I think the judges in the Pacquiao Marquez fight proved judges are actuallyconsistent

[Andre]

BTW, I have this to add. I remember years back when Roy Jones was in his prime and fighting some opponent in the mid '90s the HBO panel was asking Gil Clancy on how to score a round and I remember Clancy saying that hypothetically if lets say in a round and 2 boxers don't throw a punch but one comes forward and is aggressive and the other guy is back pedaling, then the forward coming aggressive fighter wins that round, usually. Just food for thought.

So in close rounds the aggressive and more busier fighter will take it as Bilbo have said. BTW I had it 115-113 for JMM but I did not see a dominating and dismantling performance by JMM that people are crying robbery are saying.

Great post. I dont think coming forward should ever beat being countered while you do though.

I didnt see a total dismantling either, but I saw Juan land the better harder shots in the closer rounds and I saw Manny miss and come off gloves and shoot past an ear and land off elbows and hit mid air more than he landed, all that was from Juans skill not Mannys lack of trying.

[mnmc10]

Storyline: a legendary Mexican fighter who arguably won all three fights and a corrupt system that won't give any credit. The first was excusable, the second was a slap in the face, the third was simply disgusting.

for me the first should be a pac win the second and 3rd for jmm. i feel that the 2nd fight was given to pac to correct the mistake from the first. so a draw-pac1-jmm1 i can accept, 3-0 jmm for pac haters then 3-0 pac is for nuthuggers.

[:::PSL:::]

It's interesting to when you look back at some of the close fights that have been declared robberies in recent years. They often follow a similar pattern.

Hopkins vs Taylor 1 & 2
Hopkins vs Calzaghe
Frcoch vs Dirrell
Pacquaio vs Marquez 1,2,3
Toney vs Peter 1


All fights derided as robberies by many, all going to the guy who worked the hardest, either throwing the most punches or coming forward and pressuring.

Lederman homself spoke about this on Saturday night, in a close fight he ( a trained judge) will usually favour the guy throwing more.

It seems to me, that far from being robberies, the Marquez Pacquiao fights show that judges are pretty consistent on this. Each fight has had different judges, yet they all see the the fights the same way.

Same with the Hopkins Taylor fights.

If Marquez and Manny fought for a fourth time, and it was anther similar fight, and Manny squeeked out a decision, it's not a robbery, it's just a case of judges criteria being consistently applied.

It seems to me that judges criteria often differs with that a general fan. There are many fans who if they see a fighter throw 5 punches and four are blocked and the other guy throws 2 but one lands, they will score for the guy throwing less for being more accurate.

Aesthetically it is more pleasing, more efficient. But judges imo are correct to look at the total offensive output rather than how efficient the boxing is with his punches.

manny threw over a hundred more and landed 28 more. Sure, not as efficient, not as accurate. But he did more overall.

It's like a pole vaulter having two fouls and then breaking the world record on his final attempt versus a guy who three times vaults just 1 cm below the world record. Efficiency isn't necessarily going to win. Manny is more active, just as were the winners of all the above fights, and judges consistently voted in their favour, which actually shows that judging isn't as random as people think. Manny's win shows that the judges know what to look for and follow their training well.

100% agreed. Great observation. (I think I'm gonna make it as my sig. Lol)

The busier fighter with higher connect rate most of the time gets the judges vote. "they've been judging fights like that for years and years". I heard Lederman said that too.

Plus. When you're a challenger fighting in championship rounds.. you don't fucking get all relax and conservative.


"You don't win a championship, YOU TAKE IT!"

- Emmanuel Stewart

[redbaron]

I thought Pacquaio won it 115-113, but that was only after watching two rounds over again because they were close. I could agree with a draw as well. As far as Hopkins/Calzaghe is concerned, I will always believe Hopkins won that fight 115-112. Calzaghe may have thrown more punches, but a lot of them were little shots. Hopkins put Calzaghe on his ass once and outclassed him in power punches all night.

[Tam Seddon]

This clearly doesn't apply in Germany...felix sturm.

[Gocougars3]

I am not a fan of the way defensive minded counter punchers are judged, I appreciate patient fighters/tacticians and I hated Saturday's decision but I'll say a couple of things in defense of this judging issue.

If the aggressor doesn't bring the fight, there is no fight; nobody wants that. Closing the gap and punching is riskier than sitting back and countering (for instance when Pac fights JMM you kind of feel like JMM is making a living off of Pac's energy); in close rounds, the fighter taking the risk should be rewarded.