Thread: NOT a Robbery

I had JMM winning 8-4. But I also had four rounds marked VERY close.

I gave every one to the Mexican.

In my mind that means any scorecard that disagrees in favor of Manny all the way up to 8-4 for Manny has a legit argument.

I defy people to make the argument there were more than 8 or perhaps nine decisive rounds in that fight.

I also never forget that watching on TV and being ringside are two very different experiences and that the sport relies on what the ringside observer sees.

Last, when numerous ringside observers, the judges, Lederman, Lampley, the two ESPN scorers, compubox etc. disagree with me?

It means an excruciatingly close fight. Not a robbery.

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

I had JMM winning 8-4. But I also had four rounds marked VERY close.

I gave every one to the Mexican.

In my mind that means any scorecard that disagrees in favor of Manny all the way up to 8-4 for Manny has a legit argument.

I defy people to make the argument there were more than 8 or perhaps nine decisive rounds in that fight.

I also never forget that watching on TV and being ringside are two very different experiences and that the sport relies on what the ringside observer sees.

Last, when numerous ringside observers, the judges, Lederman, Lampley, the two ESPN scorers, compubox etc. disagree with me?

It means an excruciatingly close fight. Not a robbery.

Lampley himself and various other pro fighters said that the wrong man won last night, Amir Khan being one of them

Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

I had JMM winning 8-4. But I also had four rounds marked VERY close.

I gave every one to the Mexican.

In my mind that means any scorecard that disagrees in favor of Manny all the way up to 8-4 for Manny has a legit argument.

I defy people to make the argument there were more than 8 or perhaps nine decisive rounds in that fight.

I also never forget that watching on TV and being ringside are two very different experiences and that the sport relies on what the ringside observer sees.

Last, when numerous ringside observers, the judges, Lederman, Lampley, the two ESPN scorers, compubox etc. disagree with me?

It means an excruciatingly close fight. Not a robbery.

Lampley himself and various other pro fighters said that the wrong man won last night, Amir Khan being one of them

Lampley had Manny winning.

The point is there is a difference between disagreeing with a decision and a robbery. Last night was extremely difficult to score and close.

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

I had JMM winning 8-4. But I also had four rounds marked VERY close.

I gave every one to the Mexican.

In my mind that means any scorecard that disagrees in favor of Manny all the way up to 8-4 for Manny has a legit argument.

I defy people to make the argument there were more than 8 or perhaps nine decisive rounds in that fight.

I also never forget that watching on TV and being ringside are two very different experiences and that the sport relies on what the ringside observer sees.

Last, when numerous ringside observers, the judges, Lederman, Lampley, the two ESPN scorers, compubox etc. disagree with me?

It means an excruciatingly close fight. Not a robbery.

Lampley himself and various other pro fighters said that the wrong man won last night, Amir Khan being one of them

Lampley had Manny winning.

The point is there is a difference between disagreeing with a decision and a robbery. Last night was extremely difficult to score and close.

Lampley at the end of the fight clearly says that the wrong man get the nod

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

I had JMM winning 8-4. But I also had four rounds marked VERY close.

I gave every one to the Mexican.

In my mind that means any scorecard that disagrees in favor of Manny all the way up to 8-4 for Manny has a legit argument.

I defy people to make the argument there were more than 8 or perhaps nine decisive rounds in that fight.

I also never forget that watching on TV and being ringside are two very different experiences and that the sport relies on what the ringside observer sees.

Last, when numerous ringside observers, the judges, Lederman, Lampley, the two ESPN scorers, compubox etc. disagree with me?

It means an excruciatingly close fight. Not a robbery.

You have always been unbias and very knowledgeable with regards to boxing. So when you say that it is NOT A ROBBERY based on the above explanation, then only the Pac haters will argue with you on that.

Im gona go through this fight thoroughly tonight. But it has to be said, AMIR KHAN who is Mannys mate, had this for Marquez. It really says a lot, you dont go against your mate unless its obvious, you just dont do you.

Other big pointers are Pac looking disappointed trudging back to his corner at the end of the fight. He even does this nod of the head to the side, like a 'well i tried but it wasnt good enough' type look. Watch and you will see, that says a lot. None of his corner are pleased or cheering, they simply put a towel on his head.

Im gona go back and watch again, but everything there you gota say points to 1 man winning.

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

I had JMM winning 8-4. But I also had four rounds marked VERY close.

I gave every one to the Mexican.

In my mind that means any scorecard that disagrees in favor of Manny all the way up to 8-4 for Manny has a legit argument.

I defy people to make the argument there were more than 8 or perhaps nine decisive rounds in that fight.

I also never forget that watching on TV and being ringside are two very different experiences and that the sport relies on what the ringside observer sees.

Last, when numerous ringside observers, the judges, Lederman, Lampley, the two ESPN scorers, compubox etc. disagree with me?

It means an excruciatingly close fight. Not a robbery.

I COMPLETELY agree with that. I had it a draw last night, but I could have seen it 115-113 either way, even 116-112 either because there were many close rounds.

Originally Posted by J_C

Im gona go through this fight thoroughly tonight. But it has to be said, AMIR KHAN who is Mannys mate, had this for Marquez. It really says a lot, you dont go against your mate unless its obvious, you just dont do you.

Other big pointers are Pac looking disappointed trudging back to his corner at the end of the fight. He even does this nod of the head to the side, like a 'well i tried but it wasnt good enough' type look. Watch and you will see, that says a lot. None of his corner are pleased or cheering, they simply put a towel on his head.

Im gona go back and watch again, but everything there you gota say points to 1 man winning.

Marble's point was that it was not a robbery.

Originally Posted by J_C

Im gona go through this fight thoroughly tonight. But it has to be said, AMIR KHAN who is Mannys mate, had this for Marquez. It really says a lot, you dont go against your mate unless its obvious, you just dont do you.

Other big pointers are Pac looking disappointed trudging back to his corner at the end of the fight. He even does this nod of the head to the side, like a 'well i tried but it wasnt good enough' type look. Watch and you will see, that says a lot. None of his corner are pleased or cheering, they simply put a towel on his head.

Im gona go back and watch again, but everything there you gota say points to 1 man winning.

People are expecting Manny to dominate or even knock-out Marquez, so the fact that it didn't happen should really disappoint Manny. Manny could have sensed that it was a very close fight and there is a possibility of him losing since it's up to the scorecards.

Had it been Marquez lined up for a Mayweather super fight next year generating record-breaking revenues, it would have been a comfortable UD in his favour.

Note judge Glenn Trowbridge giving Marquez the final round (an obvious Pacquiao round) to try and even up the scores slightly. He needed to do that, he would've had it 117-111. Nine rounds to fucking three. 116-112 is bad enough.

The first two fights weren't robberies. This one was. Marquez effectively needed a stoppage to win.

Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

I had JMM winning 8-4. But I also had four rounds marked VERY close.

I gave every one to the Mexican.

In my mind that means any scorecard that disagrees in favor of Manny all the way up to 8-4 for Manny has a legit argument.

I defy people to make the argument there were more than 8 or perhaps nine decisive rounds in that fight.

I also never forget that watching on TV and being ringside are two very different experiences and that the sport relies on what the ringside observer sees.

Last, when numerous ringside observers, the judges, Lederman, Lampley, the two ESPN scorers, compubox etc. disagree with me?

It means an excruciatingly close fight. Not a robbery.

You have always been unbias and very knowledgeable with regards to boxing. So when you say that it is NOT A ROBBERY based on the above explanation, then only the Pac haters will argue with you on that.

I have the utmost respect for Marble and his knowledge and insight-fullness in all matters fistic. I am also not a Pac-hater and it is my calm and measured opinion that those judging last night were culpable of robbery. They deprived Juan Manuel Marquez of a belt, a chance to OFFICIALLY seal his legacy, and they also stole some shine off the professional boxing record of Emmanuel Dapidran Pacquiao. The aggravating factor that leads me to call this travesty a robbery rather than theft is the use of intimidation. The judges awarding a fight even the esteemed Marbleheadmaui scored at 8 rounds to 4 in favour of Mr Marquez to Mr Pacquiao indicates the presence of a Mr Bob Arum and a fear of upsetting their chance of judging in a future uuber fight between Mr Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Junior. The perceived aggression of Mr Pacquiao was a preconditioned response by judges eager to reward their favored fighter in the face of overwhelming evidence that Mr Marquez was the one man perfectly executing a gameplan for which his opponent had no answer. I do not suggest that the judges were paid but rather unable to translate the upset in front of them, whilst their own preconceived scenarios clouded their judgement.Marquez won and yet his magnificent efforts were not rewarded. That which was rightly his was taken from him by forces outside of his control. His intimidation and frustration at not being able to claim his prize was clearly demonstrated by his leaving the ring whilst Bob Arum the perpetrator gloated over his ill gotten gains.“If we do it again it will break all monetary records for any pay-per-view." said Mr Arum. ROBBERY plain and simple.

Dan Rafael Breaks Down Manny's Win - ESPN Video - ESPN

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

I had JMM winning 8-4. But I also had four rounds marked VERY close.

I gave every one to the Mexican.

In my mind that means any scorecard that disagrees in favor of Manny all the way up to 8-4 for Manny has a legit argument.

I defy people to make the argument there were more than 8 or perhaps nine decisive rounds in that fight.

I also never forget that watching on TV and being ringside are two very different experiences and that the sport relies on what the ringside observer sees.

Last, when numerous ringside observers, the judges, Lederman, Lampley, the two ESPN scorers, compubox etc. disagree with me?

It means an excruciatingly close fight. Not a robbery.

This x1,000.

Marquez deserved to win, but this was NOT a robbery. More people will tend to agree once the post-fight hyperbole fades.

Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner

People are expecting Manny to dominate

This, is part of the reason why people have some lopsided 8-4 scores in favor of Marquez and think he put on some masterful display of boxing last night. Yes, Marquez did some beautiful things in there, but lets not over look that this is Mannys equal in the ring.

People have gotten so used to seeing Manny just dominate rounds and create scores of 120-108, or 118-110, that when hes up against someone who matches up with him very well, it gives the appearance that if Manny isn't dominating, then he must be losing. If Manny isn't landing shot after shot after shot in every round, he must be losing.

Last I checked, Marquez' face, didn't get marked up by Nachos vaseline in between rounds, those marks came from Manny gloves which touched him more than anyone wants to admit. The fight was even from the jump.


Robbery is not the word to describe this fight. "Close", is.

You are missing the point even if the fight was a draw (which i do not believe it was) the win was given to Pacquiao, that makes it a robbery. As for Dan Rafeal give me a break, now he thinks he knows more than Nacho Beristain ? The guy looks like a groundhog.