Judge defends his scoring

"I thought Bradley gave Pacquiao a boxing lesson," Duane Ford said, according to the newspaper. "I thought a lot of the rounds were close. Pacquiao missed a lot of punches and I thought he was throwing wildly."

yeah he only landed 100 more per compubox. But somehow he saw bradley landing and pac not landing.

Why are judges over the age of 65 allowed to continue?

judges are sitting there, having to try to determine in general what landed, what was blocked, etc.... it can be difficult to determine that sitting at home with my 35 yr old eyes.

I don't want a 65 yr old to be able to drive. They are deathtraps. Driving slow in the fast lane, holding up traffic, change lanes without looking. can't park for shit.

But we want people 65 and above to figure out whether a guy is showing effective aggression, landing clean punches, blocking or getting hit with punches, from very fast athletes.

i have nothing against older people, I just think asking them make judgments about what their eyes are telling them is happening in fast situations is a bad, bad, bad, bad, idea.

The thing that pisses me off is the fact Nevada will just sit there and bury their heads in the sand.

captainanddew wrote:yeah he only landed 100 more per compubox. But somehow he saw bradley landing and pac not landing.

Why are judges over the age of 65 allowed to continue?

judges are sitting there, having to try to determine in general what landed, what was blocked, etc.... it can be difficult to determine that sitting at home with my 35 yr old eyes.

I don't want a 65 yr old to be able to drive. They are deathtraps. Driving slow in the fast lane, holding up traffic, change lanes without looking. can't park for shit.

But we want people 65 and above to figure out whether a guy is showing effective aggression, landing clean punches, blocking or getting hit with punches, from very fast athletes.

i have nothing against older people, I just think asking them make judgments about what their eyes are telling them is happening in fast situations is a bad, bad, bad, bad, idea.

Capt vs. Dmar. BOOK IT!

NJBeatdown86 wrote:

captainanddew wrote:yeah he only landed 100 more per compubox. But somehow he saw bradley landing and pac not landing.

Why are judges over the age of 65 allowed to continue?

judges are sitting there, having to try to determine in general what landed, what was blocked, etc.... it can be difficult to determine that sitting at home with my 35 yr old eyes.

I don't want to ride in a car with most 65 yr olds. They are deathtraps. Driving slow in the fast lane, holding up traffic, change lanes without looking. can't park for shit.

But we want people 65 and above to figure out whether a guy is showing effective aggression, landing clean punches, blocking or getting hit with punches, from very fast athletes.

i have nothing against older people, I just think asking them make judgments about what their eyes are telling them is happening in fast situations is a bad, bad, bad, bad, idea.

Capt vs. Dmar. BOOK IT!

I've never seen DMAR drive. DMAR is always sharp. He is probably a better driver than me.

But damn if I haven't been in the car with my mom lately. Scared me half to death.

And honestly I can't drive for shit. That is why my wife does most of the driving. I recognize my limitations.

nj lol lol..make me a 8-5 favorite.cunny experience.captain thanks for the compliment.in all honesty im a excellent driver.2 weeks ago drove up and back to alexandria va for a yearly trip to visit my brother.when i go threw richmond your in my thoughts.once a year i drive non stop to west palm beach fl to visit my older son and grandsons.675 miles no problem a steady 70 all the way..what you say about older drivers is true but 65 or 70 in general is far from old today.i lived in west palm beach for 25 years and yep drivers at times go extra slow in the passing lane..there 80-85 mostly.when stoping for a red light there 3 car lenths away from the next stoped driver.they also feel they have a perminant right of way on the road..there called my laners down there since lol they own that lane.have no fear night driving is a plus down there since there off the road right after the early bird special just before it starts to get dark...
i disagree totaly with arum on this issue.example harold letterman is older then i am im guessing 6-7 years and hes still excellent.about 8 years ago harold and i exchanged several emails during the course of a year.he bought several unique boxing items from me on ebay thats how we met.it was a pleasure talking with him on the fighters and fights we saw over the years.excellent fighters that fans of today would say who.without the aid of youtube etc etc we exchange rapid fire emails giving totaly accurate account of fights.
abilty knows no age.incompetence is also a condition for every age.now wheres my prune juice.lol lol.

opps i just looked it up.harolds only 3 years older then me.

His age had nothing to do with it. He got paid off. That's all there is too it. He knows shit isn't going to happen to him and why he's saying this shit.

Can't even blame incompetance here. No fucking way anyone can be that stupid. You could get a person with with an IQ below 70 and they could still tell you Pac won.

Ford even gave the 11th round to Pac. The one round where Pac took it off and which Roach got up in Pac's ass for doing it.

There needs to be a legal investigation because last time I checked, fight fixing was illegal. I have no doubt Arum paid these judges all. He doesn't want a Mayweather fight, he wants to keep it in house. He controls both fighters and will control the rematch.

And you guys know me on here well enough to know I don't throw out fight fixing often. But there is no other way to explain what went on Saturday

People keep pointing to the CompuBox stats as if they were unquestioned scientific proof of something. This isn't football, where you can objectively measure if it was a 3 yard run or a 5 yard run. It's boxing - it's all subjective judgement on the part of the CompuBox operator if a punch landed or not. No different from what the judges are supposed to be looking at.

Not saying the judges were right, just saying you can't hold up CompuBox as if it PROVES they were wrong.

Tobe wrote:People keep pointing to the CompuBox stats as if they were unquestioned scientific proof of something. This isn't football, where you can objectively measure if it was a 3 yard run or a 5 yard run. It's boxing - it's all subjective judgement on the part of the CompuBox operator if a punch landed or not. No different from what the judges are supposed to be looking at.

Not saying the judges were right, just saying you can't hold up CompuBox as if it PROVES they were wrong.

...good points.compubox im tired of hearing that word.lol.

GrantZilla wrote:His age had nothing to do with it. He got paid off. That's all there is too it. He knows shit isn't going to happen to him and why he's saying this shit.

Can't even blame incompetance here. No fucking way anyone can be that stupid. You could get a person with with an IQ below 70 and they could still tell you Pac won.

Ford even gave the 11th round to Pac. The one round where Pac took it off and which Roach got up in Pac's ass for doing it.

There needs to be a legal investigation because last time I checked, fight fixing was illegal. I have no doubt Arum paid these judges all. He doesn't want a Mayweather fight, he wants to keep it in house. He controls both fighters and will control the rematch.

And you guys know me on here well enough to know I don't throw out fight fixing often. But there is no other way to explain what went on Saturday

were they paid off? I think that is a distinct possibility. But I also think on the outside chance that they weren't paid off, they are incompetent. Either way they need to be retired.

Somehow Brian Kenny who called the fight for Top Rank TV had Bradley winning 115-113. I don't know what to think of that. He is still on the MLB network as his main gig I believe.

Tobe wrote:People keep pointing to the CompuBox stats as if they were unquestioned scientific proof of something. This isn't football, where you can objectively measure if it was a 3 yard run or a 5 yard run. It's boxing - it's all subjective judgement on the part of the CompuBox operator if a punch landed or not. No different from what the judges are supposed to be looking at.

Not saying the judges were right, just saying you can't hold up CompuBox as if it PROVES they were wrong.

When you combine actually watching the fight with the Compubox numbers, it has a better effect. Compubox by itself doesn't tell the whole story. Too many guys are discounting the punchstat numbers in this case...

Tobe wrote:People keep pointing to the CompuBox stats as if they were unquestioned scientific proof of something. This isn't football, where you can objectively measure if it was a 3 yard run or a 5 yard run. It's boxing - it's all subjective judgement on the part of the CompuBox operator if a punch landed or not. No different from what the judges are supposed to be looking at.

Not saying the judges were right, just saying you can't hold up CompuBox as if it PROVES they were wrong.

Best example of that to me was Slappy Joe vs. Hopkins. That being said, Manny landed 94 more punches than Bradley, and most of them were clearly harder, cleaner shots.