|
All that talk of the decision being a travesty is bullshit, and almost everyone who re-watched the fight agrees. Peep game
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/2014/pacquiao-bradley-i-scoring-re-visited-heist-or-hyperbole/
Following the HBO/media led outcry after the fight, the World Boxing Organization set up an investigation into the scoring, assigning five experienced judges to watch the bout and score every round. Judges do not, of course, have the luxury of scoring the fight as one whole, homogenous entity, and it is therefore the individual round tallies that tell the true story of the scoring of a fight. Consequently, by comparing each of the five investigative judges’ scorecards for the twelve individual rounds with the original three judges, in this way it becomes much clearer to see if a judge is doing a “poor” job of scoring, because they will typically be in a minority when selecting the winner of any given round. In a normal fight, a judge will only be in a minority of two-to-one when disagreeing with their colleagues; in the context of this investigation, however, they could potentially be in a minority of seven-to-one – a far stronger indicator that they had not selected the correct winner.
If this occurs with any amount of frequency throughout the fight, it is safe to conclude that he or she is doing a pretty terrible job. On the flip side, if a judge frequently agrees with the majority of the other judges, we can safely conclude that they are doing a fairly decent job of scoring the fight. Assuming this is true, where one or more judges score a fighter the winner of a round, it seems reasonable that at the very least, a case could be made for this fighter winning the round. Whereas, when there is unanimous agreement among the judges, this can fairly be called a decisive round in that boxer’s favour: no reasonable case can even be made for the opponent winning.
Interestingly, of the combined panel of eight judges scoring the fight (three at ringside plus the five independent judges assigned to investigate) they only unanimously agreed on two rounds that Manny Pacquiao won (rounds three and six) and on one round that Bradley won (round ten). Put differently: eight experienced, world-class judges could not agree on nine of the twelve rounds scored, and at least one judge thought that Bradley did enough to win in ten of the twelve rounds scored. Taking out the original three judges from the analysis for a moment (because they might be “bad”), we still find only five rounds that the investigative panel unanimously scored as winning rounds for Pacquiao – less than half of the fight. This is at odds with the notion that Pacquiao dominated the majority of the rounds in any kind of decisive fashion.
Is there any reason to be so cynical and take out the original three judges from our analysis though – i.e., did any of them turn in a card that was regularly at odds with the majority of the panel? The evidence says no.
Taking the scape-goat, C. J Ross as an example (she scored the fight 115-113 or 7-5 in rounds for Bradley), there was not a single round in the fight where she was completely isolated in her opinion of the scoring: in twelve of the twelve rounds scored, at least one of the other seven judges agreed with her assessment. In fact, in eight of the twelve rounds scored C. J Ross had at least three of the five investigative judges agreeing with her, and at least one of them agreeing with her in eleven out of twelve rounds. According to the investigation, she was therefore part of the majority opinion of the panel most of the time in her scoring. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this is that she did not (at least on this night) forward a card anywhere near as terrible as has been suggested in the time since.
Read more at http://www.eastsideboxing.com/2014/pacquiao-bradley-i-scoring-re-visited-heist-or-hyperbole/#fMu8GxW3hZFr7Omc.99
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Okay Sports
(2 votes)
(5 votes)
(5 votes)
(2 votes)
