Re: I saw it like Lederman did.
It's been said on anohther thread here. R.I.P. I think we need to get rid of the dinsaurs of boxing. Yes Lederman is one of them. But the three main judges who always give questionable scorecards since the late seventies early eighties. Dave Moretti,Duane Ford,Jerry Roth,others are Glen Trowbridge,Stanley Christadulu,Steve Weisfeld and some newer ones who really make me scratch my head. Patricia Morse Jarmin,Adailaide Byrd. These people have single handedly destroyed this sport. The only way to make boxing whole again is great rid of judges like this who are paid off for such desicions like this. For someone to tell me that Manny Pacquaio won eight rounds last night is like telling me the grass is not green.
Re: I saw it like Lederman did.
There will always be people trying to defend an obvious wrong if it's in their best interest to do so. Anyone who really loves boxing (and isn't just into it because of some recent fad) needs to look at a lederman scorecard like that and weep for the sport. This is what our high-profile fights have come to
Re: I saw it like Lederman did.
PSL it's official you know jackshit about scoring a fight, or it's impossible for you to be biased while scoring any fight that includes Manny Pacquiao, cause in no way did he win last night, all you nutthuggers better pray that the Mayweather fight never comes off
I'd love to hear what they're gonna say now about Manny outdoing Floyd against Hatton and DLH, cause by far Floyd spanked Manny's ass when it came to outdoing Marquez and he did it on his first try, Pacquiao is a bitch, hands down
Re: I saw it like Lederman did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KananKrus
You have to do more than what JMM just did against a champion especially in the stature of a Manny Pacquiao to win an outright decision. Purely self opinion on my part!
Pre fight, Dinamita planned to leave the outcome of the fight out of the hands of the judges and yet all he did was back pedal and counter, albeit beautifully, all night. Sadly, this scheme was all he wanted to do... and all he was willing to risk! Regardless that it has already been previously established that based on the wins awarded to his oponent in these tightly contested fights, the agressor and his opponent, is the one given the nod.
Pac wins purely by being the aggressor! The one by which with the slightest of ring fan's outcries will immeditely seek to be the aggressor and bring the fight on and taking risks in an ironically for Manny, a high-risk but low-reward type of a duel.
Pacquiao's main thing though in this fight, is not to be "the" Montiel to a "Dinamita Donaire". To be COUNTER PUNKED, uncrowned out of his lofty perch!
Nowadays, Juan Manuel clearly can no longer outsmart a savvy version of Pac. Relying on Pacquiao being too overly aggressive to the point of recklessness was no smart move, for it never happened and assuredly, can no longer happen as it had in the past particularly as in the second round of their second fight.
When this carelessness did not materialize, the warrior in Marquez should have had been summoned instead and engaged Pac in a savage knockout slugfest.
Had this happen, and the fight's outcome still close, I would not have a problem with Juan Manuel Marquez winning it. He is, by the way the greatest of all Mexican warriors to ever lace it.
Did it happen though?
Sadly, No! Cautiousness and respect on each fighter robbed us of a better fight and cautiousness and respect too, evidently, got the better of a more decisive result!
I disagree. I know I'm not alone in thinking that was precisely what Marquez did last night. He out-thought Pacquiao and made him look fairly poor for long spells. I'm gutted for him that he didn't get the decision he deserved. I don't even think last night's fight was particularly close.
Re: I saw it like Lederman did.
This is proof that drink is bad for you. :rolleyes:
Re: I saw it like Lederman did.
How much were you paid ? Were you hypnotized ? Are you in possession of a white stick ?
Do you believe in Santa Claus ? Has somebody threatened you ? Is your surname Arum ? Are you Harold Ledermans brother in law ? really WTF i'll have some of whatever you are on.
Re: I saw it like Lederman did.
I like both fighters, I wouldnt say I am diehard for either guy.
I didn't score the fight but watched it with my girlfriend and at the end we both felt it was very close but Manny had won. lots of close rounds so depending on what you like to see alot of cards were gonna look different I think.
I was a little drunk and watching a stream that turned a bit laggy in the 2nd half but remember thinking it was all up to whoever took the last couple rounds and I felt it was manny.
Re: I saw it like Lederman did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
THE THIRD MAN
How could anyone give Pacquaio round 6? Manny won the fight, but he was lacklustre and not as focused as i have seen him before. I had it 115-113
round 2 is a major problem in my view. 2 judges gave that round to pac. Someone explain that to me.
that is why they had pac winning 8-4 and 7-5. That is a round Marquez won. I didn't even think it was that close. In fact almost everyone on here and other boxing sites (and espn's guys scoring, and harold lederman thought Marquez won round 2). But the 2 judges that had Pac winning gave Pac that round. Pac's friend Amir Kahn said Marquez won that round and he didn't debate it before saying it.
Re: I saw it like Lederman did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Doot
I like both fighters, I wouldnt say I am diehard for either guy.
I didn't score the fight but watched it with my girlfriend and at the end we both felt it was very close but Manny had won. lots of close rounds so depending on what you like to see alot of cards were gonna look different I think.
I was a little drunk and watching a stream that turned a bit laggy in the 2nd half but remember thinking it was all up to whoever took the last couple rounds and I felt it was manny.
I think these may be the reasons.
I watched the fight this morning in HD... and I was sober. I can say with confidence that Marquez should have won. :)
Re: I saw it like Lederman did.
The fight was simply terribly close with several terribly close rounds.
I had four rounds marked "very close."
I disagreed with Lederman each time.
Re: I saw it like Lederman did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
The fight was simply terribly close with several terribly close rounds.
I had four rounds marked "very close."
I disagreed with Lederman each time.
How did you mark round 2 Marble? I'm really confused by 2 judges giving that round to Pac. I didn't have it as 1 of my swing (close) rounds.
Re: I saw it like Lederman did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
captainanddew
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
The fight was simply terribly close with several terribly close rounds.
I had four rounds marked "very close."
I disagreed with Lederman each time.
How did you mark round 2 Marble? I'm really confused by 2 judges giving that round to Pac. I didn't have it as 1 of my swing (close) rounds.
I had it for JMM and also not marked as a swing round. I think Lederman also had it for JMM.
Re: I saw it like Lederman did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KananKrus
You have to do more than what JMM just did against a champion especially in the stature of a Manny Pacquiao to win an outright decision. Purely self opinion on my part!
Pre fight, Dinamita planned to leave the outcome of the fight out of the hands of the judges and yet all he did was back pedal and counter, albeit beautifully, all night. Sadly, this scheme was all he wanted to do... and all he was willing to risk! Regardless that it has already been previously established that based on the wins awarded to his oponent in these tightly contested fights, the agressor and his opponent, is the one given the nod.
Pac wins purely by being the aggressor! The one by which with the slightest of ring fan's outcries will immeditely seek to be the aggressor and bring the fight on and taking risks in an ironically for Manny, a high-risk but low-reward type of a duel.
Pacquiao's main thing though in this fight, is not to be "the" Montiel to a "Dinamita Donaire". To be COUNTER PUNKED, uncrowned out of his lofty perch!
Nowadays, Juan Manuel clearly can no longer outsmart a savvy version of Pac. Relying on Pacquiao being too overly aggressive to the point of recklessness was no smart move, for it never happened and assuredly, can no longer happen as it had in the past particularly as in the second round of their second fight.
When this carelessness did not materialize, the warrior in Marquez should have had been summoned instead and engaged Pac in a savage knockout slugfest.
Had this happen, and the fight's outcome still close, I would not have a problem with Juan Manuel Marquez winning it. He is, by the way the greatest of all Mexican warriors to ever lace it.
Did it happen though?
Sadly, No! Cautiousness and respect on each fighter robbed us of a better fight and cautiousness and respect too, evidently, got the better of a more decisive result!
I understand what you're saying, and there is some merit to it, however, at age 38, and having been put on the canvas my Katsidis, I think Marquez's decision not go toe-to-toe with Pacquiao was the only decision a reasonable man could have made. Going toe-to-toe with Pac last night Marquez would have ended up with the same outcome as the last two fights; he would almost certainly have been caught and KD'd at some point, and then they would have spun it the same way they spun the first two fights. So Marquez changed his game-plan, and as was the case before he changed his style to become a more aggressive fighter, he was punished for putting an emphasis on skill above (the illusion) of spectacle.
He couldn't afford to risk a slugfest with Manny, he knew he had to outbox Pac and not get drawn into a brawl, and surmised that there was no way they could rob him again if he made it clear in this way that he was the better man. What Marquez proved last night is not only that he was the better fighter, but also that no matter what style of fight he fights, no matter what way he showcases his obvious technical superiority, Pac will always get the nod because of his more crowd-pleasing style and the potential profit Arum sees in his prize pinoy. The Mayweather fight may well be made now, and will no doubt break all records, but judging from last night PBF will slap Pac around like a sparring partner for 12 rounds.
And btw, for all those complaining Marquez didn't take the fight to Pacquiao, let me remind you Manny was an 8-1 favourite and most people on here were talking about how Pac was going to murder Marquez. Pac and Roach both decided Pac was going to just KO Marquez and brush the dirt off his shoulder, as he cemented his place as the greatest fighter ever (rofl at this claim from Roach on 24/7), and yet he never even had Marquez hurt in the fight, a man who was apparently over the hill, and who he had already knocked down 4 times in two previous fights. I think people saying Marquez needed to push the fight more are missing the fact that Pac hardly pressed it - yes he was the aggressor, but there is a difference between throwing a flurry, being outmanoeuvred and giving up for a bit so that he can have a breather before making another half-hearted attempt, and effective, intelligent aggression.
Marquez made him miss all night, his upper body movement was a hundred times better in this fight than in the last two, his lateral movement, footwork and timing were all exceptional, and his countering was just beautiful to watch. All in all, he was the far superior fighter on the night, and the fact that Pac every now and then wildly threw his face at Marquez's right hand, occasionally grazing him with his windmill flurries when they got to fighting on the inside, does not translate to Pacquiao winning 8 of 12 rounds. I had Pac edging round 1, but rounds 2-8 were Marquez's (and this observation was confirmed when even Roach told Manny he was falling behind in the mid-rounds), and I also had Marquez edging round 9 (though I could understand people scoring that for Pac, but even then it would still be a 7-5 win for JMM). I felt Pac came back a bit in the final 3 rounds and edged them, though they were still close rounds, with Marquez being ever-more cautious of a KD as Pac got more desperate, both men clearly understanding that Marquez was winning the fight big, as their trainers certainly knew.
Frankly, anyone who managed to score that fight 8-4 to Pacquiao either has an ulterior motive or needs their head examined. Even Khan had Marquez winning the fight and was weakly trying to avoid criticising Pac's performance on the commentary, focusing instead on how masterful Marquez's performance was. Manny's body language clearly suggested that he thought, even as the champion and Arum's cash cow, there was no way the judges could sort this one for him. I said it when I saw it and my mind won't be changed by all those who talk about Marquez not doing enough, he could have decapitated Manny and they still would have found a way to give Pac the fight - probably DQ'd him for excessive violence.
The man didn't get a fair shake in the first two fights, and once again he was done over, but this time it was even worse; with all the hype surrounding this fight, with all the claims from both sides, the stage was set for Pac to delude everyone into believing he is the greatest fighter of his generation by dominating a 38 year old man he had already knocked down 4 times, who had recently fought close fights against fighters considerably less talented than him, and yet what actually took place was the unravelling of the Pacquiao myth, and the revelation that after 10 years under Freddie Roach, and sharing the ring with JMM for 36 rounds, he still can't master him.
It's sad that some people think the onus is purely on the challenger, as well - what about the champion? He was easily frustrated last night, and he showed no real desire to go after Marquez the way he did in the first two fights. Why? Because he knew he'd get smacked up and Marquez would move off to his left and come around him again, avoiding that left hand, out-boxing him, re-initiating that infuriating pattern of miss-counter. So what we have is fans condemning Marquez for not taking risks, and yet not criticising Pac for the way he backed off every time Marquez through a few counters and interrupted his rhythm. In conclusion, anyone who knows anything about fighting, has ever been involved in it or truly studied its mechanics and strategies, understands that Pac was well and truly beaten last night, his physical advantages in speed and power being totally nullified by a man whose intelligence and skill are his greatest gifts. It's just a shame that these talents are all too often overlooked for those which are deemed more 'glamorous', and that the sport of boxing is still just as diseased as it has ever been.
Re: I saw it like Lederman did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
captainanddew
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
The fight was simply terribly close with several terribly close rounds.
I had four rounds marked "very close."
I disagreed with Lederman each time.
How did you mark round 2 Marble? I'm really confused by 2 judges giving that round to Pac. I didn't have it as 1 of my swing (close) rounds.
I had it for JMM and also not marked as a swing round. I think Lederman also had it for JMM.
lederman,Amir Kahn, everyone for espn, everyone here, everyone on other websites. Basically 98% of the people scoring felt Marquez won round 2 but 2 judges gave that round to Pac. I find that highly questionable.
