Keith Kizer, executive director of the Nevada Athletic Commission, stated there will be no review of the Pacquiao vs. Bradley decision going against Top Rank’s CEO Bob Arum’s wishes to review the fight. But the two mutually agree on the push for an age limit on judges.
The judges who ruled in favor of Pacquiao are well past their mid-60’s and their judging skills are now at question since Arum insinuated people of that age have less of an attention span. Duane Ford, who immediately took defense to his decision, feels that Pacquiao was winning until the 6th round and Bradley showed signs of “effective aggression,” which he described as “a guy going back.”
He also stated “In pro boxing, you look for damage,” in which Bradley suffered a broken left foot and a twisted ankle. But Pacquiao showed no signs of serious pain or viewable damages.
Some may not agree with Duane’s decision and definition of ‘effective aggression’. Spectators and boxing fans are now critical in desiring a rematch, considering some believe the match was fixed and a rematch would be another way for promoters to make money instead of keeping the credibility of boxing alive.
Do you believe the match was rigged or that the judges weren’t watching the same fight as everyone else?
– John Weber (@JohnPaulWeber)
