Do you have a picture of Mayweather as your avatar?
I do indeed, I tip my hat to the greatest pugilist to ever lace a pair of gloves. The most intelligent and pure Boxer to have done it. He's not the greatest fighter of all time, not at all - there have been better throughout the sport, but never a better all-round Boxer.
Guillermo Rigondeaux is the current best pure Boxer on the rise.
I'm a huge Boxing fan and me being a fan of a particular Boxer or Boxing style doesn't mean I allow those biases to influence what I've seen in a fight, just incase you was insinuating anything.
I challenge anyone to tell me HOW Pacquiao won these rounds is specific:
Now round 11 is a very close round and if you want to review a couple more close rounds, you will want to watch rounds 3 and 6 also.
4 of the aforementioned rounds in the list are CLEARLY Timothy Bradley rounds, so where is this "biggest robbery ever" nonsense coming from? Yes Manny Pacquiao is a huge SUPERSTAR, but does that mean he should be above and beyond a decision going against him in a close fought fight? You cannot take off the last 4 rounds and just expect a win? We cannot just say "Because Bradley's punches don't hurt as much, he shouldn't win", that would be ludicrous and would also suggest that light punchers like Paulie Malignaggi can NEVER win a fight, due to the fact his punches have little damaging effect.
Neither fighter landed too many clean shots on the other, as made evident by the faces of both fighters at the end of the fight, neither were badly bruised or marked up. Bodyshots however were being registered and Bradley clocked in considerably more than Pacquiao did, who was mostly headhunting.
As I said before, this was a much closer fight than many are giving credit. Why? 1, most folk are brainwashed and influenced too easily by overhyped commentary panels (UK broadcasting of which included Amir Khan, one of Pac's close friends). 2, People were influenced by the crowd, cheering on Manny. Notice the crowd silence (which is defining IMO) during rounds where Bradley controls the action, scores punches and shows good skills - the commentary panels both sides of the pond were talking about Pacquiao's beard and calf muscles during Bradley's good moments. This easily makes fans assume that Bradley's work is boring, ineffective and unworthy of praise. 3, people cannot accept something breaking the expected pattern "superstars win close decisions", not this time. In Boxing it is very rare for a fighter to win two gift decisions consecutively, that's what the judges may have been feeling here, that they would score the rounds as honest as possible. Each judge had the fight close, because it was close. Close fights often go either way, with little dispute. You throw two everyday fighters in there, have them perform identically with no title on the line... Nobody would cry robbery, it's that simple. Not because they do not care about these fighters, but because the glitz and glam would be stripped away from their perspective, the everyday fighters would have appropriate commentary over their fight and a close fight would be recognised.
Both fighters did exceptionally well defensively, but you do not win fights by missing. Forget compubox stats, but when is the last time you remember a fighter outworking Manny Pacquiao almost every round and exchange? I'll leave it there.