Skip to main content

The New York Times is reporting that on a split decision last night, Manny Pacquiao lost his welterweight match against Timothy Bradley.

Unlike "Pac-Man" Pacquiao, Timothy "Desert Storm" Bradley  hasn't had a lot of limelight.

It will be the first opportunity on the big stage for the 28-year-old American, who is recognized in boxing circles as a tough, skilled fighter, but who for most of his career has labored just outside the spotlight.

"It's been a long journey, but I knew at some point I would get here," said Bradley, who won his first world title, at light-welterweight, by defeating Britain's Junior Witter in 2008.
...
Pacquiao's trainer Freddie Roach has been dismissive of Bradley's chances, telling reporters that "we have no worries about this guy at all," but Bradley asserts that such talk serves only to motivate him.

"I like when people talk good about me," said Bradley. "But I like it better when they talk bad about me."

Now, this will be short, and boxing isn't even a sport I follow ... but it appears to me that GOP augurs would want (over the CheddarKosCheeto ...)

their base to not hear how "turning his life around" to prep for this bout has worked out for the Filipino world-champion.

 

Pacquiao seemed to have put his marital strife behind him for this bout, rededicating himself to his marriage after admitting he had cheated on his wife, Jinkee.
He also started going to church more often. ...
       He also said he stopped gambling, including wagering on cockfighting, which is legal in the Philippines. He said he no longer owns the more than 1,000 roosters he raised, fought and bet on. He said he sold his interest in a Filipino casino. Pacquiao, a Celtics fan, even gave up basketball.
Gave up basketball? Great timing. The Celtics lost to the Heat in the semifinals, so the NBA finals are going to feature the Heat and the Oklahoma City Thunder.
The fight was expected to start immediately after the Miami Heat’s victory over the Boston Celtics. But Pacquiao could not be found.
 Sucks to be Manny this morning, with no games to look forward to ...

A Reuters account of the hometown reaction to the bout ends on what may be unintended irony.

Manny "Pac-Man" Pacquiao's best known here for his stands against marriage equality and homosexuality, probably.

Maybe the result of last night's fight is really just a sign that boxers are as fallible as any other political celebrities.

 Timothy Bradley appears to have just kept on slogging through the work, and it won him the fight.

"Desert Storm" Bradley, a 5-1 underdog against Pacquiao, improved his perfect record to 29-0 with 12 knockouts, while Pacquiao slipped to 54-4-2 with 38 knockouts. ...

Judge Jerry Roth (115-113) awarded the fight to Pacquiao while CJ Ross (115-113) and Duane Ford (115-113) gave it to the American, but the crowd responded with boos after 12 rounds which the Filipino had appeared to dominate. ...

"It was a good, competitive fight," said Bradley. "Every round was pretty close. Pacquiao won some of the early rounds. I controlled the later rounds with my jab. I need to go home and review the tape.
"He is a strong puncher. He rocked me a couple of times in the fight but I held my ground and fought to the end. This is boxing."

Don't know much about Timothy Bradley ... but he doesn't appear to be doing time for domestic violence like the next guy who wants to fight Pacquiao, or under investigation for cheating on his taxes.
"I like when people talk good about me," said Bradley. "But I like it better when they talk bad about me."
That, at least, seems to have motivated one man to beat one superstar. Good on ya, Timothy.
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (4+ / 0-)

    LBJ & Lady Bird, Sully Sullenberger, Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards, Drew Brees: Texas is No Bush League! -7.50,-5.59

    by BlackSheep1 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:51:00 AM PDT

  •  You are aware that Harry Reid (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cassandracarolina

    had Manny on the stump with him in Nevada?

  •  Very Odd link: "Sucks to be Manny this morning"... (0+ / 0-)

    links to a March story about a Paquiao tax-case with no relevance to 'this morning' nor to the preceding quote:

    The fight was expected to start immediately after the Miami Heat’s victory over the Boston Celtics. But Pacquiao could not be found.
    ...which is both ominous and unexplained. Was Paquiao a no-show?

    It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

    by Murphoney on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:07:37 AM PDT

  •  Good grief! (11+ / 0-)

    This result was a fix. Everyone thought Pac won the fight and there was an big uproar about the result. Lots of people saying it was the worst judging ever. I don't get the point of this diary, to brag about a fixed decision?

    The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. - Elbert Hubbard -9.62/-8.15

    by GustavMahler on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:18:09 AM PDT

    •  I wish I could recommend this 10 times. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GustavMahler
    •  diary reports on a fight not watched... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ER Doc, superfly

      a sport not followed and a fighter "don't know much about".

      Which reminds me of a cricket match I didn't see in India, but I'll save that for another day.

    •  Because it wasn't fixed. Most people, including (0+ / 0-)

      the analysts talking about it, have no clue how boxing is actually scored. Yeah, I thought Manny won a close decision, but it was hardly unreal to see how Bradley won. Manny won 3 rounds decisively, Bradley won 0 rounds decisively. The other 9 rounds were pretty interpretive and Compubox numbers are notoriously wrong. Neither fighter did much in the way of damage outside of Pac's 3 good rounds. He moslty stood around for 2 minutes, ate a few Bradley jabs and bosy shots, and then tried to flurry in the last 45 seconds. If you actually look up the scoring rules, all 9 of the rounds could easily have gone to either fighter. Manny had a poor fight plan, gave up the last 4 rounds trying to coast, and lost. And ever analysts breadwinner wook a hit. And it's not like Manny is a guy who hasn't been the beneficiary of a couple of decisions that have left the vast majority of non Pac fans scratching their heads.

      •  let's do the math (0+ / 0-)

        You give Pacquiao (hereinafter referred to as Pac) 3 rounds. I assume you're calling those "decisive" rounds 10-9. And I assume, if they were decisive, that the two judges who scored the fight for Bradley also had them 10-9.

        That means the other 9 rounds had to be scored either 5-0-4 for Bradley, 6-1-2 for Bradley or 7-2 for Bradley.

        Is it likely that a challenger would get the benefit of what you consider "intepretive", i.e. "non-decisive" rounds? I suppose it's possible. The Associated Press card had it 117-111 for Pac. Sports Illustrated had it 116-112 for Pac.

        •  I personally agree with you, but if the judges are (0+ / 0-)

          doing their job, one round should never have anything to do with the next by rule, which is what makes the analysts who are "experts" argument all the more maddening and their riling up some fixed memo just ignorant. If you take a composite of the fight as a whole, which is what most people do by nature, of course you think Pac won. But that is actually bad scoring and against the rules set forth for scoring. Sperating them is the key, and quite possibly why results in these fights where there are no knockdowns to seperate scoring are constantly attacked. As an example, one of ESPN guys gave Bradly the first 2 rounds, which was perfectly reasonable. So assuming the judges did the same, and gave Bradley the last 4, which no one actually won, that's a 114-114 right there, which on its face round by round, is perfectly understandable based on what occured in those rounds. It's actually a problem with the 10 point must system, not the judges. It basically requires the judges to give the round to someone, so in a fight like last night, where 1 fighter throws more, the other lands more, but nothing of interest actually happened outside of 3 rounds, and you get a decision like we got. But the media is up in arms because Pac is their money maker, that is the only reason for anyone with actual knowledge of the scoring system to be freaking out. And Bradley was a champion as well.

        •  And the scoring spread really never matters (0+ / 0-)

          in fights with a majority of rounds being pretty uneventful. Because in my example, the fight could really be anywhere from 120-108 Pac to 117-111 Bradley, and any score in that range is technically reasonable. It's why fighters of today need to learn not to take half of rounds of or end the fight by coasting in 4 straight rounds.

  •  oh, you're serious? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joe Hill PDX
    Now, this will be short, and boxing isn't even a sport I follow
    Ergo, your bonafides are what?  Oh this...
    Don't know much about Timothy Bradley
    Then let's really stretch it that a latin hero is now a Repug plant?
    but it appears to me that GOP augurs would want (over the CheddarKosCheeto ...) their base to not hear how "turning his life around" to prep for this bout has worked out for the Filipino world-champion.
    Let's manufacture BS, it's a boxing match.  The Scorers honored their payers?  Oh My!

    Oh My!!!

    Attempting to link Manny to Repugs to prove what?

    Shame on you.

    He was robbed dude!

    Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

    by EdMass on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:45:25 AM PDT

  •  I'm glad he lost (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlackSheep1

    Whether one is a boxing fan or not, the guy is not hard to dislike. If he is feeling wronged today then maybe it's a bit of well deserved karma?

    "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

    by sebastianguy99 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:02:37 PM PDT

  •  I posted this to start a discussion. I find (0+ / 0-)

    Pacquiao personally dislikable.

    LBJ & Lady Bird, Sully Sullenberger, Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards, Drew Brees: Texas is No Bush League! -7.50,-5.59

    by BlackSheep1 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 04:35:59 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site