Naazim Thinks Pacquiao, Bradley Should Take New Paths

[Alaskanredman]

It’s been fairly interesting hearing the feedback from boxing insiders on the controversy surrounding last weekend’s Manny Pacquiao-Timothy Bradley bout. Inside of the MGM Grand, Pacquiao would lose a split-decision to Bradley over twelve rounds after appearing to have done more than enough to warrant the victory.

Recently I reached out to respected trainer Naazim Richardson to get his take on the whole ordeal. Known best for his work with Bernard Hopkins and Shane Mosley over the years, you can always count on Richardson for some interesting insight.

Continue reading for Naazim’s thoughts on how HBO’s 24/7 may have affected the public’s view of the fight, how Bradley’s body language during the contest told a different story than what was actually happening, why he doesn’t think a rematch may be the best move at this point, and much more.

This is what Richardson had to say…

The effect of 24/7 and the commentating during Pacquiao-Bradley…
“The Manny Pacquiao-Tim Bradley fight, I really believe is the first time that we saw 24/7 influence a fight. We saw what we believe is politics. One is, the fight was closer than the commenters were [commentating on]; Timmy was in the fight. But Timmy’s body language and his corner’s response, his corner was urging him. But the body language on Timmy made us think Manny was that much more ahead.”

Team Bradley’s possible concern with the judges’ scores…
“I understand his corner was urging him because they’ve seen [Pacquiao] win close fights before. The Marquez fights were closer and Manny got the decision in each one of those and nobody was hooting or hollering about it.”

Giving Bradley a break…
“Bradley is such a great dude, such a great personality and great human being, that it’s almost like there isn’t too much hell to be raised from the public’s point of view. I’m a Bradley fan and I’ve known him since he was about ten years old and if anybody deserves a break that kid deserves a break. He’s the story of hard work.”

Tim Bradley’s body language…
“I think Pacquiao took the edge but he never took control. Like I said, if Tim Bradley’s body language would have been different, the fight would have been more competitive. Tim shrugged his shoulders and started walking to his corner in a lackadaisical state like ‘Oh, I lost’. His body language more than actually happened. Then the commentators chimed in.

Opinion on the judging in the fight…
“I still got an axe to grind with the way Ford scored the Jermain Taylor fight. But I will give this to the judges from the judging I have done as an amateur. You can watch a fight on a different side of the ring and see a whole different fight, I’m telling ya. I’ve watched them fight from one side of the ring judging it and I went and watched it on tape and saw a whole different fight. It can happen.”

Not feeling a rematch completely…
“I think the rematch can be beneficial to either guy. From a business standpoint, if you have both of these guys you don’t need a rematch. Because Pacquiao is going to be Pacquiao and you can still sell him. Pacquiao could fight me tomorrow and you could sell it. And now that you have Bradley with a win over Pacquiao, you can move him in another direction and sell him too. From a business standpoint it doesn’t make sense to put them back together.”

http://www.boxingscene.com/naazim-thinks-pacquiao-bradley-take-new-paths--53977

 

[merce77]

This is why judges should be watching the same fight the folks at home are seeing. That thing Brother Naazim said about watching a fight from one angle and someone else seeing a totally different fight from another is very true.
Judges should be watching on a monitor somewhere with the benefit of instant replay, different angles and all that, except no commentators. It may open up a can of worms at first but it can't be any worse than the shit that's happening now. Boxing needs some serious changes. I didn't see a close fight and the commentators had shit to do with it since I was watching a foreign stream. I just don't remember a single significant shot that Bradley landed. You have to take the title from the champ and Bradley did NOT do that. Bradley's body language was appropriate, he was losing and he knew it. Just like Pac looked all dejected and shit against Marquez. I gotta disagree with Naazim on these points. Plus him saying that nobody hollered about the Marquez fight... a lot of people were upset with that decision. Though I understand that Naazim is referring more to the media than fans.
Some people say Tim out-boxed Pac, but that ain't difficult to do. Even Mosley looked like a defensive expert against Pac and he still lost every round. You can't win a fight without controlling the offensive side of that fight, and you can't win with only a jab and soft flurries that hardly land.

 

[Alaskanredman]

Yeah, I agree with Naazim. Only thing I would add is it was closer than the commentators were saying, but not by a lot. I gave Bradley three maybe four rounds being nice while I think Letterman only gave him one and the rest where talking like it was a complete shut out.

 

[merce77]

Yeah, I agree with Naazim. Only thing I would add is it was closer than the commentators were saying, but not by a lot. I gave Bradley three maybe four rounds being nice while I think Letterman only gave him one and the rest where talking like it was a complete shut out.

Same here.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

This is why judges should be watching the same fight the folks at home are seeing. That thing Brother Naazim said about watching a fight from one angle and someone else seeing a totally different fight from another is very true.
Judges should be watching on a monitor somewhere with the benefit of instant replay, different angles and all that, except no commentators. It may open up a can of worms at first but it can't be any worse than the shit that's happening now. Boxing needs some serious changes. I didn't see a close fight and the commentators had shit to do with it since I was watching a foreign stream. I just don't remember a single significant shot that Bradley landed. You have to take the title from the champ and Bradley did NOT do that. Bradley's body language was appropriate, he was losing and he knew it. Just like Pac looked all dejected and shit against Marquez. I gotta disagree with Naazim on these points. Plus him saying that nobody hollered about the Marquez fight... a lot of people were upset with that decision. Though I understand that Naazim is referring more to the media than fans.
Some people say Tim out-boxed Pac, but that ain't difficult to do. Even Mosley looked like a defensive expert against Pac and he still lost every round. You can't win a fight without controlling the offensive side of that fight, and you can't win with only a jab and soft flurries that hardly land.

I've been kicking this around all day and I'm not sure I buy it. I like judges sitting ringside watching the fight up close. Blows that look good on tv might not be so impressive up close and vice versa with what we see as glancing blows and many body blows that don't look so ferocious but are killing a guy live. But I do think there has to be a way to modernize boxing including judging.

 

[mafclass]

I give the the first 9 to Pac no question. And I agree that a rematch is not really necessary unless Pac is going to knock dude out. TB has an iron jaw and a thick skull.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

This is what Richardson had to say…

The effect of 24/7 and the commentating during Pacquiao-Bradley…
“The Manny Pacquiao-Tim Bradley fight, I really believe is the first time that we saw 24/7 influence a fight. We saw what we believe is politics. One is, the fight was closer than the commenters were [commentating on]; Timmy was in the fight. But Timmy’s body language and his corner’s response, his corner was urging him. But the body language on Timmy made us think Manny was that much more ahead.”

Funny but it's not the first time people have complained about the commentary influencing how people see the fight but it is the first time I've seen someone in boxing say it.

Team Bradley’s possible concern with the judges’ scores…
“I understand his corner was urging him because they’ve seen [Pacquiao] win close fights before. The Marquez fights were closer and Manny got the decision in each one of those and nobody was hooting or hollering about it.”

There was plenty of outrage but it didn't seem to be as universal as this was with every tom, dick, and dumbass who's watched maybe, MAYBE, two fights in the last three years talking about how boxing is dead and corrupt and using Teddy Atlas like he was some sage guru and not another ESPN hack.
As for Bradley talking about the scores, Richardson is dead right. Bradley knew he wasn't the star of the show and Manny has a history of getting close decisions and he had to know he did no better than make it close.

Not feeling a rematch completely…
“I think the rematch can be beneficial to either guy. From a business standpoint, if you have both of these guys you don’t need a rematch. Because Pacquiao is going to be Pacquiao and you can still sell him. Pacquiao could fight me tomorrow and you could sell it. And now that you have Bradley with a win over Pacquiao, you can move him in another direction and sell him too. From a business standpoint it doesn’t make sense to put them back together.”

Good point.

 

[Alaskanredman]

Funny but it's not the first time people have complained about the commentary influencing how people see the fight but it is the first time I've seen someone in boxing say it.



There was plenty of outrage but it didn't seem to be as universal as this was with every tom, dick, and dumbass who's watched maybe, MAYBE, two fights in the last three years talking about how boxing is dead and corrupt and using Teddy Atlas like he was some sage guru and not another ESPN hack.
As for Bradley talking about the scores, Richardson is dead right. Bradley knew he wasn't the star of the show and Manny has a history of getting close decisions and he had to know he did no better than make it close.





Good point.

Atlas is the only person at ESPN that makes sense, but dude is off a lot too. I wouldn't call him a hack. For me he is like KRS-ONE. He is a loud mouth who talks too much and will try to bend every thing he says into a point even when he has said something he hasn't thought through. When he is on point he puts shit together better than almost everyone in his arena. When he isn't making any sense he will follow through with the same vigor and he will keep grasping at straws until he pieces together some kind of a point... valid or not.

I can also say there is clearly a difference between the way the media has handled the Marquez robberies and this shit, but what is funny about it is I know more people watched the Marquez fight.

Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Atlas is the only person at ESPN that makes sense, but dude is off a lot too. I wouldn't call him a hack. For me he is like KRS-ONE. He is a loud mouth who talks too much and will try to bend every thing he says into a point even when he has said something he hasn't thought through. When he is on point he puts shit together better than almost everyone in his arena. When he isn't making any sense he will follow through with the same vigor and he will keep grasping at straws until he pieces together some kind of a point... valid or not.

I can also say there is clearly a difference between the way the media has handled the Marquez robberies and this shit, but what is funny about it is I know more people watched the Marquez fight.

Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk 2

Atlas turned into Stephen A Smith to me: lots of bluster but little information. He used to be good and but he knows ESPN doesn't give a shit about boxing so he can say anything and no one there will challenge him.

Yeah, I'm not surprised. You knew going in Pac-JMM III was going to be at least competitive.

 

[Alaskanredman]

Atlas turned into Stephen A Smith to me: lots of bluster but little information. He used to be good and but he knows ESPN doesn't give a shit about boxing so he can say anything and no one there will challenge him.

Yeah, I'm not surprised. You knew going in Pac-JMM III was going to be at least competitive.

Maybe I'm out the loop cause I don't watch Friday Night Fights as much, but he can't be as bad as Stephen "Stepin Fetchit" Smith.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Maybe I'm out the loop cause I don't watch Friday Night Fights as much, but he can't be as bad as Stephen "Stepin Fetchit" Smith.

Not as bad but of the same ilk: a guy who used to have some sense of integrity that's sold out for some of that ESPN/ABC/Disney cash.

 

[GetThat$$$]

I agree completely with Naazim. Pac won but not by much... And I always watch the fights with the volume down, its the only way to do so when Pac is fighting. Dude literally took rounds off

 

[Rick Ronson]

He lost.

 

[tp2001]

There was plenty of outrage but it didn't seem to be as universal as this was with every tom, dick, and dumbass who's watched maybe, MAYBE, two fights in the last three years talking about how boxing is dead and corrupt and using Teddy Atlas like he was some sage guru and not another ESPN hack.

I run into a lot of folks that say boxing is dead, but yet do not get into the "Boxing After Dark" or Friday Night Fights as bigger boxing fans do. If they watched that then they would know that the sport has a lot more to it than these PPVs...

Speaking of which, the fight that just ended (Chavez Jr. vs. Lee) showed how good boxing can get when you have a good matchup put together...