Manny Pacquiao at the crossroads

Filipino boxing superstar Manny Pacquiao can't seem to find his head these days. Even prior to his controversial loss to Timothy Bradley, Pacquiao's focus regarding his boxing career was already being questioned by many observers. As if his duties and responsibilities as an elected representative in the Philippine Congress were not enough, his newly-found religious fervor now also has to compete with the time that he has to spend in the ring.

As of this writing, Top Rank and Manny Pacquiao cannot seem to agree on the timeframe of his return to the ring as well as on his preferred opponent if ever he decides to fight again this year. This uncertainty coupled with his actions and behaviors in the past is another obvious sign that shows his heart is no longer 100% into his boxing career.

But one thing is certain, whether Manny Pacquiao decides to fight on November 10 or on a later date in December, the list of familiar opponents being touted does not excite even his die-hard fans more so the casual ones.

Timothy Bradley, Miguel Cotto, and Juan Manuel Marquez are all good fighters in their own right, but to many fans they are not the fights that they want to see, especially at this stage of Manny Pacquiao's career. But we also cannot deny the reality that Manny Pacquiao has very little options left except against Floyd Mayweather, Jr.

But since Floyd Mayweather, Jr. is enjoying an extended sabbatical from boxing after his stint in prison and trying his darndest best to evade the Pacquiao question, the boxing powers that be have given us just three choices to pick on who will be Manny Pacquiao's next dancing partner if and when he decides to fight.

In this writer's opinion, Miguel Cotto should not even be in the equation, especially after the brutal beating that the Pacman inflicted on him. There is no drama nor the element of surprise here as the fight was conclusive and one-sided. The loss to Floyd Mayweather, Jr., even though the Boricua fighter gave a good account of himself, further disqualifies him in many boxing observers' minds.

Timothy Bradley, despite all his pronouncements lately, just does not cut it out. The boxing world knows who won the fight that night in Las Vegas, except the boxing judges who robbed Manny Pacquiao of his belt and gave it to Bradley, despite Bradley doing almost nothing to improve his stock in the fight. The dole-out was just inconceivable even to the eyes of the casual boxing fans who probably don't know the difference between a right hook and a bare-handed slap. No boxing fan in his right mind would want to undergo the experience of watching a snoozefest the second time around.

That leaves us with Manny Pacquiao's perennial nemesis Juan Manuel Marquez. The Mexican is probably the only fighter who was able to solve the Pacquiao puzzle and was not intimidated by the Filipino's mystique in the ring. Their trilogy was very competitive albeit controversial as both camps and their supporters believed in their hearts that their own fighter was the rightful winner regardless of the result of the fight.
Juan Manuel Marquez provides danger and a challenge to Manny Pacquiao. The Mexican fighter is like a bad nightmare that never goes away. Manny Pacquiao needs to put a stop to Juan Manuel Marquez's emphatic claims regarding their past fights.

Yes, Manny Pacquiao should choose Juan Manuel Marquez from the list in order for him to put an end to the lingering doubts of the skeptics regarding his close victories over the Mexican legend. Manny Pacquiao needs to stamp his class and put Marquez away decisively and for good.

But before he puts his name on the dotted line, Manny Pacquiao should try to look inside himself and find out whether he still has the fire and desire to continue fighting. Otherwise, it is time to walk away from the fight game.

Pacquiao-Bradley controversy not a criminal matter: Nevada officials

Nevada's state attorney general found nothing illegal or criminal in Manny Pacquiao's controversial split-decision loss to Timothy Bradley in a welterweight title fight last month in Las Vegas, according to a letter made public Tuesday.

Interviews with the referee of the June 9 fight, two Nevada Gaming Control Board officials and state Athletic Commission Director Keith Kizer turned up no evidence of wrongdoing, state Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto said in the letter to Top Rank chief executive Bob Arum.

Top Rank chief executive Bob Arum, who promoted the fight, sought an inquiry June 11, telling Masto that he hoped it would "show the world that there were no improprieties."

Arum didn't immediately respond Tuesday to requests for comment.

"Displeasure with the subjective decisions of sporting officials is not a sufficient basis for this office to initiate a criminal investigation," Masto's letter said. "There do not appear to be any facts or evidence to indicate that a criminal violation occurred."

Masto aide Jennifer Lopez issued a statement calling the matter closed.

Bradley won 115-113 on two scorecards, while losing by the same margin on the third.

The decision was booed by the ringside crowd June 9 at the MGM Grand arena, drew a video review by the World Boxing Organization, and resulted in a call by Pacquiao for a rematch.

A five-judge panel assembled by the WBO championship committee unanimously favored the Filipino fighter in a review.

The WBO can't overturn the result of the fight.

Nevada AG: Nothing Criminal in Manny Pacquiao-Timothy Bradley bout

AG rules on Pacquiao-Bradley bout

Las Vegas (AP)

The state attorney general in Nevada says she found no illegalities and no criminal wrongdoing in boxer Manny Pacquiao's controversial split-decision loss to Timothy Bradley in a welterweight title fight last month in Las Vegas.

 An aide to Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto on Tuesday called the matter closed.

Top Rank chief executive Bob Arum manages both fighters. He didn't immediately respond to a message.

Bradley won 115-113 on two scorecards, while losing by the same margin on the third.

The decision was booed by the June 9 crowd at the MGM Grand arena, and drew a review by the World Boxing Organization.

Arum said in a June 11 letter calling for an inquiry by Masto that he hoped it would ''show the world that there were no improprieties.''

Las Vegas Review-Journal: Disputed fight spurs less fact than fiction

By Ed Graney

Bob Arum has called for an investigation by the attorney general, and Sen. Harry Reid is endorsing such a move, and the WBO has said it will launch a review, and Timothy Bradley has ice on his ankles, and Manny Pacquiao is probably home in the Philippines handing out money to strangers who wander by his house.
The saga that was the most-ridiculous-split-decision-in-recent-memory plays on, with majority opinions about those who judged it remaining strong in this sense: They got it wrong.

The names Jerry Roth and Duane Ford and CJ Ross have been front and center since Saturday evening, when Bradley was handed a win he didn't earn in a welterweight title fight against Pacquiao at the MGM Grand Garden.

The three scores of 115-113 - Roth was the one who sided with Pacquiao - have created more questions than answers, affording us a wonderful opportunity to play another version of a wildly popular game.

 Fact or Fiction.

Claim: Any investigation into the scoring will prove futile, and Pacquiao will follow through with his rematch against Bradley in November.

Fact.

I don't believe the fight was fixed. I don't believe anyone was on the take.

I believe the three assigned to judge it had forgettable nights at the office and will be surprised to see any of them scoring another major title fight here anytime soon.

Arum is a promoter whose leading fighters also have been handed favorable decisions over the years, with an argument being made for Pacquiao as recently as November against Juan Manuel Marquez.

Time will pass. Negotiations will begin. More millions will be made on the rematch for all parties.

As for Reid, perhaps he should worry about something a tad more serious than Pacquiao-Bradley. Like, well, the more than 400 pink slips being handed teachers across the valley.

Claim: Judges such as Ford (74) and Roth (71) are too old to continue scoring such major fights.

Fiction.

It's not a function of age. It's one of accountability. Judges need more clinics, more film study, more seminars to keep their skills sharp. Nevada Athletic Commission executive director Keith Kizer should be the one ensuring this happens. How can you claim to regulate your sport when you don't consistently regulate those who judge it?

Kizer didn't return a message left on his phone Monday, which I have to believe was due to the fact he was busy explaining to others how those he chose to judge the fight erred in such a blatant regard.

Highly competent judges have made sound scoring decisions into their 80s. Some in their 40s wouldn't know a 10-count from a body punch.

The education of judges never should end, and if Kizer and his commissioners think they're doing enough in this regard, then they all were taking turns on Pacquiao's treadmill Saturday and not watching the fight.

Claim: Ross wasn't experienced enough to judge a fight the level of Pacquiao-Bradley.

Fiction.

You can't judge a second megafight until you score your first one. Every official in the NBA, every umpire in the major leagues, every referee in the NFL has to make his maiden voyage into the big time at some point. Ross has scored fights since 1992 and was a judge on the Canelo Alvarez-Shane Mosley bout here in May.
At some point, she was going to get this shot.

And to those in the Top Rank camp, who since Saturday have questioned Ross' viability and resume to judge the fight: Why, then, didn't your representative stand up and speak out against her when given the opportunity at a commission meeting that made official the three judges for Pacquiao-Bradley? Why did you remain silent if you had such concerns about her experience?

Claim: Boxing should be more transparent in its approach and begin showing scorecards at the end of each round.

Fiction.

Nice idea, in theory. In reality, a disaster.

Who's to say a fighter leading 4-1 after five rounds and who gets cut doesn't have an unscrupulous cornerman who makes that cut a tad deeper, claims his guy can't continue and the fight goes to the scoring cards? Who's to say someone trailing 8-0 in rounds doesn't quit?

Open scoring would do far more harm than good.

Claim: When told of the fight's outcome in his cell at the Clark County Detention Center, Floyd Mayweather Jr. cracked a large smile, somehow pulled himself off his cot in such an emaciated state that two weeks in jail reportedly has left him, threw caution to the wind and took a big gulp of tap water.

Fact.

Well, at least the part about smiling.

Las Vegas Review-Journal sports columnist Ed Graney can be reached at egraney@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-4618. He can be heard from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Monday through Friday on "Gridlock," ESPN 1100 and 98.9 FM. Follow him on Twitter: @edgraney.

wbo committee to review disputed judges' decision
 

One of boxing's major sanctioning bodies will review Timothy Bradley's controversial split decision over Manny Pacquiao, the first step toward what promoter Bob Arum hopes will be "clarity" in the judging of the fight.

WBO president Francisco "Paco" Valcarcel said in a statement Wednesday that the WBO's championship committee will review video of the fight with five "recognized international judges" and make a recommendation. He said the WBO does not doubt the ability of the scoring judges.

Most reporters seated ringside and the vast majority of fans inside the MGM Grand Garden on Saturday night thought Pacquiao had easily retained his welterweight title against Bradley.

The first surprise came when ring announcer Michael Buffer announced that there was a split decision, and the biggest surprise came in the reading of the judges' scores. Jerry Roth had it 115-113 for Pacquiao, while Duane Ford and CJ Ross had it for Bradley by the same score.

The Associated Press scored the fight 117-111 for Pacquiao.

"The public saw the fight, and they're outraged, and we need clarity here," Arum said Wednesday. "We need those responsible to investigate, to see what happened, how the judges could be so off.

"Was there any funny business going on? Or no funny business? Did they have a conversation with e

ach other? We need to get clarity. The public is demanding it."

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ESPN: Introducing 'Fixing The Fight Game'

 By Jason Langendorf | ESPN.com

Unbelievable. They did it to us again.

Just when you thought boxing couldn't possibly catch you by surprise one more time, that it couldn't steal another tiny piece of your sporting soul -- or that the overlords of the fight game wouldn't dare continue to sit idly by while it happened -- the sport steps on your foot and cracks you behind the ear. Again.

The verdict in Saturday's Manny Pacquiao-Timothy Bradley Jr. welterweight title bout is just the most recent foul boxing has committed against its fans -- and although Bradley's stupefying split decision victory is one of the more egregious violations of recent vintage, it's not remotely uncommon.

And yet, while many swear that the situation worsens with every passing fight, to say dodgy decisions -- or nearly any of boxing's manifold troubles -- are a new trend would be disingenuous, an act of willfully shrugging off a hundred years and more of history. Even if Pacquiao-Bradley didn't pass your sniff test, if you -- like many -- suspect dirty dealings that tilted the scorecards in Bradley's favor, a single apocryphal outcome is hardly symbolic of a shift in core values of the business of boxing. Before today's self-interested promoters, sanctioning bodies and networks, we had shady "managers," connected bookies and the mob. Ah, progress.

 Many authorities, fans and invested observers have expressed outrage at this latest insult, including trainer and ESPN analyst Teddy Atlas, who has publicly railed against boxing's injustices for years. After watching Saturday's fight, it's hard to argue against his point that the result -- and others like it -- must be attributed to either corruption or incompetence. Are there other possibilities? Would we suffer fewer of these stinkers by adding more judges at ringside, providing them the same TV feed granted to viewers and better defining the criteria for scoring a fight, as some have suggested?

We'd like to find out. In a week that seems as appropriate as any, ESPN.com is launching the granddaddy of all DIY projects in an effort to cure what ails boxing. We call it "Fixing The Fight Game," and we're enlisting experts, insiders and fans to help identify the sources of boxing's worst problems and, most important, to share their ideas and devise strategies for restoring a grand old sport that has fallen into disrepair.

The scorer's table is only where we'll start. FTFG will cover topics ranging from officiating to matchmaking to the messy sanctioning bodies to fighter safety and welfare, an issue we consider to be as important (and currently overlooked) as any other. We expect the project to grow organically, and the hope is that, with your help, we'll cover whatever ground necessary and arrive at actionable solutions to bring boxing -- for too long perceived as a back-alley sport -- into the light.

It's a challenge, we know. Call us hopeless optimists, though -- we don't consider it a quixotic quest. Boxing's troubles are entrenched, and there will be no quick fixes. But an open forum of ideas and a groundswell of support for change is a good place to start if the sport is to have a chance to get off the ropes. By sharing your thoughts in the comments sections of stories covering these issues and with ESPN Boxing on Twitter (using hashtag #FixFightGame), you can help to at least try to make it a fair fight.

ESPN: Controversial bout gates $8.96M

 By Dan Rafael | ESPN.com

Manny Pacquiao's tremendously controversial split-decision loss to Timothy Bradley Jr. in their welterweight title fight on Saturday night at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas generated a live gate of $8,963,180 from 13,229 tickets sold.

Keith Kizer, executive director of the Nevada State Athletic Commission, released the figures on Wednesday.

There were 2,070 unsold tickets for Pacquiao-Bradley and 925 complimentary tickets given away, according to the commission report. Also, the fight generated an additional $249,000 from 4,980 closed circuit tickets sold in Las Vegas.

The gate is the 17th largest in Nevada history. It is sandwiched just behind Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s September 2011 knockout victory against Victor Ortiz ($9 million from 13,364 tickets sold) and just ahead of Pacquiao's lopsided decision win against Shane Mosley in May 2011 ($8,882,600 from 15,422 tickets sold).

Pacquiao has six fights that rank in the top 21 of Nevada all-time gates, including No 3 -- $14,380,300 from 14,468 tickets sold for his career-defining victory against Oscar De La Hoya in December 2008, which sent De La Hoya into retirement.

Figures are still being compiled to determine how many units the Pacquiao-Bradley sold on pay-per-view, although HBO will replay the bout on Saturday night (10 ET).

Bradley was awarded a 147-pound world title in one of the most controversial decisions boxing has seen in years.

Judges Duane Ford and C.J. Ross both scored the fight 115-113 in favor of Bradley while Jerry Roth had it 115-113 for Pacquiao. The scoring from Ford and Ross caused a firestorm worldwide because virtually everybody had Pacquiao clearly winning.

Pacquiao's promoter, Top Rank's Bob Arum, has called for the Nevada attorney general to investigate the scoring. Nevada congressman Harry Reid, whom Pacquiao once campaigned for, has also said there should be an investigation.

WBO to review Pacquiao-Bradley decision; Nevada attorney general might follow suit

 By Kevin Iole | Yahoo! Sport

More than a quarter of a century later, umpire Don Denkinger's mistake is available to be analyzed, over and over, on Major League Baseball's website.

 Denkinger called Kansas City's Jorge Orta safe at first base in the bottom of the ninth inning of Game 6 of the 1985 World Series and the Royals went on to win. When they then won Game 7, they captured a championship they likely wouldn't have had Denkinger correctly called Orta out.

In boxing, however, there is no such simple mechanism to prove a bad call – or a perceived bad call – no matter how much Jim Lampley or Teddy Atlas scream and holler about it.

Boxing is perhaps the most subjective sport to judge. Two people can, and often do, watch exactly the same fight and evaluate it in dramatically different ways.

Manny Pacquiao lost Saturday to Timothy Bradley in a bout most experts – though not all – felt he deserved to win. Judge Jerry Roth scored it 115-113 for Pacquiao, closer than most ringside reporters had it. He was overruled by judges Duane Ford and C.J. Ross, who each had it 115-113 in favor of Bradley.

On Wednesday, the World Boxing Organization announced it would review the verdict with a panel of five international judges. Normally that would be sanctioning-body code for "we're preparing to strip Bradley and give the belt back to Pacquiao," though WBO president Francisco "Paco" Valcarcel told Yahoo! Sports on Wednesday that is not the case this time.

The WBO decision to examine the outcome of the welterweight title fight at the MGM Grand Garden comes on the heels of promoter Bob Arum on Sunday calling for an investigation by Nevada attorney general Catherine Cortez Masto, a sentiment that was supported by longtime Arum (and Pacquiao) ally U.S. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Arum is the promoter for both Pacquiao and Bradley.

Outraged Pacquiao fans have petitioned Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval to overturn the result. Jennifer M. Lopez, the public information officer for the state attorney general's office, said via email it is office policy not to comment on potential or ongoing investigations.

However, Keith Kizer, the executive director of the Nevada Athletic Commission, told Yahoo! Sports that the attorney general's office had requested information from him regarding the selection of the officials, the boxers' licensing and the judges' records as it related to past Pacquiao and Bradley fights.

That would seem to indicate that Cortez Masto is at least considering an inquiry. Lopez, though, would not confirm that.

"On Monday, June 11 Bob Arum, with Top Rank Inc., submitted a complaint about the decision in the Pacquiao/Bradley fight," she wrote. "We are treating this complaint like any other complaint our office receives. We will review the information submitted and take appropriate action if necessary. Per standard office policy procedures, we do not confirm or deny if we have an ongoing criminal investigation."

Long-time commission member Skip Avansino, now in his second term as its chairman, declined to say how he scored the fight. He said he did not know if Cortez Masto would order an investigation but said he believed in transparency and would cooperate fully with whatever she asked of his office.


He said he had asked Kizer to watch video of the fight with the judges. Kizer said he was awaiting receipt of a DVD so he could do so.

"I wanted Keith to go through the fight with them and test and vet their determination round by round," Avansino said. "If [Kizer] sees something, we should be advised about – let's look into it. And then, of course, certainly, we always have to consider whether there was some untoward behavior, any corruption or any kind of undue influence.

"At this point, I haven't any evidence of any of that other than looking at three seasoned professionals who have done a lot of good championship bouts for us. That's where I stand on it and I have been supportive of those judges for that reason."

Arum wants the investigation largely to clear his own name. After the fight, he went to great lengths to point out he did not accuse the judges of corruption.

"I want to make very clear, there was no chicanery going on here," Arum said shortly after the bout.
On Sunday, though, in a telephone call to Yahoo! Sports, he demanded the investigation. This was the first major fight of the social media age to end in a decision the public overwhelmingly disagreed with. Arum was taking as much abuse as the judges and was accused, without any evidence, of tampering with the outcome.

 The fact is Arum would have benefited more had Pacquiao won. Though a Pacquiao fight with Floyd Mayweather Jr. might still be made, it would have been far more lucrative had Pacquiao defeated Bradley.
Prior to the fight, Bradley had made faux credentials and posters touting a rematch. But clearly Top Rank had other plans. In attendance Saturday night was Juan Manuel Marquez, who after the fight Top Rank planned on announcing as Pacquiao's next opponent in November.

There was a rematch clause in the contract, but this isn't unusual. Mayweather, for example, had one against Miguel Cotto when they fought May 5. It is standard operating procedure for stars, in this case Pacquiao, to have one.

Valcarcel said his organization would not strip Bradley of the title no matter what its independent review found. He said he would simply order a rematch. That would only differ, he said, if corruption comes to light, but he said he did not expect that.

"I have known Roth and Duane and Cynthia [Ross] for many, many years and they are wonderful, honest people and excellent judges," Valcarcel said. "We just want Nevada to consider all of the judges. Nevada picks its judges and we want them to consider who we recommend. I gave them a list of 20 judges, from all around the world – New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, everywhere – and they were great judges.

"I think this is a great opportunity for the ABC [Association of Boxing Commissions] and the sanctioning bodies to work together. I am not saying there was anything going on here, but I just think it would be important for Nevada, and all the states, to work with us on the selection [of officials]."

As it stands, allegations of fraud have been leveled against Ford, Ross and Arum. These allegations will continue, which is why Cortez Masto is being pressed to launch a formal investigation.

Like Denkinger, the judges made a call in a high-profile, significant sporting event.

But unlike Denkinger, theirs isn't one that can be proven right or wrong by a replay.

An investigation should prove that. Then, the business of boxing can move on, Pacquiao and Bradley can fight again and all of the conspiracy theorists can look for another issue.

Manny Pacquiao vs. Timothy Bradley

WBO Welterweight Championship
June 9, 2012
MGM Grand Garden Arena
Las Vegas, Nevada
video credit: YouTube/sweetboxinghbo

LA Times: WBO assigns five judges to re-score Pacquiao-Bradley fight

By Lance Pugmire

June 13, 2012, 12:52 p.m.
 

The World Boxing Organization on Wednesday announced it has assigned five judges to re-score Manny Pacquiao's controversial loss by decision to Palm Springs' Timothy Bradley in an effort to convince state commissions to widen the pool of judges for major fights.

Although many at ringside for Saturday's fight gave Pacquiao between nine and 11 rounds, judges Duane Ford and C.J. Ross scored the bout 115-113 (seven rounds to five) in Bradley's favor, and a third Nevada judge, Jerry Roth, had it 115-113 for Pacquiao in the WBO welterweight title contest.

WBO President Francisco "Paco" Valcarcel said five judges, from New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico, will re-score the bout and submit their work confidentially to the WBO, with the scores to be gathered by Monday.

Valcarcel said that armed with that information, he will submit to the Assn. of Boxing Commissions by its July meeting a request that state commissions such as Nevada's work more diligently to bring in judges from outside their states for fights of the magnitude of a world title contest.

Before the Pacquiao-Bradley judges were assigned by the Nevada State Athletic Commission, Valcarcel said he submitted a list of 20 judges from elsewhere who could be assigned to the bout. None were chosen.
"We're asking the ABC to make recommendations how a sanctioning body like ours can work better with a state commission, to use this experience to have better scoring in the future," Valcarcel said.

Valcarcel said he is not considering stripping the WBO belt from Bradley, and will not order a mandatory rematch, because Pacquiao's contract stipulates he would get a rematch if he lost the bout. In promoting the fight, Bradley had printed up a poster and ticket hyping Bradley-Pacquiao II on Nov. 10.

"This wasn't Bradley's fault, and we're not saying there was any evidence of fraud or corruption here," Valcarcel said. "That's outside the scope of what we're doing."

He said he's also not questioning the integrity of Ford or Ross.

"There are excellent judges available internationally, and they should be considered," Valcarcel said. "We've done it here in Puerto Rico, bringing in judges from Nevada."

SFGate: Oakland's Ward says Bradley should give belt back

 By Vittorio Tafur

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Super middleweight boxing champion Andre Ward says that if he were Tim Bradley, he would give the WBO welterweight title belt back to Manny Pacquiao.

Bradley won a controversial decision against Pacquiao on Saturday, and almost all of the reporters and fans in Las Vegas thought Pacquiao dominated the fight.

"It was a ridiculous decision," said Ward, who was at the fight. "Bradley lost the majority of the rounds. If it was me personally, I would admit defeat and say, 'Here's your belt back.' "

Bradley said after the fight that he would watch it again to see if he really won. But his comments got stronger later, saying he thought he "carried the fight with my jab" and that he was the "No. 2 pound-for-pound" best fighter behind Floyd Mayweather.

If Bradley did watch the fight again, he would clearly see that he lost, Ward said. Bradley didn't get one good punch in, Pacquiao said, and Ward agreed that Bradley's lack of power was evident.

"There was nothing there, nothing to suggest it was even close," Ward said. "If you were being generous, extremely generous, maybe you could give Tim four rounds and he loses 8-4. I love Tim, he is a friend of mine, but he has to know that he lost that fight."

Bradley should say that and give the belt back, Ward said.

"It's the right thing to do," Ward said. "It's a tough situation, but you gotta make a stand and that will help make sure that this kind of thing doesn't happen again. He won't lose any stock - in fact, his reputation would be enhanced.

"It would help us put the reins on this wild wild West situation that boxing has become."

Ironically, if Bradley had lost, he might be looked at more favorably by boxing fans.

"He has nothing to hang his head about," Ward said. "He hurt his foot early and he never gave up, took some good shots and hung in there."

Ward was at the Pacquiao-Bradley match to promote his Sept. 8 fight in his hometown of Oakland against light heavyweight champ Chad Dawson. Ward was stunned, like everyone else at the MGM Grand, when the split decision was announced.

"My first reaction was shock, then anger and then sadness," Ward said. "I have dedicated half of my life to this sport, and what happened Saturday is unacceptable. And it's going to continue to happen until there is a commission that starts to impose sanctions. There have to be investigations and punishments."

The executive director of the Nevada State Athletic Commission said he anticipates no discipline or review of the two judges who scored the fight 115-113 for Bradley. (The other judge had Pacquiao winning 115-113, while The Chronicle had it 119-109 for Pacquiao).

"That's a shame, because they're messing with people's livelihoods when they allow this to happen. It hurts the sport's credibility, it hurts the pay-per-view numbers. ... Boxing was doing great again after the Mayweather-(Miguel) Cotto fight, but one situation like this and we're back on life support.
"It hurts everybody. Everybody involved in the sport."

Vittorio Tafur is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: vtafur@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @VittorioTafur

The Hill: Sen. Reid calls for Nevada investigation into Pacquiao’s boxing title loss

 By Alexander Bolton
The Hill/06/12/12 08:38 PM ET

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday said the Nevada attorney general should investigate the controversial split decision that cost boxing great Manny Pacquiao his WBO welterweight title.

Reid said an inquiry is needed to quell the uproar following the fight, but that he did not suspect anything “untoward,” such as bribery of the judges.

The Nevada Democrat has a strong relationship with Pacquiao, who campaigned with the Democratic leader in the final days of his difficult 2010 reelection campaign.

Reid later returned the favor by inviting Pacquiao to the Senate at the beginning of last year during the boxer’s trip to Washington, D.C.

Pressed by a Nevada reporter, Reid said Pacquiao should have been declared the winner in Saturday night’s tilt with Timothy Bradley in Las Vegas.

“From all the reports that I’ve seen by people on the outside who saw the fight, who attempted to be fair and judge the fight, Pacquiao won the fight,” said Reid, a former member of the Nevada Athletic Commission who used to judge boxing matches.

Bob Arum, the promoter for both Pacquiao and Bradley, has formally asked for the state attorney general to conduct a probe, arguing it is necessary to answer fans’ doubts about the judging process. The Associated Press, which scored the fight, concluded Pacquiao won easily.

“Our attorney general is a wonderful woman. She’ll do her best. I feel confident there’s been nothing untoward, but if an investigation makes everyone feel better, do the investigation,” Reid told reporters.
Reid noted that the championship bout “involved hundreds of millions of dollars” and would not be a waste of State Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto’s time.

“It doesn’t hurt to clear the air and take a look at this,” said Reid, himself a former amateur boxer.

Had it not been his wife’s birthday last week, Reid said, he would have attended the bout, which was shown on pay-per-view. Landra Reid, the majority leader’s spouse, is recovering from stage 2 breast cancer.

Reid said he personally knows one of the judges who scored the title fight on Saturday. At press time, it was unclear if that is the judge who deemed Pacquiao the winner, or one of the two judges who scored it for Bradley.

A rematch between Pacquiao and Bradley is expected later this year.

Pacquiao told the Los Angeles Times in November 2010 that he helped Reid overcome a late deficit in the polls.

“[Reid] was behind 4 percent in the polls before I got out there,” Pacquiao said. “There’s a lot of Filipinos in Las Vegas.” Reid ultimately defeated Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle by 5 percentage points.

Boxing helped shape Reid’s life, just as it has Pacquiao’s. Reid noted publicly in 2011 that both he and the welterweight grew up poor. The sport taught Reid “how to fight fair” and led to his meeting Mike O’Callaghan, according to the senator.

O’Callaghan was Reid’s boxing coach and high school history teacher. He later became governor of Nevada, and Reid served as his lieutenant governor.

Reid and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) have worked together in the past to set up a national boxing commission, but the legislative effort has stalled in recent years.

“Maybe this will be the impetus” that can revive the bill, Reid said Tuesday.

“I haven’t had the chance to talk to [McCain] in the last 24 hours, but I will,” Reid added.

USA Today: Bradley manager: 'There's nothing corrupt going on'

 By Bob Velin and Drew Schmenner, USA TODAY

LAS VEGAS – Timothy Bradley's manager has what he casts as a simple explanation for anyone who suspects a fix Saturday night when his fighter upset Manny Pacquiao.

"I know Tim's very grateful that he won. He has nothing to do with the decision. There's nothing corrupt going on, and if there was something corrupt going on, Tim wouldn't have won," Cameron Dunkin said Monday. "They didn't want Tim to win. He was the underdog. He wasn't supposed to win, and he won, and the judges saw it that way. They gave him those real close rounds."

A criticism of the split decision continues to resound. Top Rank chairman Bob Arum, who promotes both fighters, said Monday he has submitted a formal request to Nevada state attorney general Catherine Cortez Masto for a full and complete inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the scoring of the fight.

Ringside judges CJ Ross and Duane Ford scored it 115-113 for Bradley while Jerry Roth favored Pacquiao by the same score.

Boxing experts across the country were nearly unanimous in saying Pacquiao should have been awarded the fight.

"The public has a right to know. The fighters have a right to know," Arum said Monday. "The only way to restore fans' confidence in boxing is by letting an independent body investigate every detail of the fight no matter how big or small. Sunshine never hurt anyone.

"Unless there's an investigation, it's not good for boxing, it's not good for anyone. We want to get some clarity as to what happened."

Arum said he thinks the attorney general should investigate every facet of the fight, including the Nevada Athletic Commission, the officials, the betting and the promotion (which is Arum's Top Rank). "Maybe it's just bad judging; we just want to know the truth." he said. "I'm not making any accusations."

Jennifer Lopez, public information officer for Masto, said in an email to USA TODAY Sports: "We can't confirm nor deny whether we have an ongoing criminal investigation."

Asked about Arum's call for an investigation, Dunkin basically dismissed the idea.

"That's his business, and there's nothing corrupt going on," he said. "When you have judges, I don't care if it's figure skating, I don't care if it's gymnastics or what it is, it's someone's opinion."

Also Monday, Bradley underwent an MRI to determine the seriousness of foot and ankle injuries he suffered in the fight. Test results were not immediately available.

Contributing: Schmenner writes for the Desert Sun in Palm Springs, Calif., and reported from Palm Springs.

The Chicago Tribune: Black box- The mysteries of judging a prizefight

Welterweight boxer Manny Pacquiao had a manageable time Saturday night defending his title in a bout with Timothy Bradley. He connected with more punches, landed more telling ones and was on his feet at the end. But then came the surprise: He had lost. Two of the three judges ringside had Bradley winning seven of the 12 rounds.

An uproar ensued. The crowd at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas booed, Bradley admitted to being "shocked" and promoter Bob Arum offered to send the two majority judges to "the best eye doctor in the world."

Pacquiao's trainer, Freddie Roach, raised even darker possibilities than poor eyesight, suggesting that "something wasn't right." Critics demanded an investigation, but the head of the Nevada State Athletic Commission dismissed the idea, saying, "Every fighter who loses a close fight like that wants to look at the judges." It's worth noting that even the dissenting judge saw the fight as very close.

Any fight fan knows that controversial decisions are as much a part of boxing as gloves and speed bags. A boxer, unlike most athletes, has a foolproof way to guard against nearsighted officials: He can knock his opponent out, making the scorecards moot.

If he fails, though, the sport can be as maddening as any other that requires subjective judging. The outcomes in diving, gymnastics and synchronized swimming often leave spectators gaping in disbelief. (Well, maybe not synchronized swimming.) Remember the pairs figure skating uproar at the 2002 Olympics, which led to the suspension of a French judge and the awarding of two sets of gold medals?

The oddest thing about boxing, though, is that the fighters, trainers and spectators go through the entire contest without knowing the score. Baseball and football players know when points are scored, and if they lose track they can check the board. Gymnasts and divers find out after each attempt how they did and how they compare with their opponents. In boxing, though, the judges keep the marks to themselves until the results are announced at the end of the fight.

This practice seems terribly unfair, because it leaves the participants groping in the dark. A fighter who assumes he is leading may not press the attack as he might if he were getting beat. It can cause a contestant who mistakenly fears he's losing to take unnecessary risks. It also makes for particularly vehement responses when those watching find that the guy they saw kicking butt was, in the eyes of the judges, playing patty-cake.

There is no obvious justification for this quaint custom, aside from a blind adherence to tradition — and we do mean blind. If secret scoring were a good idea, wouldn't other sports have adopted it?

The people in charge of boxing should use this episode to move to a normal method of letting participants and spectators know where things stand. It wouldn't eliminate bad judging. But it would cut down on the surprises.

ESPN W: Boxing must clean up or die

 By Jane McManus

Manny Pacquiao was robbed. The welterweight wasn't able to knock out opponent Timothy Bradley, and in boxing that means the winner is determined by the scorecards of three all-too-human judges.

Subjectivity is undermining what is left of boxing's (struggles to keep a straight face) integrity. Fighting was once an almost-noble sport, and midcentury cigar-chompers made boxing the NFL of its era. However, boxing has not had that kind of cachet since around the time Mike Tyson dined on Evander Holyfield's ear. And that was well before the emergence of face tattoos.

The sport and its approximately 475 organizing bodies need to figure out how to turn their image around before boxing goes the way of cockfighting and theatrical wrestling.
 
But boxing has an unlikely role model in ... figure skating.

Stop laughing.

Pummeling another person into unconsciousness may not on its face seem to have a lot in common with a sport that involves triple lutzes, Bach and sequins.

But look a little deeper. Both sports have to rely on subjective scoring and, with it, the risk of corruption. Both have had major scandals at the Olympic Games. Roy Jones lost to Korean fighter Park Si-Hun by decision at the 1988 games in Seoul after landing 86 punches to Park's 32, according to The Guardian.

Similarly, ice skating was rocked by a 2002 scandal in the pairs competition. After Canadians Jamie Sale
and David Pelletier took the silver and Yelena Berezhnaya and Anton Sikharulidze of Russia won the gold, some commentators felt the judges had made a mistake. Later, when French judge Marie-Reine Le Gougne broke down and confessed she had been pressured to favor the Russians, the scandal widened. She later recanted the confession, but the damage was done and the IOC awarded both couples gold medals.

After the Jones debacle, Olympic boxing changed to a more objective judging system that focuses on total punches landed, but given all the governing bodies, there is not a singular voice to make things right in the professional ranks.

Figure skating, on the other hand, from the Olympic level on down, was cleaned up. There will always be some way to cheat the system, but figure skating officials have adopted more objective scoring, called the international judging system (IJS). Not everyone endorses the changes -- some judges even retired rather than learn the new rules -- but the sport has moved forward and put accountability at the forefront.

"With IJS, the sport has become more measurable," Mitch Moyer, U.S. Figure Skating senior director of athlete high performance, said in a statement. "The athletes are provided more detailed feedback as to the way their performance was evaluated by the judges. While not a perfect system, the athletes and coaches can take this feedback and make adjustments to improve for the next competition."

Artistry is difficult to measure, and it is not emphasized as much in the new system. Judges instead quantify artistry in ways that can be measured, such as "rhythmic knee action and precision of foot placement."

So it isn't perfect.

Everyone knew what a 6.0 meant, and the new system is just inscrutable enough to open the door to fraudulent scores if judges are anonymous. But isn't an attempt to name the unnamable better than allegedly taking a bunch of boxing judges to dinner in Korea and winding up with a fixed decision?

So what in a boxing ring can be measured and put into an objective system? Punches landed and standing eight-counts would be a natural place to start, and would have delivered Jones his deserved gold medal.

Or boxing, with its alphabet soup of belts, could do nothing, and dive after shrinking payouts as it becomes less and less relevant on the sports landscape. Horse racing, boxing and baseball were three of the most popular sports last century, but only baseball can make that claim now.

Baseball has dealt with scandals of its own, but it isn't the storm that's most important, it's what happens in its wake.

There is no need for boxing to act like it's the 1880s and J.L. Sullivan is still waxing his mustache. As USA Today columnist Christine Brennan noted, if you added a few well-placed sensors to a boxing glove, you could measure the speed and power of each punch. Those could be calculated into the overall score.

Technology can solve some problems that subjective scoring has presented in sports. Some will lament removing the human element, but we're all pretty cool with instant replay at this point, right?

Boxing will learn an old lesson soon enough: evolve or die.

PDI Editorial: Larceny in Vegas

Manny Pacquiao lives in a world different from the uncomplicated one to which he’s accustomed. In fact, he shuttles from one world to another. In politics, he flits from one party to the next; he has abandoned the constituency that refused to send him to Congress and has moved his address to that of his wife. Far removed from the poverty of his youth, he has joined the glitzy world of show biz and, like the billionaire philanthropist that he has become, gives away millions of pesos without blinking.

Pacquiao swears he’s a changed man, having left the world of vice. He no longer gambles and indeed he has not been seen in the pool halls, cockpit arenas and casinos where he used to stake a good part of his fight winnings. Talk of domestic conflict and marital infidelity has died down. He quotes and reportedly lives by the Bible.

Yes, prizefighting has launched the Pacman to various worlds. But alas, boxing is a world he only visits these days. He doesn’t live there anymore, to borrow a line that the great sports columnist Red Smith wrote about Willie Mays in another time and context. The sweet science is no longer his day job.

It was on his last visit to the boxing world that the package of hubris and humility that is Manny Pacquiao discovered he was no longer the center of the universe.

For 12 rounds against the undefeated Timothy Bradley on Saturday night, it was obvious that Pacquiao, 33, was no longer the ring craftsman of old. The confidence was there, as was the speed. But his A-game was in another world. His timing was off, and his punches lacked the wallop that knocked the likes of Barrera, Morales, Marquez, Hatton, Cotto and De la Hoya into oblivion.

Against an opponent with neither the skills nor the power worthy of the 13 of the best fighters he had beaten in five weight divisions in the past seven years, Pacquiao was not the marksman he once was. Whatever power punches he landed—and there were many, according to the stats churned out by Compubox—they were not enough to take out his opponent. Either Pacquiao has lost the sting of his punches, or Bradley has a jaw of granite.

His fourth loss in 60 fights was Pacquiao’s undoing. He did not have what it takes to take down Bradley, and left it to the judges to call it a split decision. Many called it larceny.

To be sure, the undefeated Bradley was no patsy. He showed he earned the right to be in the same arena as Pacquiao. More important, Bradley earned the respect of those who regarded him as a mere sparring mate to keep the champion warmed up while Floyd Mayweather Jr. was rotting in jail.

In the early rounds, Bradley took a page from the playbook of Juan Manuel Marquez, the wily Mexican who, for 36 rounds, created the template for the counter-punching style that tormented the Filipino southpaw. (Marquez claims that he won all three fights with Pacquiao, and many agree with him.) When Bradley became impatient in the middle rounds, he decided to mix it up, and walked right into Pacquiao’s trap—a barroom brawl.

While Pacquiao appeared to be in control of the fight, his vaunted combinations often ended at 1-2. The rest of the flurries were often feeble paws and wild swings and misses coming from odd angles. Time and again, Bradley escaped further punishment, not by sticking and moving as he had claimed, but by bobbing and weaving under Pacquiao’s punches. Bradley would later acknowledge that he was hurt, describing the champ as a beast. At some point he was on the verge of giving up, or so the sound bytes from his corner seemed to show, but Pacquiao just could not land the big punch that everyone was expecting.

Bradley himself did not have what it takes to strip the champ of his title. In the end, he needed help from ringside. The only two persons who mattered out of the millions who watched the fight came to the rescue and gave the match to him in what can only be described as the biggest robbery in the sport since the Pacquiao-Marquez trilogy.

And where does the Pacman go from here? It’s not yet the end of the boxing road for him. There’s a score to settle with Bradley and Mayweather. There are millions of dollars to be earned still. And politics, his day job, waits in the wings. But the sting of defeat, no matter how controversial, lingers. Unfortunately for Manny Pacquiao, what happened in Vegas won’t stay in Vegas. It will be etched on his fight record forever, wherever in the world his journey will take him.

USA Today: Reggie Bush says Pacquiao-Bradley decision an 'injustice'

 By Nate Davis, USA TODAY

Add Reggie Bush's name to the chorus of voices who believe Manny Pacquiao was robbed in last weekend's WBO welterweight championship fight, which went to Timothy Bradley in a shocking split decision.

"Pacquiao won that fight hands down," Bush, who attended the bout in Las Vegas, said on NFL Network's NFL Total Access on Monday night. "Not a question."

The Miami Dolphins tailback said he was already headed for the exits with most of the other patrons when the unexpected result came down.

"Nobody thought (otherwise)," said Bush. "Everybody was already leaving, nobody thought to stick around. I was saying bye to people. I already knew in my mind that he had won the fight. And when they announced that Bradley had won, the whole stadium's face just kinda went white. It was kinda like this awkward silence, everybody was kinda stunned. I was stunned. I even stopped walking, I was in mid-stride, stopped walking, turned around and to just double-check, 'Did that really just happen?'

"I just think it's kind of an injustice for Pacquiao. It's sad, and it sucks, but I think everybody knows he won that fight."

LVR-J:Reid endorses call for probe into disputed Bradley-Pacquiao fight

By Steve Tetreault
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Posted: Jun. 12, 2012 | 12:20 p.m.

WASHINGTON - Sen. Harry Reid on Tuesday endorsed calls for a state investigation into the outcome of Saturday's disputed WBO welterweight title fight between Manny Pacquiao and Timothy Bradley at the MGM Grand Garden.

Reid, D-Nev., said it would be helpful for such a probe to "clear the air" surrounding the controversial split decision that favored Bradley but led many to believe Pacquiao was robbed of his belt.

Infuriated fight promoter Bob Arum has sent a letter asking state Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto to look into the scoring by judges Duane Ford and CJ Ross, who each had Bradley winning. A third judge, Jerry Roth, gave the fight to Pacquiao.

"I feel confident there has been nothing untoward, but if an investigation makes everyone feel better, do the investigation," Reid, the Senate majority leader, told reporters when asked about the fight at his weekly news gathering.

A former boxer and a former member of the Nevada Athletic Commission who has judged fights, Reid usually is a fixture at major fights in Las Vegas. He said he did not go to this one because it was his wife's birthday and he flew back to Washington.

But there has been no escaping the outcry over the fight that might enter boxing lore.

"From all the reports I've seen by people on the outside who saw the fight, who attempted to be fair and judge the fight, Pacquiao won the fight," Reid said. "Now, I understand how upset everybody is."
Reid also has personal connections to some of the players. He long has been friends with Arum, the Las Vegas-based chairman of Top Rank Boxing.

And Pacquiao, a hugely popular boxer, endorsed Reid in 2010, appearing at a frenzied Las Vegas rally a few days before the embattled incumbent won re-election. Reid returned the favor by hosting Pacquiao and his wife when they traveled to Washington last year.

Reid said Tuesday that Pacquiao managed the weekend loss "better than anyone else. He said, 'It's a fight, and I lost. We'll fight again.' "

Ford and Ross have said they stand by their scoring, which each favored Bradley by a score of 115-113. Roth had the fight 115-113 for Pacquiao.

Reid said he thought it was worth the time for Cortez Masto to take a look.

"Remember, this fight involved hundreds of millions of dollars," Reid said. "As I said, I am confident there was nothing untoward. I think people just make bad decisions in a lot of things they do, including judging fights. But it doesn't hurt to clear the air and take a look at this."

"These things happen," Reid said, noting Las Vegas is where Mike Tyson bit off a piece of Evander Holyfield's ear at the Grand Garden in 1997 and where a paraglider landed in the ring during the 1993 fight at Caesars Palace between Holyfield and Riddick Bowe.

"This is a bad decision, but bad decisions have happened in fighting forever," Reid said of Saturday's result. "So I hope there is nothing untoward on this, and that's why I think the attorney general looking into it doesn't bother me at all."

Reid said the controversy also might fuel the revival of federal legislation to regulate boxing, an effort he has pushed periodically along with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

"Maybe this will be the impetus for Senator McCain and I to get back to work on it again," he said.

Contact Stephens Washington bureau chief Steve Tetreault at stetreault@stephensmedia.com or 202-783-1760. Follow him on Twitter: @STetreaultDC.

The Guardian: Blame idiots in suits for Manny Pacquiao and Timothy Bradley mess

Pacquiao's loss of his WBO welterweight belt in Las Vegas was not fraud, just more ignorance from ludicrous bow-tied judges

Distance does not always lend enchantment. Having finally caught up with a tape of the fight between Manny Pacquiao and Timothy Bradley, it was hard not to conclude that boxing is doomed to forever be peopled by brave fighters and idiots in suits.

How two judges could see the fight in Bradley's favour is beyond me.

Pacquiao got the benefit of the doubt against Juan Manuel Márquez in his last fight, but this was worse – by three to four rounds.

The problem is manifold.

The casual viewer imagines boxing is run still by gangsters and any dubious decision is a fix. That is simplistic. There are some marginal characters still in the business, because it attracts people who thrive on the anarchy of a sport with four main governing bodies and hundreds of easily charmed officials. But there are very few prearranged results these days, if any – at least in recent times.

Nevertheless, into this chaos come judges and referees who look the part, with their ludicrous badges and bow ties, but whose grasp of the fundamentals is often shaky. A few are excellent. Some are OK. Too many are blindingly poor.

On Saturday night in Las Vegas two of the three judges, Duane Ford and C J Ross, gave the fight to Bradley by margins of 115-113. The third official, Jerry Roth, saw it the other way by the same score.

This would suggest a close fight. It was not. Well, not in the opinion of nearly everyone in the building as well as nearly everyone who has given his or her tuppenceworth on it since. A poll of more than 50 boxing writers found only three who agreed with Ford and Ross.

I had Bradley winning two of the last three rounds and sharing a couple early on in a slow start. The other eight went to Pacquiao, in my humble opinion, at least four of those without argument. He hit harder, more often and took not much in return. Where he let himself down was in starting slowly and not finishing the fight conclusively.

Nevertheless, he did not deserve to lose his title – unlike his fight against Márquez, in which the Mexican should have got the decision by a couple of rounds. That, though, was a close fight. This was one-sided to anyone who knows anything about boxing.

And that's the nub of the problem. Too many people – from fans with websites to the hired help with pencils and scorecards who sit in judgment at ringside – do not understand either the fundamentals of the sport – having never boxed, perhaps – or the tricky job of scoring.

The governing bodies insist they instruct their judges on how to score a fight, to reward clean scoring shots with the legal part of the glove, to take note of aggression and not to be swayed by late flurries in a round but to take in the action of the whole three minutes. What they do not tell them is that many rounds are too close to give to either fighter. They are encouraged not to sit on the fence but to make a call one way or another even though, in their own minds, they cannot be sure one fighter is dominant in a particular round.

How many times do you hear fans at a fight say, "How'd you see that one? Bit close, wasn't it."

At the heart of the judgment should be this: a fighter cannot win a round if he does not land more obvious scoring punches than his opponent.

When David Haye beat Nikolay Valuev, Jim Watt, an excellent commentator and judge of a fight, reckoned Haye had not done enough to take the title from the Russian. But this was to fall for the old trap of burdening the challenger with "making the fight", taking it away from the champion. It is a nonsense. The fight stands alone, a contest between two boxers on the night, and no notion of the champion having an edge before the first bell should be countenanced. This leads to the "house fighter" syndrome and the perception that one boxer is favoured to win by the promoters, the broadcasters and the industry as a whole.

I slow-moed that fight a few days later and Haye landed approximately 150 punches to 50, a boring bout, obviously, but a clear win to the challenger.

He rightly got the verdict.

On Saturday night in Las Vegas, the challenger Bradley was somehow seen as the winner by two judges who ignored all the above guidelines. Pacquiao outpunched him, outboxed him and was by a little distance the better fighter on the night.

It should be as simple as that. But it's not. And that is the single major reason the sport is perpetually in such a mess. It's not fraud, it's plain old human failing. It is hard to see it changing.

Washington Post: Pacquiao-Bradley controversy: Just “part of the game?”

 By Cindy Boren

Over 24 hours after Timothy Bradley’s victory over Manny Pacquiao, the controversy over the judges’ split decision in Bradley’s favor isn’t going away.

A lot of people seem to think the fix was in and are shocked, shocked to learn that the sport might not be on the up-and-up.

Pacquiao, who hadn’t lost in seven years, landed more power punches than Bradley and more jabs and yet was unable to finish off Bradley, who suffered a broken foot in the bout. In the midst of the controversy, one thing is certain: Everyone was looking straight at Bob Arum, whose Top Rank Promotions represented both boxers. Lennox Lewis summed it up on Twitter: “Pac won the fight. Bradley won the decision. [Arum] won another payday. Boxing lost its integrity and the fans lost confidence.”

Boxing uses a highly subjective, highly human scoring system and changing it would prevent these kinds of surreal results. (Judges C.J. Ross and Duane Ford had Bradley winning 115-113; Judge Jerry Roth had Pacquiao winning by the same score.) But how would you change the scoring? With instant replay? It seems unlikely that anything in the sport is going to change and, let’s face it, what happens inside the ring is only a small part of the sport. From Grantland’s Rafe Bartholomew:

Are the powers that be and their backstage plots real? Your guess is as good as mine, but imagining them is one of the secondary joys of boxing fandom. Trying to understand the promoters' motives and anticipate their next moves is almost as much fun as watching Pacquiao overwhelm an opponent or Marquez pick apart a fighter one sharp counter at a time.

I think that's why, when Bob Arum stood behind a podium and faced the press after Saturday's fight, he was given a surprisingly warm reception. These were, after all, the same cynics who had just been muttering about how Arum was probably to blame for the Bradley decision. But boxing writers and hard-core fans understand that the game behind the scenes is as important as the sport inside the ring, and it was hard not to admire the way Arum played the moment at the press conference.

“I've never been as ashamed of the sport of boxing as I am tonight,” were the first words out of Arum's mouth. He defused the anger in the room by calling the Bradley decision one of the worst he's ever seen, comparing it to other controversial decisions like Pacquiao-Marquez III. Arum said that this result was far worse — “unfathomable” — and admitted that as angry as he was in the moment, he stood to “make a lot of money off the rematch.” He mixed righteous indignation and candid talk about business with a Yiddish-peppered rant about how old, incompetent judges make everyone feel like schmucks, “and nobody likes to feel like a schmuck.” The room was laughing at his sarcasm, even though moments before, many of the people who were now enjoying Arum's irascible charm had been kvetching about how he must have masterminded the entire debacle. And that's really the beauty of Bob Arum, the man who famously once told reporters, “Yesterday I was lying; today I'm telling the truth.” Twice a year, it seems like Arum is involved with something that makes everyone who cares about boxing feel like a schmuck, and every single schmuck among us just keeps coming back for more.

One of these days a rematch will be announced and, conveniently, it will help to tamp down talk about when Pacquiao might fight Floyd Mayweather Jr.

“That’s how we love this boxing,” Pacquiao said. “In your heart you know I was winning the fight. But it’s okay. It’s part of the game.”

Follow us: @CindyBoren | @MattBrooksWP

The WSJ: Punching Up the Numbers

In the fracas over Manny Pacquiao's loss to Timothy Bradley, many will turn to the punch stats to justify their outrage. Promoter Bob Arum is so furious about the decision that he is demanding an investigation into the scoring before he will consider a rematch. Nonetheless, the way fans score a fight these days is surely impacted by the numbers that come up on the screen at each round's end.

Bob Canobbio, who founded the CompuBox system in 1985 and has tallied shots on more than 4,000 fights, insists that the numbers, which the judges have no access to, tell the story 90% of the time. Canobbio has a six-person team. Members "start out counting punches on tapes and in the undercards of fights." Canobbio checks their numbers against his own.

There are two scorers for every bout, one on each fighter, otherwise "counting punches is impossible." Asked if he verifies his figures against the replay, Canobbio said, "No, I go back just to watch the fight but don't second-guess myself with the counts."

"The most difficult bouts are those with a lot of infighting, but there was little of this on Saturday," Cannobbio said. "It was very easy to count punches."

Canobbio maintains that Pacquiao-Bradley was one of the bouts in which the numbers were definitive. "Bradley threw more punches," he said, "but Pacquiao landed 94 more." More important, Pacquiao connected with 82 more power punches. According to the CompuBox system, "Any punch that is not a jab is counted as a power punch."
— Gordon Marino