At least according to everything I’ve read. Here’s Rafe Bartholomew’s ringside account of the Pacquiao-Bradley fight:
There didn’t seem to be a single reporter on press row who gave the fight to Bradley, and if there was, he or she must have been too ashamed to admit it. I overheard HBO boxing analyst Max Kellerman saying he scored it eight rounds to four for Pacquiao, and that he thought doing so was being generous to Bradley. Ten rounds to two, nine to three, and even 11 to one in favor of Pacquiao were more common spreads among journalists who covered the fight. So when people tried to understand why Pacquiao lost a fight where he landed 82 more power punches than Bradley and 12 more jabs while connecting on a much higher percentage of his blows, it’s no surprise that foul play came immediately to mind. Anyone who searched for a rational explanation for this result was bound to come up empty. After that, what’s left but whatever cloak-and-dagger machinations you care to imagine in a sport controlled by a handful of powerful promoters with varying agendas and overseen by a patchwork of ineffectual state athletic commissions?
Ah, if only George was around to weigh in on this one.
[Photo Credit: Joe Klamar/AFP/Getty Images]
and Bert Sugar.
ooooh man, imagine Bert letting loose on this??
yeah my first thought at the end of the fight was this was some bob arum bullshit.