There is a simple lesson to be learned from the more than controversial split decision loss of Manny Pacquio to an obviously inferior and less experienced Tim Bradley. “Keep your political opinions to yourself”.
In this writer’s analysis, this was a knockout, but not of Tim Bradley. It was a political and public opinion knock out of Manny by not only those Manny attacked with his statements prior to the fight, but by Obama and his camp.
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN THE RING?
Pacquiao whipped Tim Bradley easily in every way except on the judge’s score cards. The fight has been called fixed by a Former IBF Welterweight champion boxer among others, and rigged by many more.
Investigations are likely to come as many, including the promoter blamed for the fix, have called for them. Even politicians have entered the fray.
Anyone that observed the fight from beginning to end has to laugh at the decision. It was a lopsided fight in which Tim Bradley ate more lefts than the winner of an all you can eat hotdog contest could ever ingest wieners. Bradley was humiliated, throwing almost all air all night long, barely touching Pacquiao’s gloves in most cases or taking cheap shots in the clinch. In one round, Bradley’s trainer hints to him to head butt Pacquiao, after which Bradley tried twice, but neither butt hurt Pacquiao.
The argument presented in regards to this astronomical flub by one of the judges, Duane Ford, was that Bradley gave Pacquiao a “boxing lesson”. That Bradley’s counter punches hurt Pacquio in the scoring and Bradley was the aggressor in later rounds. But being the aggressor does not score points if one does not hit the other fighter.
The counter punch argument is even more ludicrous.
According to CompuBox statistics, “Pacquiao landed more punches than Bradley in every round but one, the 9th (26-25). Note that all three judges awarded that round to Bradley, even though Pacquiao was busier and landed more power shots (22-21). One round, the 10th, was even in punches landed with 14 apiece.” Read more.
Compubox had Pacquio landing 253 punches to Bradley’s meager 159. Bradley had a hit ratio of less than 20%. Bradley was swinging at air or a ghost almost all night. Were the judges counting these shots in the dark that never made contact as punches? If they did, then the only statistic on which Bradley outscored Pacquiao was total punches thrown at 839 to 751. Could the judges have been duped by a show of hands? Maybe, but doubtful.
If, as the judge Duane Ford stated, counter-punching hurt Pacquio, then Bradley would have had to at the very least landed the same number of punches countering Pacquo as Pacquiao landed to initiate an attack. The idea, after all, of a counterpunch, is to actually land the counterpunch, not to swing at air every time one is hit. It is also rather idiotic to state that the counterpuncher was on the attack. The strategy is to respond to the attack of the opponent while his guard is down. They are diametrically opposed strategies.
The Compubox numbers are so far in favor of Pacquiao it is laughable. Either the judges could not tell if the punches were landing and scored every whiff by Bradley as a punch or this had to be intentional.
Fighters never lose with these types of Compubox numbers. This is a first. So what happened? Did the judges intentionally call this fight wrong? Of course they did, but the reason why may surprise you.