Doug Fischer

Dougie’s Monday mailbag

DELIROUS… DARKNESS IS SPREADING…

Hey Dougie,
As much as I hate these types of outcomes in any fight, I couldn’t help but be happy after the scorecards were read… almost giddy.

This horrible decision is revenge for Mayweather and Pacquiao not giving the fans the super fight that only comes around every decade or so, JMM never getting the nod that he deserved against Manny, and of course…for robbing my boy, Carlos “Famoso” Hernandez. Ok Ok, so that was Bobby Pacquiao…but still!

Anyways, Pacquiao will probably beat Bradley in their rematch, Bob Arum will live to slither another day, and boxing will continue to be the successful doctor who became a heroin addict in the family that is American sports.

Excuse me while I go watch some UFC on network TV. – Bobby

Well stated, Bobby, although I don’t understand viewing a horrible decision as “revenge” for perceived transgressions of other judges and the fighter who got screwed.

Pacquiao had as much to do with getting the nod against Marquez as Bradley had of winning Saturday’s fight. Only Duane Ford and Chuck Giampa can be blamed for Bob-Pac outpointing “Famoso.”

FAVORITE-GETS-SCREWED TOP 5

Hey Doug,

The fight last Saturday is a rare kind of robbery. The fighter who is the favorite to win the fight was the one who got robbed.

Can you list your top 5 boxing robberies wherein the favorite was the one who got robbed? – Jacob

Good question, Jacob.

Pacquiao-Bradley is the worst screwing of an odds/media favorite I’ve ever witnessed live or covered as media, followed by Bernard Hopkins-Jermain Taylor I.

My top 5 would have to go: 5. Larry Holmes-Michael Spinks I, 4. Carlos Zarate-Lupe Pintor, 3. Oscar De La Hoya-Shane Mosley II, 2. Marvin Hagler-Sugar Ray Leonard, and 1. Pacquiao-Bradley.

I should note that I agreed with the official verdicts in the De La Hoya-Mosley rematch (as did much of press row) and the Hagler-Leonard showdown. I’ve included them because of the strong public outrage.

HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?

Dougie,
How did so many people score this fight for Pacquiao? And what, exactly, is he going to do different in a rematch? I watched the Top Rank feed, not the HBO feed, so it might be that I didn’t have Manny’s cheerleading squad in my ear, saying he won 11 rounds to 1 (hilarious). If this is supposed to be a fix, who’s supposed to have made money off killing the biggest event in sports, and the second biggest cash cow in boxing? The response to this whole thing has been surreal.

Then again, a lot of these are the same people who say he beat Marquez with a straight face, and who think he’s an ALL TIME great (which is as big an overstatement as when people use to compare Jones to Robinson). Oh well, I hope people don’t get so swept up that they overlook Bailey’s beautiful (terrifying) knockout. Great night for Bradley and Bailey. – Todd

Great night for Bradley and Bailey; bad night for boxing.

It can’t be good for the sport when at least 90 percent of the people watched it live (either from ringside or via broadcast) view a comfortable victory for one fighter but the official judges see an “either-way” fight that two score for the other guy.

I agree 11-1 for Pacquiao is extreme, but I also view 7-5 for Bradley as extreme.

Most of the ringside media had PacMan winning by a 4-to-8-point margin. These guys weren’t listening to Pacquiao’s HBO “cheerleading squad” and they aren’t fans of the Filipino icon. More than a few who thought Pacquiao won by a landslide also think he’s is overrated. I know that a couple scribes were hoping Pacquiao would lose. But they had to call the fight the way they saw it.

CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN BRADLEY’S WIN?

Hey Doug!
Like so many others I am a long time reader, and thought I’d finally drop you a comment.

First off the PacMan-Desert Storm fight:

I understand people saying Pac didn’t dominate this. I agree that he didn’t. But he DID win a close decision.

If you’re saying Desert Storm took this home, you need to explain HOW.

Boxing, as we all know, is scored on 4 criteria (clean punching, effective aggression, ring generalship and defence), the first of these generally accepted to be slightly more important than the other three.

Of the people saying Tim won, the only argument I have seen being made for his success is Tim getting the better of the highly subjective ‘ring generalship’ aspect – only ONE (and not the most important) scoring criteria.

Simply put: PacMan landed more (MORE – not saying Tim didn’t land TOO) clean punches and showed better effective aggression than Bradley throughout the fight. To me, PacMan’s defence was actually really good in this fight as well, with Bradley throwing very many punches on gloves and arms (again, not saying he landed NOTHING). Ring generalship is up for discussion, but even if you give this hands down to Bradley, you’ll have the majority of rounds like this:

1. Clean blows – Pac
2. Aggression – Pac
3. Defence – Pac/Tim
4. Ring Generalship – Tim

Of these, I don’t think 1 and 2 are up for discussion, whereas I can see why some think 3 and 4 are debatable. Still, it leaves no doubt as to who won. Again talking about the majority of rounds here – I can see Bradley winning on more criteria in a minority of rounds.

You can make the case for this fight being really close. You can’t make the case for Bradley beating Pac unless you completely ignore some of the scoring criteria and only look at – for instance – ring generalship.

I guess this firmly puts Mayweather at P4P number 1, which I’m actually fine with. Just hope it doesn’t prompt his retirement before taking a couple more tough fights putting that ’0′ on the line.

Anyway, the decision is what it is, and there are plenty of other fights to look forward to. My personal favorite for the summer is Haye v. Chisora – I just have a feeling its gonna be good, and then of course Kessler vs. whoever, since I’m naturally a huge fan of my only elite boxing countryman. Which fight are you looking forward to the most?

Just one more question: Interestingly, Max Kellerman noted that people ringside seemed to have scored the fight differently based on where they were sitting. Do judges only watch live, or do they have a telecast with replays etc. available while they score? You think making this available would help reduce the number of questionable decisions?

(P.S. How cool would it be if Mikkel Kessler had ‘Mjolnir’ tattooed on his left fist following that brutal left hook KO of Allan Green. Would fit right in with the Viking Warrior moniker, and I loved how several commentators picked that one up after the fight :)

Thanks for an always entertaining mailbag! – Kasper from Denmark

I think it would be nerdy awesome cool if Kessler got Thor’s hammer tatted on his left arm, and I stated so in the Monday mailbag following the Green fight.

Judges only watch the fight live from where they sit on the ring apron. They do not watch video replays. Doing so could conceivably help them score a fight.

The more lopsided scores in favor of Pacquiao came from press row media members who sat closest to the ring.

I’m looking forward to this Saturday’s fights (Chavez-Lee and Adamek-Chambers), the Lucas Matthysse-Humberto Soto 140-pound fight on June 23, and, of course, the Gennady Golovkin-Dmitry Pirog middleweight showdown on Aug. 25. (There’s also a rare title unification bout between Japanese standouts, 108-pound beltholders Kazuto Ioka and Akira Yaegashi, on June 20 that I’m going to try to watch live.)

I don’t see why Pacquiao, the victim of an undeserved loss, should be punished by being demoted in the rankings – both pound-for-pound and welterweight – but to be honest, I’m so sick of the mental masturbation that is the pointless Mayweather-Pacquiao debate that I don’t care if Floyd is installed as the No. 1 welterweight, No. 1 pound for pound boxer, or even as “Soul Brotha No. 1.”

Around the web