bradley vs provodnikov

I thought it was a great fight. Very entertaining. Bradley has shown a lot of heart. I scored the fight 114-113 for Bradley. The ref ruling a slip in the second round happens, it's not a horrible call by the ref because in real time in the fight it appeared Ruslan pushed Bradley down. I wouldn't have argued with a knock down in that case either. It was a judgement call by the ref. If you want to blame anyone for the outcome blame Provodnikov for his inability to do much of anything when Bradley boxed from the outside.

I would still like to see Bradley fight Khan, but I'm not going hold it against him, in this era of boxing, when he was guaranteed a fight against Pac. Bradley has a good resume for this era of boxing, and would make for an entertaining fight against a lot of 140 and 147lbers. The fight tonight was one of the most entertaining this year, and if he is more active I would hope some of the hate for him goes away.

I don't think Ruslan won that fight, but i thought Bradley did enough to Keep his title. And I agree with the poster above, it is a judgement call on the slip/KD. It may of looked like a slip to the ref. Sergio Martinez went down a similar way against Chavez in the 12th after the KD and the ref ruled it a slip, so it's common. At best Ruslan could have gotten a draw on some scorecards, but I had Bradley up by a point as did many. Ruslan gave up too much rounds in the middle of the fight. However, Bradleys and Ruslans stock has went through the roof after this fight. It was an all out war. Bradley was going toe to toe with a bigger and stronger man and didn't give up ground for the most part, this fight gives him a lot of respect. If Marquez doesn't fight Pacquiao again, I think Bradley may of earned a big money fight with Marquez at least. That would be an amazing fight also. Ruslan can go back at jr Welter and get big fights after this one. I just don't see how HBO doesn't bring him back on their network. He should be a regular after this fight.

Epic fight. EPIC.

The most amazing moment of this fight was at the end of Round 6 when Bradley just finished throwing 50 punches when he was out on his feet. He walked backwards to his corner, grinding down on his mouthpiece, flexing every muscle in his body, YELLING at the top of his lungs.

WHAT A MACHINE!!!!!!!

He's Desert Storm no more. He's the TERMINATOR.

Also, go leave a comment on this biased journalist's post about the fight. This article really pissed me off.

Please go here and bash this writer's post: http://www.latimes.com/sports/boxing/la-sp-boxing-timothy-bradley-20130317,0,7191861.story

captainanddew wrote:I'm genuinely pissed off.

People are going to talk for a while about bradley being tough and ruslan's great losing effort.

But for fucksake that was a damn knockdown. at best bradley should have gotten a draw.

Maybe I'm being biased, but I didn't view it as a knockdown. I'll go back and watch, but I didn't see him go down from a punch.

Can somebody pleasee tell me whose ass Tim Bradley kissed? I really need a break in the business.

hardcorebee24 wrote:

captainanddew wrote:

Norm1023 wrote:That should have been a knockdown

yes it should have been. ref missed it. dude gets up and falls all over the place. come on that is extreme bullshit.


if ref ruled it correctly then it would have been a majority draw.

You're wrong, had that been ruled a knockdown Bradley would have been KO'd. If a fighter get's up and falls back down the referee stops the fight. A fighter we all know threw a stool and choked Jay Nady over this.

you are correct.

captainanddew wrote:

hardcorebee24 wrote:

captainanddew wrote:

Norm1023 wrote:That should have been a knockdown

yes it should have been. ref missed it. dude gets up and falls all over the place. come on that is extreme bullshit.


if ref ruled it correctly then it would have been a majority draw.

You're wrong, had that been ruled a knockdown Bradley would have been KO'd. If a fighter get's up and falls back down the referee stops the fight. A fighter we all know threw a stool and choked Jay Nady over this.

you are correct.

You are both wrong. Bradley was forced to get up immediately due to the ref not calling it a knockdown. Had it been ruled a knockdown, he would have taken some time before attempting to stand up and would have composed himself better. Secondly, even if Round 1 was a 10-8 round, it was not enough to win the fight on my scorecard.

I scored it 114-112 for Bradley without ruling Round 1 a knockdown. 113-112 for Bradley if Round 1 was ruled a knockdown.

i had bradley up by 2.just watched the hbo rerun.terrfic fight.i scored it different then most.i had one round even and the first 2 10-8.yes it was a legit knockdown and hardcore is correct saying if he fell back down after it should of or would of been stoped.no one forced bradley to get up so called fast.david haye and bo-hop did not after there flops.
i dont know if the fight had a manditory 8 count but if it did bradley could compose himself standing also.
i dont know who promotes the russian but there are a few good matches at 140 for him.he can punch but a puncher also can take him out of there.win or lose i like to see him in there against a few top 140 pounders.

Shaun wrote:

captainanddew wrote:

hardcorebee24 wrote:

captainanddew wrote:

Norm1023 wrote:That should have been a knockdown

yes it should have been. ref missed it. dude gets up and falls all over the place. come on that is extreme bullshit.


if ref ruled it correctly then it would have been a majority draw.

You're wrong, had that been ruled a knockdown Bradley would have been KO'd. If a fighter get's up and falls back down the referee stops the fight. A fighter we all know threw a stool and choked Jay Nady over this.

you are correct.

You are both wrong. Bradley was forced to get up immediately due to the ref not calling it a knockdown. Had it been ruled a knockdown, he would have taken some time before attempting to stand up and would have composed himself better. Secondly, even if Round 1 was a 10-8 round, it was not enough to win the fight on my scorecard.

I scored it 114-112 for Bradley without ruling Round 1 a knockdown. 113-112 for Bradley if Round 1 was ruled a knockdown.

2 judges had bradley by 1 pt. If ref rules it a knockdown, then it is a majority draw. Ref messed up.

I am not quiveling with how the judges scored the fight. I am ticked about the ref not ruling a knockdown. If he had, it would have been 10-8 and a draw.

There was also other times where I've seen other refs rule that the ropes have held someone up for less than Bradley was getting away with as well.

captainanddew wrote:I am not quiveling with how the judges scored the fight. I am ticked about the ref not ruling a knockdown. If he had, it would have been 10-8 and a draw.

There was also other times where I've seen other refs rule that the ropes have held someone up for less than Bradley was getting away with as well.

...good point on the ropes holding bradley up.it was a good 3 different times i think.

Bradley looked liked he was on shaky legs nearly the whole fight. Great fight.

After watching the replay, I still scored it Bradley 114-113 but i can see how some people scored it 115-112 for Bradley. Ruslan did not do enough to win the fight because he wasn't active enough. If Bradley's punches didn't hurt him like he claimed, he should have kept pressing and he probably could have won the title. But he didn't, why? Because Bradley was beating him to the punch and was being outlanded in most rounds. The Non call cost Ruslan a draw, but either way Bradley did enough to keep his belt.

I know it is how the modern judge interprets the 10 point must system but I feel it is a tragedy that round 2 is scored the same as rounds 10 and 11. I saw both those rounds as pretty close and gave them to Bradley just assuming he would get the benefit. I am critical about judges for a variety of reasons but at the top of my list is not scoring close rounds even and not scoring wide rounds with a wider score discrepancy. I feel these 2 reasons help to negate some aggression in the sport. Why punch myself out if beating someone from pillar to post without a knockdown only gives me the same edge as outlanding him by 1 jab in a boring, safe round?

Better stop before I go into full blown UBeeg9cats ideas to make boxing better After all, we should be happy to get 2 good fights.

UBeeg9cats wrote:I know it is how the modern judge interprets the 10 point must system but I feel it is a tragedy that round 2 is scored the same as rounds 10 and 11. I saw both those rounds as pretty close and gave them to Bradley just assuming he would get the benefit. I am critical about judges for a variety of reasons but at the top of my list is not scoring close rounds even and not scoring wide rounds with a wider score discrepancy. I feel these 2 reasons help to negate some aggression in the sport. Why punch myself out if beating someone from pillar to post without a knockdown only gives me the same edge as outlanding him by 1 jab in a boring, safe round?

Better stop before I go into full blown UBeeg9cats ideas to make boxing better After all, we should be happy to get 2 good fights.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Fantastic fight!

I scored it 114-113 to Timothy Bradley. He boxed well to win rounds while Ruslan's workrate fell-off.

If the referee had called the knockdown, in the 1st, then it would have been 10-8 to Provodnikov. Certainly contentious issues over the scoring of certain rounds.

Cracking fight and I don't know how either man did the full 12 rounds - both corners thought about pulling their man out later on in the fight.

hardcorebee24 wrote:

UBeeg9cats wrote:I know it is how the modern judge interprets the 10 point must system but I feel it is a tragedy that round 2 is scored the same as rounds 10 and 11. I saw both those rounds as pretty close and gave them to Bradley just assuming he would get the benefit. I am critical about judges for a variety of reasons but at the top of my list is not scoring close rounds even and not scoring wide rounds with a wider score discrepancy. I feel these 2 reasons help to negate some aggression in the sport. Why punch myself out if beating someone from pillar to post without a knockdown only gives me the same edge as outlanding him by 1 jab in a boring, safe round?

Better stop before I go into full blown UBeeg9cats ideas to make boxing better After all, we should be happy to get 2 good fights.

What the fuck are you talking about?

I have reread my comment several times and my point seems to be explicitly and coherently stated. I will try to explain it more clearly. I don't think all rounds without a knockdown should be scored 10-9. There is no reasonable explanation for a dominant round by a fighter to be scored the same as a round that is practically even.

UBeeg9cats wrote:

hardcorebee24 wrote:

UBeeg9cats wrote:I know it is how the modern judge interprets the 10 point must system but I feel it is a tragedy that round 2 is scored the same as rounds 10 and 11. I saw both those rounds as pretty close and gave them to Bradley just assuming he would get the benefit. I am critical about judges for a variety of reasons but at the top of my list is not scoring close rounds even and not scoring wide rounds with a wider score discrepancy. I feel these 2 reasons help to negate some aggression in the sport. Why punch myself out if beating someone from pillar to post without a knockdown only gives me the same edge as outlanding him by 1 jab in a boring, safe round?

Better stop before I go into full blown UBeeg9cats ideas to make boxing better After all, we should be happy to get 2 good fights.

What the fuck are you talking about?

I have reread my comment several times and my point seems to be explicitly and coherently stated. I will try to explain it more clearly. I don't think all rounds without a knockdown should be scored 10-9. There is no reasonable explanation for a dominant round by a fighter to be scored the same as a round that is practically even.

They don't have to be. It's a 10 point must system. The winner always gets ten but that doesn't mean that a fighter can't work his way back after a KD to score another point making a round they were knocked down in a 10-9 round. One can also score a 10-10 round if they feel the fighters are perfectly even although it is frowned upon. If there isn't a knock down but clear domination there can be a 10-8 round with no KD's. There are more variations than what you were trying to describe which is why I crudely ask "What the fuck are you talking about?".

hardcorebee24 wrote:

UBeeg9cats wrote:
I have reread my comment several times and my point seems to be explicitly and coherently stated. I will try to explain it more clearly. I don't think all rounds without a knockdown should be scored 10-9. There is no reasonable explanation for a dominant round by a fighter to be scored the same as a round that is practically even.

They don't have to be. It's a 10 point must system. The winner always gets ten but that doesn't mean that a fighter can't work his way back after a KD to score another point making a round they were knocked down in a 10-9 round. One can also score a 10-10 round if they feel the fighters are perfectly even although it is frowned upon. If there isn't a knock down but clear domination there can be a 10-8 round with no KD's. There are more variations than what you were trying to describe which is why I crudely ask "What the fuck are you talking about?".

I understand all that. I gave a 10-8 in round 2 in this fight. My problem is those variations are vastly underutilized.

UBeeg9cats wrote:

hardcorebee24 wrote:

UBeeg9cats wrote:
I have reread my comment several times and my point seems to be explicitly and coherently stated. I will try to explain it more clearly. I don't think all rounds without a knockdown should be scored 10-9. There is no reasonable explanation for a dominant round by a fighter to be scored the same as a round that is practically even.

They don't have to be. It's a 10 point must system. The winner always gets ten but that doesn't mean that a fighter can't work his way back after a KD to score another point making a round they were knocked down in a 10-9 round. One can also score a 10-10 round if they feel the fighters are perfectly even although it is frowned upon. If there isn't a knock down but clear domination there can be a 10-8 round with no KD's. There are more variations than what you were trying to describe which is why I crudely ask "What the fuck are you talking about?".

I understand all that. I gave a 10-8 in round 2 in this fight. My problem is those variations are vastly underutilized.

i dont like giving a 10-8 round without a knockdown unless its such a mismatch. my reasoning is that i feel like i should give the fighter credit for staying on his feet. otherwise, its easy to just take a knee if you are going to get a 10-8 anyways. also, i wouldnt give either round a 10-8 because bradley did very well in both rounds 1 and 2. he just ended up getting caught quite a few times and was very hurt. he hit ruslan way too many times to consider it a 10-8.

scoring a fight has as this thread suggests has personal tastes.then theres a correct proper way to score a round as hardcore and unbeg suggests.i scored the second rd 10-8 because it was warranted.even max felt that 10-8 could of been proper.PP your taste on not giving a 10-8 and your reasons i feel fall into the inproper way to score a round.first you do not give credit in the form of points for staying on your feet.credit for heart yes.not points.that negates the damage done by the other fighter.using your words that bradley was caught quite a few times and was very hurt.he was very hurt quite a few times also in that round.stagerring into the ropes a few times where it could of been called a knockdown because the ropes held him up.thats dominance dispite bradley landing some punches.the russian not only was far more effective in his punches which warrants a 10-9 round but take the devastating effect it had on bradley hurt bad several times in that round warrants a 10-8 round.
as hardcore stated yes indeed there are times a knockdown occurs that a 10-9 round is justifide.its not a automatic 10-8 round which is the general school of thought.
i also am a believer of a even round.especialy when both fighters litterly do nothing.if round 2 is scored 10-9 im not against that per say.i disagree with the school of thought giving credit in the form of points for staying on your feet.in this case 1 point.

dmar5143 wrote:scoring a fight has as this thread suggests has personal tastes.then theres a correct proper way to score a round as hardcore and unbeg suggests.i scored the second rd 10-8 because it was warranted.even max felt that 10-8 could of been proper.PP your taste on not giving a 10-8 and your reasons i feel fall into the inproper way to score a round.first you do not give credit in the form of points for staying on your feet.credit for heart yes.not points.that negates the damage done by the other fighter.using your words that bradley was caught quite a few times and was very hurt.he was very hurt quite a few times also in that round.stagerring into the ropes a few times where it could of been called a knockdown because the ropes held him up.thats dominance dispite bradley landing some punches.the russian not only was far more effective in his punches which warrants a 10-9 round but take the devastating effect it had on bradley hurt bad several times in that round warrants a 10-8 round.
as hardcore stated yes indeed there are times a knockdown occurs that a 10-9 round is justifide.its not a automatic 10-8 round which is the general school of thought.
i also am a believer of a even round.especialy when both fighters litterly do nothing.if round 2 is scored 10-9 im not against that per say.i disagree with the school of thought giving credit in the form of points for staying on your feet.in this case 1 point.

either way, i feel that even in round 2, bradley did very well in parts of the round. he landed quite a few good punches. its not like he was just on the ropes getting beat. i understand that the ref could have called it a knockdown when he fell against the ropes but it is what it is. judges never give a 10-8 for what should have been considered a knockdown but wasnt.

for example, in round 1, i thought that it was a legit knockdown. looking at the replay, it still looked legit. now, can i as a judge score it a 10-8 just because i thought it was a knockdown? if so then knockdowns almost become pointless because a judge can do whatever he wants with his scorecard anyways. thats why there is a standard of an official knockdown creating a 10-8 round.

thats fine to believe what you believe, but to me, if thats how we are going to score it (and im not opposed to your idea of scoring), then i think that the whole scoring system needs to be reevaluated because obviously judges arent scoring like you said.

Good post fight video of Bradley. I love this guy.

"I'll be back in the gym on Monday." - Timothy Bradley

http://www.toprank.com/videos/bradley-on-his-march-16-win

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G09f506WxHo

Clip of the no-knockdown call in first round. I agree with the ref, no knockdown.