We all know he won both, but just because guy beats a guy on night B doesn't mean the same thing happened on night A.
That would be like saying because Marquez knocked out Pacquiao in their 4th fight, he must have won the previous 3 as well.
Fixed how? The first fight was closer than the second.
Pacquiao fought bettrr second time round.
And Bradley was worse second time than he was first time.
I'm not sure what you mean. Judges don't choose how well fighters fight. The judges didn't cause the first fight to be a closer fight. It just was.
Are you suggesting Pacquiao didn't try first time? Can't be. He won in my opinion that time too. So he did try. But he didn't win as easily as he did second time. What are the judges supposed to do if a fight is closer? Just score it the same?
It was 2 different fights, so they get scored differently. Bradley seemed defeated after 6 rounds second time. He just had no answers in the second half if that fight.
If the first fight was rigged which I highly suspect it was the fighters had nothing to do with it. It was Arum's handiwork in cahoots with some officials. For what only Arum knows. But his put-on post fight indignation did not convince anybody. The sham was simply swept under the rug s as one of those oddities in boxing.
Destroy? Dominate? Pacquiao was busy protecting and preserving himself as much as putting the licks on Tim. And Tim was never known for his punching power in the first place!
Pacman was the better man in both and should have won them both, but "dominate" is waaaaay too strong a word, especially with regard to the first fight.
Watch it with the sound off. Jim Lampley's hilariously biased commentary misled ALOT of casual viewers who rely 100% on the commentators to know what's going on lol. It was much MUCH closer than the commentary suggested.
Sometimes in boxing, the winner loses.
That is why there is a rematch.
Pacquiao proved to everyone that he beat Bradley twice.
I think he dominated the first fight and ground out a hard fought, but clear cut 4 point victory.
Pacquiao is the greatest of this era.
Pacquiao didn't dominate either fight in my opinion and the fight wasn't rigged.
pac simply dominated bradley, 1st fight and the rematch...
so yea, pac was robbed in the 1st...
next time, use the right terms will ya!
I love boxing so I hate to call Fix. But CJ Ross is about as crooked as a plate of spaghetti. Either way, Pacquiao should have won the first fight.
The first fight was a lot more close, in fact, it should have been a tie, Pacquiao was only fighting the last 30 seconds of every round. In the second fight, Bradley looked sloppy, like he wasn't trying. If there is any rigging going on, it's to prevent Bradley from winning in order to keep Pacroid's star status going.
The fight looked similar to the 1st fight, total domination by Pacquiao.
Pacquiao is an eight division champion, he has nothing to prove to anyone. The two Bradley fights were all but irrelevant in the overall scheme of things. The only two fights that matter to Pacquiao are a 5th Marquez fight and Floyd, The almost impossibility of a Sergio Martinez fight for a ninth division title is a ridiculously long shot, but not impossible. Other than that it's real close to retirement for Manny, Boxing will miss him, but everything in life ends eventually.
