Any1 on here who thought Bradley won???

Not even close mate Manny landed 94 punches more and outlanded Bradley in 10 of the 12

I gave bradley two rounds

arum - "i have never been so ashamed to be associated with boxing as i am tonight"

guess I'm going to take some flak here then!

Just watched it again without the sound of the crowd and the bullshit commentary..I'd urge you all to do the same. No way on earth can that fight be called a robbery.

I just scored it 114-114, giving Bradley rds 1,2,3,10,11,12 and the rest to Pac Man. Rnds 3,5,8,11 were all mighty close in my book and I can now finally see how Bradley could have been given the decision.  It was a bloody close fight and you could give either man the nod depending on what you prefer to see.

I do wonder if the judges, wary of the abuse the judges got after Pac-JMM 3, gave the benefit of the doubt in some of the close rounds in the early part of the fight to Bradley, not expecting Bradley to finish the fight so well and possibly thinking that favouring him in the close rounds would be irrelevant at the end.

SJ those compubox numbers are absolute crap...I've never seen Manny miss so much, even in the rounds he clearly won he was hitting air a lot of the time.

I've got to say massive props to Bradley, he fought a great fight against a great opponent and proved he belonged at the top table...he'd absolutely massacre Khan for my money.

For me on second viewing, and suprisingly, the fix wasn't in!

Iv just backed djorkvic at 10/1. I think he should be no greater than 6/4 even with a set break down. In this game u get paid if u win.

Fair play to. Its an opinion. At least u tried to explain urself

Albaster u have to say most people think pacman won the 1st 3 for starters. Pacman won at least 1 out of the 1st 3 and at least 1 out of the last 3. And that's if ur being very very  bias towards Bradley.

Bradley was in survival mode most of the fight.

Marquez v pacman was much closer than this. Even Bradley was shocked. There were several times where it lookedas if 1 punch could and should have ended it.

By the way djorvic is 4/1 right now.

Amazing bet. Gota go fo this 1. Amazing player. Pound for pound probs the best sportsman in the world. Get on

alabaster crashes down     10 Jun 12 15:42 
guess I'm going to take some flak here then!

Just watched it again without the sound of the crowd and the bullshit commentary..I'd urge you all to do the same. No way on earth can that fight be called a robbery.

I just scored it 114-114, giving Bradley rds 1,2,3,10,11,12 and the rest to Pac Man. Rnds 3,5,8,11 were all mighty close in my book and I can now finally see how Bradley could have been given the decision.  It was a bloody close fight and you could give either man the nod depending on what you prefer to see.

I do wonder if the judges, wary of the abuse the judges got after Pac-JMM 3, gave the benefit of the doubt in some of the close rounds in the early part of the fight to Bradley, not expecting Bradley to finish the fight so well and possibly thinking that favouring him in the close rounds would be irrelevant at the end.

SJ those compubox numbers are absolute crap...I've never seen Manny miss so much, even in the rounds he clearly won he was hitting air a lot of the time.

I've got to say massive props to Bradley, he fought a great fight against a great opponent and proved he belonged at the top table...he'd absolutely massacre Khan for my money.

Whilst the commentry for both last night and Floyd Cotto was a load of cr ap, I thought Manny won easy last night. Although Marquez has been jobbed at least twice against him anyway

it's all about opinions mate but that's my honest assessment, I've no vested interest I've already been paid out. Watching it live I thought Bradley was well in the fight but at the final bell I just couldn't see how he could get the decision or even a draw. Watching it back without the crowd and commentary I was genuinely surprised at the different way I scored it.

I just don't agree he was in survival mode, I think he boxed pretty cute. The pop seemed to vanish completely from his punches around round 4, maybe after he damaged his ankle I don't know, but he got back into the fight late on.

Show me the times when it looked like 1 punch could have ended it. Was that when Pac was throwing wild punches that Bradley was ducking?..despite the clowns on the commentary I don't believe either men were ever really hurt.

I've no vested interest cos I didnt touch the fight. He wasnt in survival mode I agree but he was hurt at times, and his corner even asked him "Do you want to carry on" He lost clearly last night

"It's either corruption or incompetence. There'll be a rematch. It speaks to the corruption of the sport. The criminals will be rewarded" - ESPN's Teddy Atlas

HBO's Jim Lampley referred to it as the "worst scoring he has every seen."

"People, a great sport is now on a respirator. Boxing is presently a polluted playing field in every respect. Tonight was par for the course." - Lou DiBella

"Okay well maybe not worse than my draw with Holyfield but still bad nonetheless." - Lennox Lewis

"Bradley by split decision. I am shocked. I don't even know what to say. That was absolutely horrible" - ESPN's Dan Rafael

Timothy Bradley after the fight suggested he will look at the fight replay to see if he won the fight
Bob Arum (promoter of both Fighters) "Can you believe that? Unbelievable," "I went over to Bradley before the decision and he said, 'I tried hard but I couldn't beat the guy.'" "I'm going to make a lot of money on the rematch, but this [decision] was outrageous."

All I can say is if you get some spare time try re watching it without the sound. It changed my opinion, it may or may not change yours.

I've said in my opening post mate the commentry was shocking. I dont need to watch it again minus the sound. Quotes of who would win out of Manny and Floyd Amir, "I'd have to say Manny cos he's my friend" tells me I dont need to listen to the commentry. But Bradley done little to nothing.

fair enough, we'll agree to disagree then.

Earlier in the broadcast HBO’s unofficial scorer, Harold Lederman, did a breakdown of the judges for the main event. In a nutshell Lederman was displeased with the overall quality of judicial selection for this particular contest, citing inexperience and questionable past calls. He stressed that he wishes the Nevada State Athletic Commission was more selective when choosing judges, and he was quite critical of the Ross selection. In fact Lederman stated something to the effect that Ross could be a concern due to being easily swayed by crowd reactions and also because of having scored so few title fights. Thinking back on this it almost acts as an eerie foreshadowing of things to come.

Lederman gave Bradley 1 round didn't he?

I agree with Alabaster here lads.

I scored 116-114 Pacman. I think Pac won 5 or 6 rounds clearly but a lot of the rest were close rounds. I couldnt find enough Bradley rounds to get him the win but this wasnt the robbery that some are suggesting. I think overall the decision was poor but calling it ''the worst decision ever'' is very wide of the mark.

I also found the commentary massivelly misleading. Khan was a joke for starters. I remember thinking whilst watching that the comms were just bulling pacman up whilst ignoring anything Bradley did well. Ive watched the fight once but remember thinking the first round was Bradleys.....i couldnt see how anyone could say he lost the first round to be honest, as i said though, watched it once.

They should announce the collated round scores at periodic intervals say rounds 4, 8 and then final.  I saw this used in a Klitschko fight...wasn't competitive so a bit irrelevant but would make things interesting in closer fights and make judges more accountable IMO.

Didn't watch fight and didn't have a bet but what were prices after the bell please?

1-200 Manny with lads

Cheers. What about on here?

I'm pretty sure he was 1.03, because I was looking at it thinking maybe I should take some just in case. Then I thought don't be ridiculous there is no way they could get it that wrong. After all these years I really should know better by now

I think Bradley was available at 140/1 and I thought that was bad value. Should have been closer to a 1000/1. He was throwing nothing punches.

Stoped looking at the betting after that as obviously others did too as there was nothing to bet on.

The last 3 rounds were exactly the same. Pacman coming forward doing all the quality work (not much of it I must say) whilst Bradley was trying, he was throwing  nothing punches and occasionaly outlanding pacman for long periods. But wat he was landing was awful. No snap or power.

From rounds 4 to 9 pacman could only have lost 1 round max, the 8th, tge rest were a clean sweep. Hinestly they were. I mean PAC should have got the stopage in them rounds.

Now we r left with the 1st 3 and the last 3.   Basicaly in the last 3 the fight was a bit like cotto v PAC where Bradley was running, throwing keep him off punches, whilst pacman was relentless but unable to land much but wenever he did land Bradley was visably hurt.

As for the 1st 3, they were close if ur being very bias towards Bradley.

The 1st round was close, Bradley edged it till the last 10 secs wen pacman landed 3 quality shots which most people thought won pacman the round. I personaly thought Bradley got the first as I liked his work.  Rounds 2 and 3 were pacman rounds or even rounds. It's hard to give both rounds to Bradley. Maybe 1 if ur slightly bent. But 2 is simply cheating.

U could make a case for pacman to win about 2 rounds which could have been scored 10-8

ffs carlos I'm going to have to watch it again now!

Really can't believe we're seeing the fight so differently. Have you watched it again since?

Which rounds could you make a case for Pac 10-8? Pac barely threw a punch until the last 20 seconds of round 1. Round 3 you could argue either way. As for 'pac should have got the stoppage'...honestly I'm flabbergasted anyone could see it that way. He threw a lot of leather in the middle rounds and the crowd and the comms got excited but he was missing continually.

'have to watch it again tomorrow.

Just watched the fight now.

Can't believe all the controversy,every round was close.

I scored it 115-115, i watched it in silence, not because i thought i'd be swayed but because it was foreign and driving me crazy.

Boxing is subjective, there will always be differences of opinion but i honestly think the scorecards turned in for the Ward/Froch fight were worse than this.

After some of the things i'd read i expected to see a one sided hiding,i saw nothing of the sort.

anyone who took 1.03 trusting judges to do right thing deserves to have all their assets confiscated. They are obviously mentally incompetent.

I honestly watched the 3 times now.

And if I'm as bias as can be I can only give Bradley 6 rounds. That's me being totaly bias. With 5 totaly clear rounds for pacman. The other round I saw pacman winning it but u could get away with scoring it even, it clearly wasn't a Bradley round. So in that case I see Bradley winning by 1 round and that's me being totaly and utterly bias towards Bradley.

I can't see how all 3 judges gave Bradley 5 clear rounds, the other 2 had Bradley winning 7 rounds. That just doesn't add up.

Every1 at ringside though pacman won. I have yet to hear 1 single person who was ringside who though Bradley won. Bradley hardly threw any meaningful punches between 4-9. Only round that was close was the 8th.

So rounds 1-3 and 10-12 were all close.

U have to understand bradleys punches had nothing in them. Especialy after the 3rd.

This is the hurt game and Bradley just never looked like hurting PAC at any stage after the 3rd. He was in the fight up untill round 3. After that pacman dominated up until round 9. U could not realy give Bradley a round in that period. Maybe a share of the 8th.   So 115-113 didn't add up if u do ur maths

Bradley won round 1, contary to the commentry. After that I struggled to say he won a "clear" round. there were a few close rounds 7-12. But I just could never have him getting anything better than a 117-111 defeat

fair enough carlos, I watched it again too and I'm sticking to my guns...I too was unable to give Bradley 7 rounds, I gave him 5 I think on first viewing and enough for a draw when watching it back. I do think the judges cards were controversial and debatable but that doesn't make it a robbery in my book, and certainly not the heist of the century it's being made out as.

There's no argument whatsoever that Bradley had less power than Pacman but fights are scored on a round by round basis not on who's got the heavier hands.

How do you feel about the rematch? My money will probably be on Bradley again, despite the fact that next time the judges will probably be intimidated into giving any close rounds to Pac.

Rematch i'll be having a big bet on Manny stoppage and hope he gets the killer instinct back. Bradley was never in it saturday night. Jesus H the bloke turned to Arum at the bell and said "I tried but couldnt beat him" He knew

Bradley was never in it saturday night. Jesus H the bloke turned to Arum at the bell and said "I tried but couldnt beat him" He knew

Have you actually seen a clip of him say that? Or is it just more crap from Arum. "even bradleys trainer had it 8-4 to pac" said Arum...vigorously denied by Bradleys trainer and if you watch the HBO broadcast which panned to the corners between every round it's clear Bradleys corner were confident to the last.

I know this is at the risk of being done to death now but I came across one interesting viewpoint on another forum and I think it's worth repeating here...

A number of ringside pundits were in uproar about the decision and thought Pac dominated to such an extent they could only give Bradley one round. To me that is plain insanity but it's worth looking at which round they thought Bradley had won in this virtual shut out:

Harold Lederman, HBO: 119-109 Pacquiao - Gave Round 10 to Bradley
Ray Markarian, The Sweet Science: 119-109 Pacquiao Gave Round 11 to Bradley
Michael Marley, Examiner: 119-109 Pacquiao - Gave Round 2 to Bradley
Dan Rafael, ESPN: 119-109 Pacquiao Gave Round 1 to Bradley
Vittorio Tafur, San Francisco Chronicle: 119-109 Pacquiao Gave Round 9 to Bradley
Michael Woods, The Sweet Science: 119-109 Pacquiao Gave Round 12 to Bradley

So even out of those who only gave Bradley one round each we have 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12 from just 6 ringside reports. 6 different rounds from 6 guys who all felt Pacquaio dominated the fight.

If that doesn't tell you it was a close, difficult to score fight then I don't know what will.

Max Kellerman said at the end of the HBO broadcast that somebody he respects ringside had scored the fight to Bradley

Bob Arum is reported in the Telegraph as refusing to sanction a rematch unless there's an investigation into the judging. The problem is that there's no quote in the article where he actually says that. Hard to believe to say the least:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/boxing/manny-pacquiao/9325137/Bob-Arum-wants-investigation-into-Manny-Pacquiaos-controversial-defeat-to-Timothy-Bradley.html



Any legit links to the fight would be appreciated, as I've still not seen it.

Good post Alabaster, it does seem to render the 'poor judging' argument moot if 6 well known reporters/analysts can get 6 different rounds for Bradley.

I respect anybody's views on this fight as long as they've sat there and scored it, boxing is the most subjective sport in the world and i'm not saying i'm right or someone else is wrong but i struggle to see this as anything but a close fight.

Great post there Alabaster, really thought provoking.

Come on alabaster pacman clearly won the 9th so his scorecard has no weight.

The other rounds I have no problem with. But they were 6 rounds u mentioned.

I realy and truly feel if u score a fight as a whole or round by round scoring logic and maths just dnt give Bradley 7 rounds on 2 scorecrads. It just dnt add up.

As for weight of shot dnt count, of course it does!!!!

Y do u think many people had madaina khan close as well as khan pettersson where khan realy landed over 100 more head shots against both. It's cus they thought madaina and pettersons quality was better.

I think 1 clean left from manny was worth 5 rights from Bradley. Manny walked through Bradley, Bradley was in survival, u can never accuse manny of that.

Of course it wasn't the greatest robbery ever. They have been worse. But nonetheless that was a robbery. A draw would have been far more credable.

to be fair mate I think by now we're just arguing about the semantics of the word robbery. To me if you're saying a draw would have been credible then I can't really see how a 1 round difference would make it a robbery, but each to their own.

couple more comments...

I think 1 clean left from manny was worth 5 rights from Bradley.

Why? Just cos it was manny? Cos he springs forward and throws em in a flashy style? If manny was landing these mythical bombs all night why was Bradley not staggering round the ring and why did he finish the fight barely marked up? As others have said it's so subjective...I personally thought that by the championship rounds Bradley had figured out how to make Manny look crude and I'd honestly expect to see him outbox him next time out. I do wonder if some people scored the bout on what Manny has been capable of in the past...the monster that tore into Cotto would probably have overwhelmed Bradley completely but he only seems able or willing to do it for 30 seconds a round these days and for me it wasn't enough.

As for weight of shot dnt count, of course it does!!!

granted I went over the top a bit there, there's obviously a relevance, and that's probably why I didn't give Bradley any of the middle rounds when his punches turned powder puff. Even without massive power though his work in the early and late rounds was definitely effective aggression in my book.

The way boxing is scored is so subjective, ring generalship, the heads going back it must be more powerful right? What

what about partially landed punches? Never liked the way boxing is scored, it has to change. I perfer the way boxing is scored in the amateurs but lets count body shots, can still score rounds 10-9 10-8 after the individual rounds are scored in punches landed. Lets forget this subjective stuff

Finally caught up today lads, had it 115-114 Pac. Performance wise can't see a robbery but Arum's motives do make me suspicious as does his reaction for an investigation. How about one for the last Rios fight you scumbag?

More tied rounds have to be encouraged, i'd have happily scored 6 or so rounds level there on saturday. Lets have fights being won on clear rounds rather than ones where you have to force yourself into someone just slightly edging it. Nothing wrong with giving someone a bout for 3 clearly won sessions if the rest of the fight has been dead level.

Compubox needs a rethink also. They had Bradley throwing more punches, marking his guarding defensive jab that was flicked out to keep pac out of the space with no intention of landing as a missed punch. That totally messes up his punch landed ratio and creates bogus stats.

Great point on the writers who'd given Bradley a whole selection of rounds, this was a close run thing!

excellent post duke.

I scored two rounds level and there could easily have been more but as you say, the temptation is to try to give it to someone who edged it. 116-114 pacman i had it. Cant believe all the headlines and controversy this has caused. We all know that its only because its Pacman. where was the outcry for Erislandy Lara over Williams or as you say, Rios getting the gift last time out.

But on the flipside Jim, and this might sound a contradiction, does this make it possibly even more likely that something was a bit dodgy with the scorecards when looking how Arum has done business in the past?

Don't get me wrong it was a close fight but there's no way that was enough from Bradley to get a decision against Pac on a Top Rank card in the past. I can't make my mind up if the judges have marked it almost considering Bradley the champ after the Marquez fiasco and have been generally concerned about being labelled as House scorers or Arum's pulled the string and encouraged Bradley to get the green light if possible.

The contract's up next year, Pac doesn't seem to have the fire in his belly anymore and by giving Bradley the belt, a likeable black american with a great personality, he's got a fighter he can build into a potential superstar while still making a few big money fights for Pac if he wants them (Marquez 4 has apparantly been agreed today, possibly in Mexico.)

I'm not sure, for me the reason's for the result are as difficult to work out as each round was to score. It was like boxing's version of inception.

Completely agree Duke.

We'l never know the reason for the decision but i certainly dont buy the crap that Arum was spounting about it being outrageous and all that other rubbish........the bloke wins either way. He really is bad for the sport. I think there's certainly some mileage in your theory, makes perfect sense and its how Arum normally operates albiet not that anyone can prove.

It could be anything to be honest although id hope it was just that the judges saw it as they did and had the Marquez scoring in mind. It certainly wasnt a robbery and the sport doesnt deserve the bad press its been getting from this.

Dont think the commentary we were hearing helped, completely biased towards pacman and gave a false impression.

Very unlike HBO mate, usually spot on but i'm not sure what they were watching or the Primetime coverage and it appears those viewing at home went along with it. Seriously got me considering watching future bouts on mute.

Tbf, if u ask people who were at the fight wat there scorecards were and who they thought won, iv yet to hear a ringsider who thought the fight was close nevermind having Bradley ahead.

Some of the punches Bradley threw between rounds 4-9 were a total joke. Pitter patter punches all the way from rounds 4-9.

Maybe u could make a case for a draw watching it from the box. But watching it live and watchin it on the box r 2 different things. I watched it on the box so uv gotta respect wat ringsiders thought as a whole. And as a whole they certainly thought it was madness to say the least.

I think pacman lost last time by about round or 2. Of course some people had it by more, but PAC v marquez was far closer than brad v PAC.

Even the guys trainer had it 8-4 PAC.

This is the way I see it:

pacman won at least 5 clean rounds. Bradley won 0 clear rounds.

Pacman came forward throughout the fight.

Pacman hurt Bradley on at least 3 different occasions.

Pacman was never hurt at any point (dazed or lost his sences).

Pacman landed the harder punches.

Pacman landed 93 more punches according to compubox.

Bradley was clearly in survival mode for at least half of the fight rounds 4-9.

Iv yet to hear a ringsider who thought PAC lost.

Iv yet to hear any1 who can justify giving Bradley 7 rounds.

Hear are the rounds u could give Bradley if u tried:

rounds 1,2,3,8,10,11,12. That's 7 rounds to 5 yeh.

Watch all them rounds once again and tell me u scored it 7-0 to pacman.

Let's be honest alot of people who watched it on the box thought it was close, but ringsiders disagree.

The 7 rounds iv mentioned for Bradley were all close, the other 5 PAC killed it

This fight for me was like cotto v PAC.

Wen Bradley was running people were saying he needs to etc etc. Wen cotto was running and was only a minute left they stopped it.   Wattttttttt the f00k.

Bradley did similar and he won it.

This is the hurt game.

If a round is even the champion should get the benefit of the doubt.

As a challenger u have to take it to the champion, u have to hurt the champion, u have to gain his respect.

Not sure Bradley did that against a household name.

Was there any benefit for boxing. Nonewasoever.


At least wen marquez got robbed the PAC and mayweather fight was still on course if ur trying to look on the bright side of a bad decsion.

There is no bright side here. Sowi.   Clear clear bad decsion for me. Of course nowhere near the worst decsion of all time, but it's contender for the biggest robbery ever because on big fight robberies it is 1 of the worst.

Usualy in big fights decsions ain't that bad. Hopkins v calzahe, Hopkins v pascal etc etc were bad but this takes d biscuit

Even the guys trainer had it 8-4 PAC.

I thought we'd already put this one to bed...

Cameron Dunkin:

"I never said anything like that. It's total bullshit. The guy called me Cameron ****ing Diaz. The guy is a ****ing idiot. For him to say that I said [Pacquiao] won eight to four is the most ridiculous thing. Why he would say that I have no idea."

Sowi I missed that 1.

But seriously, can u make a case for 7-5 Bradley on 2 of the 3 judges scorcards.

U urself scored it 116-114 PAC and I personaly think ur being bias as ur pockets talking.

If that was me I'd probs do the same thing. U backed pacman and won, well done. No1 can take ur cash of u.

But this is about the 2 scores of 115-113 for Bradley which simply means 7-5.

Clearly u should be able to see this is unfair.

Alot of people are saying 115-114 PAC, some 114-114.

We r not talking aboutbthem scores and I have no probs with people scoring it a draw even.

6 rounds to brad 5 to pacman and 1 even is the best I can do for Bradley.

7-5 just dnt add up. Honestly it dnt. U can just give him the 8th round. The best u can do is give it even.

I'm sowi but 7-5 is clearly skank. 2 judges to score it exactly the same.

Maybe I'm wrong. But 7-5 to Bradley is very difficult to justify and iv watched it 8 times over.

I think round 8 is the 1 most people need to look at again

Infact 2 judges gave Bradley round 5.

They should be asked to justify.

All u people at work make a total co ck and bull of the job ur doing , i'm sure u will be asked to explain urself.

Judges job is easier than over 99% of ur jobs, well I guess round 5 is and the got that wrong

I personally couldn't score the fight 7-5 Bradley mate, I've said that from the beginning, but judging being a subjective process and it being a fight with many close rounds I can easily see how someone else could. Rounds 5 and 8 were both close rounds imo, I gave them both to Manny but I definitely find it credible that the judges could have given one or both to Bradley in good faith.

Controversial and debatable yes, fixed? Probably not in my opinion.

U can't give rounds for good faith. Surly not.

I think manny won the 5th pretty clear tbh.


I think we Agree u can make a case for a close fight.

And I think we agree that 7-5 just dnt add up in a fair world

you are al drunk or drugged or the judges friends or what???? and yes my pockes are not talking ....they are screaming where is my 2 and a half fekking grand that was stolen .......i want it back and will not be putting this to bed EVER

you misunderstand me carlos, by 'good faith' I meant an honest (however debatable) opinion rather than a corrupt one. I don't think there's much mileage left in discussing this any further tbh.


Excellent seeth to end the thread torybarsteward.

I actually scored the 5th and 8th rounds level, which if i had given them to Bradley would have meant 115-113 and the exact same score as the judges.

Think the forum is split on this but in my opinion the judging was fine.

Agree with Carlos. Manny won handily and by at least 4 rounds.TB fought scared at times and finding meaningful punches he landed is quite hard. Absoultely bizarre decision.

Issue isn't about the performance for me Owl, so close i thought.The controversy is all about why Arum would let that happen on his card with a judge who he obviously has in his pocket, a judge who gave it to Rios last time?

He's Vince Mcmahon of boxing, he honestly doesn't fancy Floyd, has had in his mind for years that numerous alternative fights for Pacquiao will make more Money than taking on, and most likely losing clearly, to PBF. Now he's realised he can make even more money by giving another of his fighters a push with a controversial decision over Pac. I had the fight really close but I still feel strongly that Arum had it sewn up before hand anyway.

He's made Pac-Marquez 4 and now has Bradley to build on who's got a growing reputation. Man's a disgrace, a gangster, fixer, the works.

Hi guys,just watched the fight with no commentary on and I must say I now score it 1round closer.

I am a Mayweather fan and altho I do not tihnk the decision was as bad as the RIOS decision it is the second worse decision ever.

Bradley round 1 agreed who in there right mindcan give him 2 and 3 with it.

The worse argument is giving Bradley any of the final 3 rounds let alone all 3.HE WASNT PUNCHING,HE WAS FLAPPING ARMS OUT....since round 4 he was struggling to stay on his feet.

This fight at best was 117....111 and thats me really bein kind.


What decides this argument is the fact the punches landed with power and the sheer amount 94 more tell you theres one winner here.

I would never stick up for Pacman I hate ARUM but in this case honesty has got to be the case there is absolutely no way Pacman could have lost that fight..

Chisora decision was = as bad.

Boxing needs a body to take back decisions like this