Pacquiao vs. Bradley: Fighters Must Meet Again Regardless of WBO Decision

Last week the WBO announced that they would be reviewing the controversial judges' decision on June 9 that gave undefeated Timothy Bradley Jr. a split decision win over former welterweight champion Manny Pacquiao, according to a report by ESPN boxing analyst Dan Rafael.

But I'm here to tell you that regardless of who the committee of five international judges determines is the winner, both fighters must touch gloves inside the ring in the near future.

The firestorm of controversy that erupted after the decision was announced at MGM Grand in Las Vegas has been the center of boxing fans' attention for more than a week now, and quite frankly it's not good for the sport.

No matter what the WBO's decision is, either fighter will have a legitimate argument as to why he is the champ.

Bradley won on two of the ringside judges' scorecards, while Pacquiao won in the eyes of a majority of those who watched the fight up close and on television. Even the ringside media thought Pacquiao successfully defended his title. 

Although it's cliche to say that the bout was too close to call, it almost was in this case. Bradley certainly made a case with his intensity in the final rounds, but was it enough to dethrone the champion?

The consensus around the boxing world: Hardly. 

According to boxingscene.com, Pacquiao is beginning preparation to fight Juan Manuel Marquez for a fourth time on November 10, instead of setting up an immediate rematch with Bradley. A rematch with Bradley wouldn't be on the table until 2013 according to the report. 

It is unfair and a bit of a disgrace that boxing fans should have to wait that long for justice, after all Pacquiao will be a year older and perhaps a step slower. 

Still though, who are we to expect boxing to consider the fans. Another fight between two of the sport's best welterweights sometime down the road would at least give us some closure. 

Follow Patrick Clarke on Twitter for more on the Wild World of Boxing.