judges, probably the different alphabet orgs. I don't disagree with you but I was having an argument with someone else who came in guns blazing putting words in my mouth. I just typed this in to google and presented it. To me, pro boxing is the pain game. Whether that's written or not, whether people agree with me or not, that's what I was told and accepted.

Yeah sorry… I simply wanted to comment on the content of the article you kindly posted, not the argument you were having with someone else.

Posted: **28 Nov 2016, 18:38**

Enlightened-One wrote:
lazboy wrote:
Enlightened-One wrote: I always thought that judges rate “effective defence” higher than effective offense, which means it's a quicker way to win a round, as previously articulated in great detail by Floyd Mayweather Sr?

For instance, when a boxer that makes a guy miss… and they land their counters frequently when their opponent does miss, they get extra credit from the judges for using defence that implements offence.

Of course, there are other factors to consider, but I think that article over-simplifies things too much, because it encourages the average fight fan to only consider landed punches as a way to win a round, but to use Steve Weisfeld's very own words, “there are various elements included within [the clean punches] phrase”, but he doesn't really explain them.
The reality is, it's subjective. To us, the judges, probably the different alphabet orgs. I don't disagree with you but I was having an argument with someone else who came in guns blazing putting words in my mouth. I just typed this in to google and presented it. To me, pro boxing is the pain game. Whether that's written or not, whether people agree with me or not, that's what I was told and accepted.
Yeah sorry… I simply wanted to comment on the content of the article you kindly posted, not the argument you were having with someone else.

No problem mate.

Posted: **28 Nov 2016, 19:10**

Posted: **28 Nov 2016, 20:22**

Tony1244 wrote:
tiny_acres wrote:I honestly believe that several posters sit around in a field near Roswell wearing tin foil hats.
Waiting for the mother ship.

God help us all

This has nothing to do with a close fight or even a hometown decision, it's all a cultural marxism anti-Putin ploy.

It's frustrating having to read these totally insane conspiracy theories.

Posted: **28 Nov 2016, 21:22**

tiny_acres wrote:
Tony1244 wrote:
tiny_acres wrote:I honestly believe that several posters sit around in a field near Roswell wearing tin foil hats.
Waiting for the mother ship.

God help us all

This has nothing to do with a close fight or even a hometown decision, it's all a cultural marxism anti-Putin ploy.
It's frustrating having to read these totally insane conspiracy theories.

I get that, poor judging has always been a part of judging. There is just a microscope now with so few big fights and the last several years the incompetence never seems to side with the b side (not that b side applies here).

Posted: **28 Nov 2016, 23:44**

tiny_acres wrote:
Tony1244 wrote:
tiny_acres wrote:I honestly believe that several posters sit around in a field near Roswell wearing tin foil hats.
Waiting for the mother ship.

God help us all

This has nothing to do with a close fight or even a hometown decision, it's all a cultural marxism anti-Putin ploy.
It's frustrating having to read these totally insane conspiracy theories.

Very.

Posted: **29 Nov 2016, 01:13**

Like a Boss wrote:
tiny_acres wrote:
Tony1244 wrote:

This has nothing to do with a close fight or even a hometown decision, it's all a cultural marxism anti-Putin ploy.
It's frustrating having to read these totally insane conspiracy theories.
Very.

Wait a minute! Are you suggesting that Krusher didn't do too good of a job carrying Ward over the last 10 rounds and rob himself?

Posted: **29 Nov 2016, 01:31**

Caractacus wrote:because Kovalev was a Russian and Vladimir Putin is a Russian too
and in their nutty liberal minds ,
Putin equals Trump and are best buds
so they couldnt possibly give the fight to Kovalev if it meant a Russian champion if they could help it
(and they did)
particularly when the 10th round started and knew Kovalev was winning on points going in to it.
Its all about Politics as usual.
What you think ?

Kovalev is American boxer who lives in USA and is licensed in USA

He has nothing to do with Russia except being born there and having Russian passport

Forget about politics here

Remember mandatory rematch clause in contract. It is all about the money.

this is the reason of what had happened , not politics

Posted: **29 Nov 2016, 06:44**

sandis wrote:
Caractacus wrote:because Kovalev was a Russian and Vladimir Putin is a Russian too
and in their nutty liberal minds ,
Putin equals Trump and are best buds
so they couldnt possibly give the fight to Kovalev if it meant a Russian champion if they could help it
(and they did)
particularly when the 10th round started and knew Kovalev was winning on points going in to it.
Its all about Politics as usual.
What you think ?
Kovalev is American boxer who lives in USA and is licensed in USA

He has nothing to do with Russia except being born there and having Russian passport

Forget about politics here

Remember mandatory rematch clause in contract. It is all about the money.

this is the reason of what had happened , not politics

What happened was a great fight put on by the top P4P boxers at the moment, whether you agree with the decision or not.

Posted: **29 Nov 2016, 08:43**

lazboy wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
lazboy wrote:
It's good to hear you're not alone in your delusional state. You have people that agree with you. You fit in. Belonging to a community is important.

No, there are rules that govern the sport, that are used as criteria for judging by all of the local commissions and are present in the rules of the sanctioning bodies too, you can't just make up your own criteria, or rather you can, but they carry no weight, and they are not the ones used by professional judges - the problem for you, is that the very nature of rules are that you need to conform to them, in order for people to be competing on an equal playing field, if you don't have the same rules governing different sporting events, they are effectively not the same sport.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar, but these are the stated criteria, though they are loose, nowhere is 'damage' mentioned as a scoring criteria.

Clean punching
Effective Aggression
Ring Generalship
Defence

You may choose to score fights based on who is more marked up, that's your choice, but you are judging the fight on criteria that don't exist. There's a good reason this criteria doesn't exist, because quite simply, some fighters bruise, cut and mark up more easily than others.

Strange that my 'delusion' is backed up by the stated scoring criteria and yours isn't - it begs the question which one of us is truly deluded?
Need to clear your bull&$t up first and foremost. Not once did I talk about choosing to score the fight on who is marked up more. How ridiculous. It’s not a beauty contest. Fighters mark up easier than other, doesn’t mean shiittee unless your Vitali Klitschko and the fight needs to stop. That’s your own delusional definition. Re-read what I wrote. Pain does not mean who is marked up more. Did you assume that of me? Well, we all know what happens when one assumes. It makes an ass out of you and me…particularly you.

Now what’s clean punching James? Harder punches mean more than lighter punchers. It’s not fencing or your beauty contest, its pro boxing. It’s the pain game. It’s the ultimate albeit unwritten purpose, to inflict the most pain. If it wasn’t they should be wearing 25 ounce gloves, if those exist. When you have two fighters landing exactly the same amount of punches and ones punches are having no effect and the others are snapping the head back and wobbling the person. The latter has the better clean punches and should win the round.

I typed it into google also and look what I found. Read it. Learn something. Get out of your rut.

http://www.premierboxingchampions.com/n ... core-fight

Then why were you banging on about 'damage' then?

I'm not sure why you are referencing that article, - it doesn't agree with what you said before, which you seem to be backtracking before, perhaps you should re-read your own comments.

I never said that harder punches don't or shouldn't count more, though rather than harder I'd say 'cleaner' as you've no real way to measure the actual force, and also take into effect whether it seems to halt the opponent in their tracks or stagger them.

Either I've attributed someone else's comments to you, in which case I apologise - or you are denying something you actually said. I've not time to sit reading through the entire thread again.

Posted: **29 Nov 2016, 08:46**

lazboy wrote:
BAD INTENTIONS wrote:
SFW wrote:The point is to do damage. Sergei did a lil more of that, that's probably why it seems like such a harsh decision.
The point of boxing is not to do damage.
Where did that come from? ... cough ... HBO ...

The point is to win by outlanding your opponent.
As per the rules of a scoring system.

This idea of damage is related to a KO, not all forms of winning.
Unless a fighter is showing clear visible damage,
scorers have no right to determine one fighter's jab is worth more because it's more powerful.
Don't you understand the huge bias in that system?

What about the many fights in which the "weaker" fight KOs the stronger fighter late?
Did you score early rounds for the "power" guy because you thought he was doing more damage?
No wonder you scored it for Ward. The amateurs is point based. Pros is the pain game. Get it right.

Here is the comment I was referencing, which is clearly nonsense.

Both versions of the sport, amateur and professional are points based. The pain game - is meaningless. So I stick by my words, you were talking shite.

Posted: **29 Nov 2016, 13:45**

Basically (IMOP) Ward was just being punched around the ring for most of the rounds.
Maybe the judges decided to give him some extra points for some of the rounds just because he had managed
just to to get not knocked out.
whaddya think ?

Posted: **29 Nov 2016, 13:49**

Caractacus wrote:Basically (IMOP) Ward was just being punched around the ring for most of the rounds.
Maybe the judges decided to give him some extra points for some of the rounds just because he had managed
just to to get not knocked out.
whaddya think ?

You need to see an optometrist.

Posted: **29 Nov 2016, 14:14**

Tanzio wrote:
Caractacus wrote:Basically (IMOP) Ward was just being punched around the ring for most of the rounds.
Maybe the judges decided to give him some extra points for some of the rounds just because he had managed
just to to get not knocked out.
whaddya think ?
You need to see an optometrist.

Tanzidiot on his period again.

Armando Alvarez, Telemundo: 115-113 Pacquiao
Ramon Aranda, 3MoreRounds.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Allen Barra, The Atlantic: 119-110 Pacquiao
Bart Barry, spam.com: 116-115 Bradley
Skip Bayless, ESPN: 119-109 Pacquiao
Alexander Belenky, Sport-Express.ru: 116-112 Pacquiao
Ron Borges, Boston Herald: 117-111 Pacquiao
BoxingSocialist.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
Brent Brookhouse, SBNation.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Steve Bunce, allegedly.com/BBC: 116-112 Pacquiao
Ryan Burton, BS.com: 117-112 Pacquiao
Mario Cabrera, The Boxing Republic: 118-110 Pacquiao
Jordan Capobianco, BoxingNews24.com:116-112 Pacquiao
Steve Carp, Las Vegas Review-Journal: 117-111 Pacquiao
CheckHook.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
Scott Christ, BadLeftHook.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Marc Livitz, SecondsOut.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Geoffrey Ciani, EastSideBoxing.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Leroy Cleveland, FightSaga.com: 119-109 Pacquiao
Nigel Collins, ESPN: 118-110 Pacquiao
Victor Contreras, The Sacramento Bee: 118-110 Pacquiao
Paddy Cronan, On the Grind Boxing Radio: 118-110 Pacquiao
Tim Dahlberg, Associated Press: 117-111 Pacquiao
Gareth Davies, The Daily Telegraph: 117-111 Pacquiao
Rob Day, RingNews24.com: 117-112 Pacquiao
George Diaz, The Orlando Sentinel: 117-111 Pacquiao
Jake Donovan, BS.com: 115-113 Pacquiao
Terry Dooley, BS.com: 115-113 Pacquiao
Robert Ecksel, Boxing.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Stephen Edwards, BoxingTalk.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Jake Emen, ProBoxing-Fans.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Charles Farrell, No Holds Barred Radio Show: 117-111 Pacquiao
FightersRated.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Doug Fischer, The Ring Magazine: 117-111 Pacquiao
Danny Flexen, Boxing News: 115-113 Bradley
Ace Freeman, FightFan.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Danny Garcia: 118-110 Pacquiao
Chuck Giampa, Showtime: 118-110 Pacquiao
Brian Arman Graham, Sports Illustrated: 116-112 Pacquiao
Ed Graney, Las Vegas Review-Journal: 117-111 Pacquiao
Tom Gray, SecondsOut.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
Suge Green, On the Grind Boxing Radio: 116-112 Pacquiao
David Greisman, BS.com: 7-111 Pacquiao
Tommy Gunn, spam.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Andreas Hale, FightNews.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
Ricky Hatton: 116-112 Pacquiao
Thomas Hauser, HBO/TheSweetScience.com:115-114
Benny Henderson, DogHouseBoxing.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Jorge Hernandez, The Low Blow.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Joseph Herron, FightSaga.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Ken Hissner, DogHouseBoxing.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
Graham Houston, FightWriter.com/FightNews.com/ESPN: 117-111 Pacquiao
Kevin Iole, Yahoo! Sports: 117-111 Pacquiao
Phil Jay, WorldBoxingNews.net: 118-110 Pacquiao
Max Kellerman, HBO: 116-112 Pacquiao
Brian Kenny, Top Rank: 116-112 Bradley
Amir Khan, Primetime: 116-112 Pacquiao
Steve Kim, MaxBoxing.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Mike Koppinger, The Ring Magazine: 118-110 Pacquiao
Harold Lederman, HBO: 119-109 Pacquiao
Ron Lewis, Primetime/BBC: 117-111 Pacquiao
Steve Lillis, allegedly: 118-111 Pacquiao
Robert Little, BlackSportsOnline.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Mark Lyons, 8CountNews.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Chris Manix, Sports Illustrated: 115-113 Pacquiao
Ryan Maquinana, Comcast Sports Net Bay Area: 117-111 Pacquiao
Gordon Marino, The Wall Street Journal: 115-113 Pacquiao
Rich Marotta, KFI Los Angeles: 118-110 Pacquiao
Juan Manuel Marquez: 116-112 Pacquiao
Ray Markarian, TheSweetScience.com: 119-109 Pacquiao
Michael Marley, BoxingConfidential.com/Examiner.com: 119-109 Pacquiao
David Mayo, The Grand Rapids Press: 117-111 Pacquiao
Jeff Mayweather: 118-110 Pacquiao
Kelsey McCarson, TheSweetScience.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
John McCormick, BoxingTalk.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Wayne McCullough: 116-112 Pacquiao
Franklin McNeil, Newark Star-Ledger: 116-112 Pacquiao
Kevin Mitchell, The Guardian: 118-112 Pacquiao
Gabriel Montoya, MaxBoxing.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Robert Morales, Los Angeles Daily News: 116-112 Pacquiao
Kieran Mulvaney, ESPN: 117-111 Pacquiao
Michael Nelson, TheCruelestSport.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
Brett Newton, Pound4Pound.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Pete O'Brien, USA Today: 118-110 Pacquiao
Brett Okamoto, ESPN: 116-112 Pacquiao
Graham Parker, The Guardian: 117-111 Pacquiao
Max Parker, BoxingWatchers.com: 119-109 Pacquiao
John Perretti, No Holds Barred Radio Show: 117-111 Pacquiao
Ryan Phillips, BleacherReport.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Eugeny Pilipenko, Vringe.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Ken Pollitt, the13thround.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Lance Pugmire, Los Angeles Times: 117-111 Pacquiao
Dan Rafael, ESPN: 119-109 Pacquiao
Eric Raskin, HBO/TheSweetScience.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
John Raspanti, DogHouseBoxing.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Rick Reeno, BS.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
Chris Robinson, BS.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Cliff Rold, BS.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Michael Rosenthal, The Ring Magazine: 118-110 Pacquiao
Champ Ross, DaTruthBoxing.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
John Russell, former trainer of Buster Douglas: 118-110 Pacquiao
Jonathan Sakti, Comcast Sports Net Bay Area: 117-111 Pacquiao
Luis Sandoval, BS.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Ted Sares, Boxing.com: 119-111 Pacquiao
Lem Satterfield, The Ring Magazine: 115-113 Pacquiao
Scott Sawitz, Fox Sports/Inside Fights: 119-109 Pacquiao
Joel Sebastionelli, LIITR Box Radio: 116-112 Pacquiao
Colin Seymour, Examiner.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Cameron Sharpe, Boxing Fancast: 115-115 Draw
Ronnie Shields: 117-111 Pacquiao
Tim Smith, New York Daily News: 116-112 Pacquiao
Ryan Songalia, The Ring Magazine: 118-110 Pacquiao
Tim Starks, The Queensbury Rules: 117-111 Pacquiao
Denzil Stone, OnTheBreak.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Alexey Sukachev, Sports.ru: 117-111 Pacquiao
Vittorio Tafur, The San Francisco Chronicle: 119-109 Pacquiao
Luke Thomas, MMAFighting.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Ben Thompson, spam.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
Richie Tomasini, Comcast Sports Net Bay Area: 117-111 Pacquiao
Barry Tompkins, Showtime: 119-110 Pacquiao
Darren Velasco, 8CountNews.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
George Willis, The New York Post: 116-112 Pacquiao
Michael Woods, ESPN: 119-109 Pacquiao
Nick Xouris, spam.com: 118-111 Pacquiao
Matt Youmans, Las Vegas Review-Journal: 117-111 Pacquiao
Steve Zemach, The Queensbury Rules.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
Vadim Zhuk, Championat.com: 118-110 Pacquiao

Among the experts above, 121 scored the bout for Pacquiao, 3 scored it for Bradley and 1 had it a draw.
None of the scores for Pacquiao were offered by Philippine media.
Two of the three scores for Bradley were provided by American media. The other score for Bradley and the draw were from British media.

Posted: **29 Nov 2016, 15:10**

Here is good video about the round 10.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWKs8-UaFcg

You know the round where Kovalev got robbed

Posted: **29 Nov 2016, 15:13**

Caractacus wrote:Basically (IMOP) Ward was just being punched around the ring for most of the rounds.
Maybe the judges decided to give him some extra points for some of the rounds just because he had managed
just to to get not knocked out.
whaddya think ?

Exactly. If he didn't get dropped or visibly wobbled, it means he outboxed Kovalev, because he is a "master technician"

Posted: **29 Nov 2016, 16:23**

crow wrote:
Tanzio wrote:
Caractacus wrote:Basically (IMOP) Ward was just being punched around the ring for most of the rounds.
Maybe the judges decided to give him some extra points for some of the rounds just because he had managed
just to to get not knocked out.
whaddya think ?
You need to see an optometrist.
Tanzidiot on his period again.

Armando Alvarez, Telemundo: 115-113 Pacquiao
Ramon Aranda, 3MoreRounds.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Allen Barra, The Atlantic: 119-110 Pacquiao
Bart Barry, spam.com: 116-115 Bradley
Skip Bayless, ESPN: 119-109 Pacquiao
Alexander Belenky, Sport-Express.ru: 116-112 Pacquiao
Ron Borges, Boston Herald: 117-111 Pacquiao
BoxingSocialist.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
Brent Brookhouse, SBNation.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Steve Bunce, allegedly.com/BBC: 116-112 Pacquiao
Ryan Burton, BS.com: 117-112 Pacquiao
Mario Cabrera, The Boxing Republic: 118-110 Pacquiao
Jordan Capobianco, BoxingNews24.com:116-112 Pacquiao
Steve Carp, Las Vegas Review-Journal: 117-111 Pacquiao
CheckHook.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
Scott Christ, BadLeftHook.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Marc Livitz, SecondsOut.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Geoffrey Ciani, EastSideBoxing.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Leroy Cleveland, FightSaga.com: 119-109 Pacquiao
Nigel Collins, ESPN: 118-110 Pacquiao
Victor Contreras, The Sacramento Bee: 118-110 Pacquiao
Paddy Cronan, On the Grind Boxing Radio: 118-110 Pacquiao
Tim Dahlberg, Associated Press: 117-111 Pacquiao
Gareth Davies, The Daily Telegraph: 117-111 Pacquiao
Rob Day, RingNews24.com: 117-112 Pacquiao
George Diaz, The Orlando Sentinel: 117-111 Pacquiao
Jake Donovan, BS.com: 115-113 Pacquiao
Terry Dooley, BS.com: 115-113 Pacquiao
Robert Ecksel, Boxing.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Stephen Edwards, BoxingTalk.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Jake Emen, ProBoxing-Fans.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Charles Farrell, No Holds Barred Radio Show: 117-111 Pacquiao
FightersRated.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Doug Fischer, The Ring Magazine: 117-111 Pacquiao
Danny Flexen, Boxing News: 115-113 Bradley
Ace Freeman, FightFan.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Danny Garcia: 118-110 Pacquiao
Chuck Giampa, Showtime: 118-110 Pacquiao
Brian Arman Graham, Sports Illustrated: 116-112 Pacquiao
Ed Graney, Las Vegas Review-Journal: 117-111 Pacquiao
Tom Gray, SecondsOut.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
Suge Green, On the Grind Boxing Radio: 116-112 Pacquiao
David Greisman, BS.com: 7-111 Pacquiao
Tommy Gunn, spam.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Andreas Hale, FightNews.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
Ricky Hatton: 116-112 Pacquiao
Thomas Hauser, HBO/TheSweetScience.com:115-114
Benny Henderson, DogHouseBoxing.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Jorge Hernandez, The Low Blow.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Joseph Herron, FightSaga.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Ken Hissner, DogHouseBoxing.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
Graham Houston, FightWriter.com/FightNews.com/ESPN: 117-111 Pacquiao
Kevin Iole, Yahoo! Sports: 117-111 Pacquiao
Phil Jay, WorldBoxingNews.net: 118-110 Pacquiao
Max Kellerman, HBO: 116-112 Pacquiao
Brian Kenny, Top Rank: 116-112 Bradley
Amir Khan, Primetime: 116-112 Pacquiao
Steve Kim, MaxBoxing.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Mike Koppinger, The Ring Magazine: 118-110 Pacquiao
Harold Lederman, HBO: 119-109 Pacquiao
Ron Lewis, Primetime/BBC: 117-111 Pacquiao
Steve Lillis, allegedly: 118-111 Pacquiao
Robert Little, BlackSportsOnline.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Mark Lyons, 8CountNews.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Chris Manix, Sports Illustrated: 115-113 Pacquiao
Ryan Maquinana, Comcast Sports Net Bay Area: 117-111 Pacquiao
Gordon Marino, The Wall Street Journal: 115-113 Pacquiao
Rich Marotta, KFI Los Angeles: 118-110 Pacquiao
Juan Manuel Marquez: 116-112 Pacquiao
Ray Markarian, TheSweetScience.com: 119-109 Pacquiao
Michael Marley, BoxingConfidential.com/Examiner.com: 119-109 Pacquiao
David Mayo, The Grand Rapids Press: 117-111 Pacquiao
Jeff Mayweather: 118-110 Pacquiao
Kelsey McCarson, TheSweetScience.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
John McCormick, BoxingTalk.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Wayne McCullough: 116-112 Pacquiao
Franklin McNeil, Newark Star-Ledger: 116-112 Pacquiao
Kevin Mitchell, The Guardian: 118-112 Pacquiao
Gabriel Montoya, MaxBoxing.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Robert Morales, Los Angeles Daily News: 116-112 Pacquiao
Kieran Mulvaney, ESPN: 117-111 Pacquiao
Michael Nelson, TheCruelestSport.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
Brett Newton, Pound4Pound.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Pete O'Brien, USA Today: 118-110 Pacquiao
Brett Okamoto, ESPN: 116-112 Pacquiao
Graham Parker, The Guardian: 117-111 Pacquiao
Max Parker, BoxingWatchers.com: 119-109 Pacquiao
John Perretti, No Holds Barred Radio Show: 117-111 Pacquiao
Ryan Phillips, BleacherReport.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Eugeny Pilipenko, Vringe.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Ken Pollitt, the13thround.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Lance Pugmire, Los Angeles Times: 117-111 Pacquiao
Dan Rafael, ESPN: 119-109 Pacquiao
Eric Raskin, HBO/TheSweetScience.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
John Raspanti, DogHouseBoxing.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Rick Reeno, BS.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
Chris Robinson, BS.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Cliff Rold, BS.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Michael Rosenthal, The Ring Magazine: 118-110 Pacquiao
Champ Ross, DaTruthBoxing.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
John Russell, former trainer of Buster Douglas: 118-110 Pacquiao
Jonathan Sakti, Comcast Sports Net Bay Area: 117-111 Pacquiao
Luis Sandoval, BS.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Ted Sares, Boxing.com: 119-111 Pacquiao
Lem Satterfield, The Ring Magazine: 115-113 Pacquiao
Scott Sawitz, Fox Sports/Inside Fights: 119-109 Pacquiao
Joel Sebastionelli, LIITR Box Radio: 116-112 Pacquiao
Colin Seymour, Examiner.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Cameron Sharpe, Boxing Fancast: 115-115 Draw
Ronnie Shields: 117-111 Pacquiao
Tim Smith, New York Daily News: 116-112 Pacquiao
Ryan Songalia, The Ring Magazine: 118-110 Pacquiao
Tim Starks, The Queensbury Rules: 117-111 Pacquiao
Denzil Stone, OnTheBreak.com: 118-110 Pacquiao
Alexey Sukachev, Sports.ru: 117-111 Pacquiao
Vittorio Tafur, The San Francisco Chronicle: 119-109 Pacquiao
Luke Thomas, MMAFighting.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
Ben Thompson, spam.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
Richie Tomasini, Comcast Sports Net Bay Area: 117-111 Pacquiao
Barry Tompkins, Showtime: 119-110 Pacquiao
Darren Velasco, 8CountNews.com: 117-111 Pacquiao
George Willis, The New York Post: 116-112 Pacquiao
Michael Woods, ESPN: 119-109 Pacquiao
Nick Xouris, spam.com: 118-111 Pacquiao
Matt Youmans, Las Vegas Review-Journal: 117-111 Pacquiao
Steve Zemach, The Queensbury Rules.com: 116-112 Pacquiao
Vadim Zhuk, Championat.com: 118-110 Pacquiao

Among the experts above, 121 scored the bout for Pacquiao, 3 scored it for Bradley and 1 had it a draw.
None of the scores for Pacquiao were offered by Philippine media.
Two of the three scores for Bradley were provided by American media. The other score for Bradley and the draw were from British media.

Croward still hasn't found a bandage gargantuan enough for his bleeding buttsore

Posted: **29 Nov 2016, 16:26**

boxing_rocks wrote:
Caractacus wrote:Basically (IMOP) Ward was just being punched around the ring for most of the rounds.
Maybe the judges decided to give him some extra points for some of the rounds just because he had managed
just to to get not knocked out.
whaddya think ?
Exactly. If he didn't get dropped or visibly wobbled, it means he outboxed Kovalev, because he is a "master technician"

Someone could have made a fortune on butt touniquets for the Krushed Kovalytes

Posted: **29 Nov 2016, 18:08**

For Tanzidiot and his alts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiJaRqMF4CY

Posted: **29 Nov 2016, 20:12**

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
lazboy wrote:
BAD INTENTIONS wrote: The point of boxing is not to do damage.
Where did that come from? ... cough ... HBO ...

The point is to win by outlanding your opponent.
As per the rules of a scoring system.

This idea of damage is related to a KO, not all forms of winning.
Unless a fighter is showing clear visible damage,
scorers have no right to determine one fighter's jab is worth more because it's more powerful.
Don't you understand the huge bias in that system?

What about the many fights in which the "weaker" fight KOs the stronger fighter late?
Did you score early rounds for the "power" guy because you thought he was doing more damage?
No wonder you scored it for Ward. The amateurs is point based. Pros is the pain game. Get it right.
Here is the comment I was referencing, which is clearly nonsense.

Both versions of the sport, amateur and professional are points based. The pain game - is meaningless. So I stick by my words, you were talking shite.

Back a few years, amateur boxing, where i'm from was purely point based. If all three judges saw a punch landed, whether it was hard or soft, you got a point and those accumulated. So some amateur fighters didnt put any pop on their punches and just tried to outland. Pro's is a different system, unless they've changed amautuers now, I didnt watch this years Olympics but i know theres been some changes. Pros the harder punches mean MORE than the tap tap of the amateurs. Thats what I mean when referring to the pain game. Thats the comparison. Not visible damage. I never said that. Either you misunderstood me or you don't see pro boxing like that. Thats your right.

Posted: **29 Nov 2016, 20:32**

Tanzio wrote:
Like a Boss wrote:
tiny_acres wrote:
It's frustrating having to read these totally insane conspiracy theories.
Very.
Wait a minute! Are you suggesting that Krusher didn't do too good of a job carrying Ward over the last 10 rounds and rob himself?

BoxRec

Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward

Re: Why I think the judges gave the fight to Ward