No Asterisk for Bradley

Well, my wife, my brother-in-law and I watched the replay of the Pacquiao-Bradley championship fight on HBO. My wife and I had it 115-113 Pacquiao. My brother-in-law had it a draw. We are all experienced fight-watchers.

I did not keep the pledge that I made, which was to watch the fight with the sound turned off, so as not to be influenced by the allegedly biased commentary of the HBO crew. I did disagree with them in spots, and I strongly disagreed with Harold Lederman, who overwhelmingly scored the fight in favor of Manny Pacquiao. Unusual, because I agree with Harold most of the time.

Bradley seemed to score more points in terms of landing punches, but Pacquiao seemed to have more effect when he landed his. There was indeed a power differential. But Bradley showed himself to be, if not the worthiest opponent for Pacquiao so far, at least one of them.

So was the official decision questionable, or worthy of an investigation? ABSOLUTELY NOT! The decision falls well within the parameters of what any reasonable group of judges would have done – the fight was that close.

The bottom line is that we should all allow Timothy Bradley to enjoy his victory. He’s the champ, and there’s no asterisk involved.

In Search of a Clear Win

When I woke up this morning, I was surprised that we were not already at war with the Philippines, following the controversial boxing match in Las Vegas between Timothy Bradley of Palm Springs and Filipino sensation Manny Pacquiao. I did not watch the fight (pay-per-view’s a little steep), but read the comments of many inside and outside the sport. The general consensus: Pacquaio, not Bradley, should have been declared the winner.

While Bradley fought aggressively, the statistics-keepers concluded that Pacquaio scored more points and that Bradley’s punches did not connect as often. But the three judges, at least two of whom were well known and well respected in the sport, came up with a close split decision in Bradley’s favor. So shocking was this that many observers reasoned that the fight – or at least the scoring – was fixed.

We’re all familiar with the phenomenon whereby different people watching the same event can report completely different perceptions of what happened. I always thought that a challenger – in this case, Bradley – had to show clear superiority over the champion to deprive him of his belt. That certainly was not the case here. The bottom line for me is that if Harold Lederman of HBO thought Pacquiao won, he should have. I have disagreed with Harold on individual rounds here and there while watching fights, but we have always agreed on outcomes.

A lot has to be said for Bradley, in that Pacquiao apparently hit him with everything he had during the fight, and Bradley never went down. Much also has to be said for Pacquiao, who reportedly went up to Bradley’s father after the fight and told him his son would be a great champion.

Bradley’s victory is a big deal for Palm Springs – in fact, all of California’s Coachella Valley. He grew up in a very poor area and earned every inch of his way to the top levels of his sport. But a decision like the one in Las Vegas seems not only unfair to Pacquiao, but also to Bradley, whose elevation to champion may be marked with an asterisk in the minds of many until the expected rematch.

Maybe there’s a misalignment in the heavens this week. Pacquiao should still be the champ, “I’ll Have Another” should have won the Triple Crown, and the L.A. Kings should be carrying the Stanley Cup. But hey, it’s only sports, right?