Mayweather Jr. will beat Bradley and own both of the titles thus forcing Pacquiao to fight him which will make the promoters and the fight industry mega-millions... It's so blatantly obvious. Just another hostile takeover... Business.
That's just my opinion... BUT I gave up on boxing many years ago.
I'm glad I grew up in a time when many fights were on regular TV.
Those boxers made it a golden era... Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton... and many, many more.
I clearly remember when Jimmy Young beat Ali and was robbed by the judges. We were from the same neighborhood and he use to come by and park his van outside the local hangout that I managed. He would park there and draw all the chicks to his van.
Years later I was sitting in a bar with my (then) girlfriend's Dad and he asked me if I knew who that was at the end of the bar... I said "No"... It was Jimmy Young. He looked so different to me by then. We went and had some drinks with him. This was sometime in 1986.
He gave us a short ride home in his puddle hopper (beat up car) and the Cops stopped him. My GF's Dad said to the cop... "Don't you know who this is?" " He's Jimmy Young."... so the cop said "OK... I give him 2 tickets in stead of 4."
It was a dual "x" type of intersection and Young drove through a stop sign and a red light and was speeding with expired tags. It was about 1am and these were no cars in sight so I guess he just keep driving through the intersections. I don't know where the cop had been hiding in his car... he came out of nowhere.
If you don't know who Jimmy Young was just know this... He fought hard vs all the big names back then. He beat George Foreman in 1977 in a HW elimination bout and Rob Lyle also. Young was ROBBED in a Heavyweight Title bout in a close decision vs Muhammad Ali in 1976. He also lost a close decision to Ken Norton in a HW elimination bout in 1977.
https://www.phillyboxinghistory.com/programs/images/19760430pr.jpg
https://www.phillyboxinghistory.com/posters/images/19760430po.jpg
Young kicked off 1976 by defeating former title challenger Jose "King" Roman on February 20, raising his record to 17-4-2, while extending his unbeaten streak to 12. On April 30, 1976, seven years after turning pro, Jimmy Young fought undisputed heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali on ABC. At the time, Ali was bigger than boxing. Young would be the sixth fighter Ali defended his title against after regaining it from George Foreman in October of 1974. In Ali's last six fights before he fought Jimmy Young, he won five of them by stoppage. Among the fighters Ali stopped were George Foreman, Ron Lyle and Joe Frazier - and neither Foreman nor Lyle had ever been stopped before fighting Ali.
In the biggest fight of his career, Jimmy Young not only survived, but you could count the number of times he was hit cleanly by Ali. Young took Ali out of his game, causing him to miss more punches than any fighter Ali ever fought. Young forced Ali to fight as the aggressor the entire fight, and that wasn't Ali's forte. Young totally frustrated and bewildered Ali for 15 rounds. Ali tried everything against Young, but was unable to solve his style. At the end of the fifteenth round, Ali was no closer to figuring out how to fight Young than he was in the first round. In a fight that most thought he lost, Ali won a unanimous decision over Jimmy Young to retain his title.
Entire article here...
https://www.phillyboxinghistory.com/extras/young_lotierzo_part1.htm
I watched that fight on TV and Jimmy beat Ali fair and square... He may not have been the greatest... But Jimmy Young Beat Ali... He just could not beat the judges. R.I.P. Jimmy
Mayweather Jr. will beat Bradley and own both of the titles thus forcing Pacquiao to fight him which will make the promoters and the fight industry mega-millions... It's so blatantly obvious. Just another hostile takeover... Business.
That's just my opinion... BUT I gave up on boxing many years ago.
I'm glad I grew up in a time when many fights were on regular TV.
Those boxers made it a golden era... Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton... and many, many more.
I clearly remember when Jimmy Young beat Ali and was robbed by the judges. We were from the same neighborhood and he use to come by and park his van outside the local hangout that I managed. He would park there and draw all the chicks to his van.
Years later I was sitting in a bar with my (then) girlfriend's Dad and he asked me if I knew who that was at the end of the bar... I said "No"... It was Jimmy Young. He looked so different to me by then. We went and had some drinks with him. This was sometime in 1986.
He gave us a short ride home in his puddle hopper (beat up car) and the Cops stopped him. My GF's Dad said to the cop... "Don't you know who this is?" " He's Jimmy Young."... so the cop said "OK... I give him 2 tickets in stead of 4."
It was a dual "x" type of intersection and Young drove through a stop sign and a red light and was speeding with expired tags. It was about 1am and these were no cars in sight so I guess he just keep driving through the intersections. I don't know where the cop had been hiding in his car... he came out of nowhere.
If you don't know who Jimmy Young was just know this... He fought hard vs all the big names back then. He beat George Foreman in 1977 in a HW elimination bout and Rob Lyle also. Young was ROBBED in a Heavyweight Title bout in a close decision vs Muhammad Ali in 1976. He also lost a close decision to Ken Norton in a HW elimination bout in 1977.
https://www.phillyboxinghistory.com/programs/images/19760430pr.jpg
https://www.phillyboxinghistory.com/posters/images/19760430po.jpg
Young kicked off 1976 by defeating former title challenger Jose "King" Roman on February 20, raising his record to 17-4-2, while extending his unbeaten streak to 12. On April 30, 1976, seven years after turning pro, Jimmy Young fought undisputed heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali on ABC. At the time, Ali was bigger than boxing. Young would be the sixth fighter Ali defended his title against after regaining it from George Foreman in October of 1974. In Ali's last six fights before he fought Jimmy Young, he won five of them by stoppage. Among the fighters Ali stopped were George Foreman, Ron Lyle and Joe Frazier - and neither Foreman nor Lyle had ever been stopped before fighting Ali.
In the biggest fight of his career, Jimmy Young not only survived, but you could count the number of times he was hit cleanly by Ali. Young took Ali out of his game, causing him to miss more punches than any fighter Ali ever fought. Young forced Ali to fight as the aggressor the entire fight, and that wasn't Ali's forte. Young totally frustrated and bewildered Ali for 15 rounds. Ali tried everything against Young, but was unable to solve his style. At the end of the fifteenth round, Ali was no closer to figuring out how to fight Young than he was in the first round. In a fight that most thought he lost, Ali won a unanimous decision over Jimmy Young to retain his title.
Entire article here...
https://www.phillyboxinghistory.com/extras/young_lotierzo_part1.htm
I watched that fight on TV and Jimmy beat Ali fair and square... He may not have been the greatest... But Jimmy Young Beat Ali... He just could not beat the judges. R.I.P. Jimmy
Watch the fight yourself and tell me that Jimmy Young LOST this fight to Ali... It's a fix... all about money.
1976 04 30. Muhammad Ali - Jimmy Young
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4psfN2P48U
Or that he LOST this fight vs Ken Norton...
(1st part... you can find the rest)
Watch the fight yourself and tell me that Jimmy Young LOST this fight to Ali... It's a fix... all about money.
1976 04 30. Muhammad Ali - Jimmy Young
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4psfN2P48U
Or that he LOST this fight vs Ken Norton...
(1st part... you can find the rest)
Just listen to Howard Cosell and Ken Nortan talk during the fight about how much money would be lost for the "EXPECTED" rematch between Norton and Ali... and how a loss to Young in this fight would "Disrupt all of the plans that Ali has made" for future fights.
This is not the first time nor the last time that "MONEY" has played a part in the outcome of a boxing match.
A few years later Ali was scheduled to fight BOTH Young and Norton again... but Ali managed to influence the boxing industry by saying he would retire before doing that and that he wanted Norton and Young to fight each other for the right to fight him...
...and in that fight between Young and Norton... the judges did what was "EXPECTED" from them by giving the decision to Norton because there was MORE money to be made in another Ali-Norton fight than an Ali-Young fight... It was all too obvious that Ali did NOT want to risk fighting Jimmy Young again anyway.
This is why Bradly was given the decision over Pacquiao this weekend... Once Mayweather destroys Bradley and takes Pacquiao's belt... then Pacquiao will be "forced" to accept whatever agreement is offered by Mayweather's camp to try and regain his own belt back. They have always wanted this fight and since it was not coming together on its own... the boxing mafia decided to "FORCE" it to happen.... and they will just rake in the big bucks while giving Pacquiao whatever they decide to give him now. Pacquiao could have avoided this by taking one of the previous offers but he stood his ground... so now he must give in or retire.
Just listen to Howard Cosell and Ken Nortan talk during the fight about how much money would be lost for the "EXPECTED" rematch between Norton and Ali... and how a loss to Young in this fight would "Disrupt all of the plans that Ali has made" for future fights.
This is not the first time nor the last time that "MONEY" has played a part in the outcome of a boxing match.
A few years later Ali was scheduled to fight BOTH Young and Norton again... but Ali managed to influence the boxing industry by saying he would retire before doing that and that he wanted Norton and Young to fight each other for the right to fight him...
...and in that fight between Young and Norton... the judges did what was "EXPECTED" from them by giving the decision to Norton because there was MORE money to be made in another Ali-Norton fight than an Ali-Young fight... It was all too obvious that Ali did NOT want to risk fighting Jimmy Young again anyway.
This is why Bradly was given the decision over Pacquiao this weekend... Once Mayweather destroys Bradley and takes Pacquiao's belt... then Pacquiao will be "forced" to accept whatever agreement is offered by Mayweather's camp to try and regain his own belt back. They have always wanted this fight and since it was not coming together on its own... the boxing mafia decided to "FORCE" it to happen.... and they will just rake in the big bucks while giving Pacquiao whatever they decide to give him now. Pacquiao could have avoided this by taking one of the previous offers but he stood his ground... so now he must give in or retire.
Pacquiao 253 to Bradley 159 punches connected
Nevada panel probe of Bradley judges unlikely
The Nevada State Athletic Commission's executive director says the judges in the controversial welterweight title bout between Timothy Bradley and Manny Pacquiao are not likely to face discipline or a review, the Los Angeles Times reported on its website Monday.
Keith Kizer told the newspaper that he anticipates Bradley's controversial split-decision win will stand.
Bradley came on strong in the later rounds, winning five of the last six on two scorecards and four on the third. He won 115-113 on the scorecards of judges Duane Ford and C.J. Ross, while losing on Jerry Roth's scorecard by the same margin. ESPN.com's Dan Rafael scored it 119-109 for Pacquiao. The Associated Press had Pacquiao winning 117-111.
"I had Manny ahead, but that's fine," Kizer told the newspaper. "All I can say is I think every judge should strive to get better.
"Every fighter who loses a close fight like that wants to look at the judges."
The scores were met by great outrage from the 14,000-plus in attendance at the MGM Grand Garden Arena, especially with statistics showing Pacquiao connected on 253 punches to Bradley's 159. Compubox statistics showed Pacquiao landing more punches in 10 of the 12 rounds.
Bradley attended the post-fight news conference in a wheelchair and has since been diagnosed with a fractured left foot and twisted right ankle. Pacquiao appeared unscathed afterward.
Bob Arum, who promotes both fighters, expressed outrage about the scoring and suggested an international association of judges be formed, or age limits for judges installed. "I know this from experience," said Arum, 80, "our attention span is less."
Ford is 74, Roth is 71.
"Those scorecards were ridiculous," Arum said. "Everyone near me said it's a fun fight, Bradley's really trying, but it's one-sided. If we had three experienced judges doing this fight instead, all we'd be talking about is how courageous Bradley was."
Many reporters at ringside unofficially scored the bout in the 9-3 or 11-1 range for Pacquiao.
Pacquiao 253 to Bradley 159 punches connected
Nevada panel probe of Bradley judges unlikely
The Nevada State Athletic Commission's executive director says the judges in the controversial welterweight title bout between Timothy Bradley and Manny Pacquiao are not likely to face discipline or a review, the Los Angeles Times reported on its website Monday.
Keith Kizer told the newspaper that he anticipates Bradley's controversial split-decision win will stand.
Bradley came on strong in the later rounds, winning five of the last six on two scorecards and four on the third. He won 115-113 on the scorecards of judges Duane Ford and C.J. Ross, while losing on Jerry Roth's scorecard by the same margin. ESPN.com's Dan Rafael scored it 119-109 for Pacquiao. The Associated Press had Pacquiao winning 117-111.
"I had Manny ahead, but that's fine," Kizer told the newspaper. "All I can say is I think every judge should strive to get better.
"Every fighter who loses a close fight like that wants to look at the judges."
The scores were met by great outrage from the 14,000-plus in attendance at the MGM Grand Garden Arena, especially with statistics showing Pacquiao connected on 253 punches to Bradley's 159. Compubox statistics showed Pacquiao landing more punches in 10 of the 12 rounds.
Bradley attended the post-fight news conference in a wheelchair and has since been diagnosed with a fractured left foot and twisted right ankle. Pacquiao appeared unscathed afterward.
Bob Arum, who promotes both fighters, expressed outrage about the scoring and suggested an international association of judges be formed, or age limits for judges installed. "I know this from experience," said Arum, 80, "our attention span is less."
Ford is 74, Roth is 71.
"Those scorecards were ridiculous," Arum said. "Everyone near me said it's a fun fight, Bradley's really trying, but it's one-sided. If we had three experienced judges doing this fight instead, all we'd be talking about is how courageous Bradley was."
Many reporters at ringside unofficially scored the bout in the 9-3 or 11-1 range for Pacquiao.
...
gr8t stuff mon ami...
on young-ali i have to say after watching the video this IMO represented the eptiome of disinterest on ali's part...
as much as that played into young's favor, jimmy quite simply had to do more to win the fight (and the title)...i just don't think a big underdog wins a heavyweight championship adopting a largely defensive posture...
in the same vein, just because ali was carrying too many pounds and obvisouly in spotty form you don't take away his belt unless the other guy beats him...
i'll point to douglas-tyson as an example of what i mean...
tyson didn't 'lose'...douglas 'won'...
...
gr8t stuff mon ami...
on young-ali i have to say after watching the video this IMO represented the eptiome of disinterest on ali's part...
as much as that played into young's favor, jimmy quite simply had to do more to win the fight (and the title)...i just don't think a big underdog wins a heavyweight championship adopting a largely defensive posture...
in the same vein, just because ali was carrying too many pounds and obvisouly in spotty form you don't take away his belt unless the other guy beats him...
i'll point to douglas-tyson as an example of what i mean...
tyson didn't 'lose'...douglas 'won'...
Just flashed at the bottom of my TV while on ESPN...
Duane Ford, one of the two judges that scored the fight for Bradley, tells the Las Vegas Review-Journal that he thought Bradley "gave Pacquiao a boxing lesson."
I use to wonder why these judges are usually older people... then I realized that they would be dead sooner and are more likely easier to sway with pocket cash.
.........................................................................................
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1217189-pacquiao-vs-bradley-judge-duane-ford-defends-decision
One of the veteran Nevada judges at the center of the public's outrage over Tim Bradley's inexplicable decision win Saturday night is defending his decision.
"I thought Bradley gave Pacquiao a boxing lesson," Judge Duane Ford, who had the fight 115-113 for Bradley, tells the Las Vegas Review-Journal. "I thought a lot of the rounds were close. Pacquiao missed a lot of punches and I thought he was throwing wildly."
This is not likely to help the the boxing public move on from the controversy, as most, if not all fans from the casual to the hardcore feel that something was not right in Las Vegas on Saturday.
Ford doubled-down on Monday telling Yahoo Sports Kevin Iole, "If this were 'American Idol', without a doubt, Manny Pacquiao would have won," Ford said.
"But it was not. I gave an honest opinion. I had Pacquiao up 4-2, I think, at the end of six rounds. I thought he hurt Bradley a couple of times early in the fight. But when the bell rang to end that round, it was over and what happens in one round doesn't carry over to the next round. They're separate units.
"In pro boxing, you look for damage, and if the punches are equal and the damage is equal, you are looking for effective aggression, and that does not necessarily mean the guy going forward," Ford said. "Effective aggression can be a guy going back. And then you look at ring generalship, and that's all about control."
The problem with this line of thinking, and what most critics will immediately point out, is that the punches and damage were most certainly not equal. Pacquiao landed more and clearly had the heavier hands. Nor did Bradley's aggression appear particularly effective. In both areas of the fight, Pacquiao appeared to dominate.
With talk of a rematch, which only adds to the cynicism of boxing fans, beginning immediately after the fight there has been speculation, most notably by ESPN's Teddy Atlas, that something was fishy about this outcome.
Promoter Bob Arum, who has contracts with both fighters, says not so fast. In comments to Yahoo Sports Kevin Iole on Monday, Arum says there will be no rematch without an investigation.
"I want to investigate whether there was any undue influence, whether the [Nevada Athletic Commission] gave any particular instruction and how they came to this conclusion," said Arum. "But the whole sport is in an uproar. People are going crazy.
"But there needs to be an independent investigation because it strains credulity that an event everybody saw as so one-sided one way all three judges saw it as close. It strains credulity."
While Arum would appear to be coming down on the side of the boxing public, who rightfully feels cheated and jobbed by the outcome, these comments could reflect mere dollar and cents calculations.
Right now there is simply no market for a Pacquiao-Bradley rematch. The public won't pay for it. And nor should they.
Just flashed at the bottom of my TV while on ESPN...
Duane Ford, one of the two judges that scored the fight for Bradley, tells the Las Vegas Review-Journal that he thought Bradley "gave Pacquiao a boxing lesson."
I use to wonder why these judges are usually older people... then I realized that they would be dead sooner and are more likely easier to sway with pocket cash.
.........................................................................................
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1217189-pacquiao-vs-bradley-judge-duane-ford-defends-decision
One of the veteran Nevada judges at the center of the public's outrage over Tim Bradley's inexplicable decision win Saturday night is defending his decision.
"I thought Bradley gave Pacquiao a boxing lesson," Judge Duane Ford, who had the fight 115-113 for Bradley, tells the Las Vegas Review-Journal. "I thought a lot of the rounds were close. Pacquiao missed a lot of punches and I thought he was throwing wildly."
This is not likely to help the the boxing public move on from the controversy, as most, if not all fans from the casual to the hardcore feel that something was not right in Las Vegas on Saturday.
Ford doubled-down on Monday telling Yahoo Sports Kevin Iole, "If this were 'American Idol', without a doubt, Manny Pacquiao would have won," Ford said.
"But it was not. I gave an honest opinion. I had Pacquiao up 4-2, I think, at the end of six rounds. I thought he hurt Bradley a couple of times early in the fight. But when the bell rang to end that round, it was over and what happens in one round doesn't carry over to the next round. They're separate units.
"In pro boxing, you look for damage, and if the punches are equal and the damage is equal, you are looking for effective aggression, and that does not necessarily mean the guy going forward," Ford said. "Effective aggression can be a guy going back. And then you look at ring generalship, and that's all about control."
The problem with this line of thinking, and what most critics will immediately point out, is that the punches and damage were most certainly not equal. Pacquiao landed more and clearly had the heavier hands. Nor did Bradley's aggression appear particularly effective. In both areas of the fight, Pacquiao appeared to dominate.
With talk of a rematch, which only adds to the cynicism of boxing fans, beginning immediately after the fight there has been speculation, most notably by ESPN's Teddy Atlas, that something was fishy about this outcome.
Promoter Bob Arum, who has contracts with both fighters, says not so fast. In comments to Yahoo Sports Kevin Iole on Monday, Arum says there will be no rematch without an investigation.
"I want to investigate whether there was any undue influence, whether the [Nevada Athletic Commission] gave any particular instruction and how they came to this conclusion," said Arum. "But the whole sport is in an uproar. People are going crazy.
"But there needs to be an independent investigation because it strains credulity that an event everybody saw as so one-sided one way all three judges saw it as close. It strains credulity."
While Arum would appear to be coming down on the side of the boxing public, who rightfully feels cheated and jobbed by the outcome, these comments could reflect mere dollar and cents calculations.
Right now there is simply no market for a Pacquiao-Bradley rematch. The public won't pay for it. And nor should they.
disgraceful judging. worst i ever seen. but we all know good number of fights are fixed after all it is the only sport where scores arent posted during the fight so nobody knows whos winning. god for bid if the fighters knew the score so the could change their plan of action. imagine nothing posting the score in other sporting events.
disgraceful judging. worst i ever seen. but we all know good number of fights are fixed after all it is the only sport where scores arent posted during the fight so nobody knows whos winning. god for bid if the fighters knew the score so the could change their plan of action. imagine nothing posting the score in other sporting events.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.