Pacquiao vs. Bradley: Disgraceful Decision Will Kill the Sport of Boxing
It was an absolute travesty.
From the start of the fight, Pacquiao dominated. He consistently strafed Bradley with straight left hands and "Desert Storm" looked befuddled by the Filipino southpaw's speed and power.
Bradley came in looking great and was certainly a game opponent for Pacquiao, but he had no chance once the bell rang. Pacquiao landed 253 of 751 punches (34 percent) while Bradley laded just 159 of 839 (19 percent), and Pacquiao was also on target with 82 more power shots (190-108). In addition to that, Pacquiao landed more punches than Bradley in 10 of the night's 12 rounds. That kind of statistical domination tells you all you need to know, as Bradley was overwhelmed all night.
The story of the night should have been how great Pacquiao looked after a lackluster November win over Juan Manuel Marquez.
What do you think of Saturday night's decision?
Instead we're left talking about a decision that left the sports world in a frenzy, calling for the judges' heads. In the end Jerry Roth had it 115-113 for Pacquiao, but C.J. Ross and Duane Ford both had it 115-113 for Bradley. All three of them were way off.
I scored the fight 117-111 for Pacquiao and thought I was being generous by giving Bradley three rounds. ESPN's Dan Rafael and HBO's Harold Lederman (two very respected observers) both had it 119-109 for Pacquiao.
With such an obvious decision going the wrong way, fans have a right to be outraged. This kind of result is the reason boxing is losing fans so rapidly. The three judges at ringside were the only observers who saw the fight as being competitive. The sport has absolutely no credibility if the people scoring the fight don't know what they are doing.
Pacquiao clearly dominated Bradley on Saturday night and has a loss on his record to show for it. Boxing may never be the same after such a high-profile robbery from the judges. It's sad to say, but the sport may have had its last hurrah Saturday night.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?