How many in numbers is that 'bunch'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Snakey
And how did you see both fights: are they close or was one of them dominant?
Printable View
How many in numbers is that 'bunch'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Snakey
And how did you see both fights: are they close or was one of them dominant?
There you go.Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyOJ was declared innocent by a Jury, not because the Judge said so. Marquez lost the second fight because two of the three Judges said so. That is just a fact, not an opinion. I've watched both fights and I can honestly say that in my opinion they can both be called draws.Quote:
Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita
Opinion: Some (we don't even know how many) believe that Marquez won both fights.
Fact: Draw and a win for Pacquiao based on the official judges scoring and recorded in the books.
Opinion is disputable, Fact isn't.
Yes, I can because a lot more people agree with me. I believe that boxing writers are not as stupid as they appear.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerYou already said that boxing scoring is not an exact science so until they find a better way on how to score a fight, we can disagree with the result but in a VERY CLOSE fight, you cannot insist that your score is right and the judges are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesOkay, Pac got the verdict of the judges in their second bout. But boxing scoring is not an exact science and when you have most boxing writers and forum members arguing that Marquez won then you have to give that its weight as well. This means that the boxing writers and forum members judging are likewise not an exact science. So how can one be better than the other when both are not exact science. And what do you mean by most? How many are this in numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner
They say history is only written by the winners, but that does not mean that we ignore what really happened and what contemporary commentators really thought at the time. But you are giving great value to the scores of those commentators who agrees with you. How many commentators did you know of that expressed their opinion as to who won?
The second fight in particular was close, but most believe Marquez edged it. How many in numbers is this 'most' that you talk about with regards to all the people who watched the fight.?
You have to forgive him. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed.Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyOJ was declared innocent by a Jury, not because the Judge said so. Marquez lost the second fight because two of the three Judges said so. That is just a fact, not an opinion. I've watched both fights and I can honestly say that in my opinion they can both be called draws.Quote:
Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita
Can you put that 'lot' in numbers? Because some people consider 10 as a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesYes, I can because a lot more people agree with me. I believe that boxing writers are not as stupid as they appear.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerYou already said that boxing scoring is not an exact science so until they find a better way on how to score a fight, we can disagree with the result but in a VERY CLOSE fight, you cannot insist that your score is right and the judges are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesOkay, Pac got the verdict of the judges in their second bout. But boxing scoring is not an exact science and when you have most boxing writers and forum members arguing that Marquez won then you have to give that its weight as well. This means that the boxing writers and forum members judging are likewise not an exact science. So how can one be better than the other when both are not exact science. And what do you mean by most? How many are this in numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner
They say history is only written by the winners, but that does not mean that we ignore what really happened and what contemporary commentators really thought at the time. But you are giving great value to the scores of those commentators who agrees with you. How many commentators did you know of that expressed their opinion as to who won?
The second fight in particular was close, but most believe Marquez edged it. How many in numbers is this 'most' that you talk about with regards to all the people who watched the fight.?
How many boxing writers are there in the world who watched both fights and how many of their opinions do you know of?
Are you for real?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerCan you put that 'lot' in numbers? Because some people consider 10 as a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesYes, I can because a lot more people agree with me. I believe that boxing writers are not as stupid as they appear.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerYou already said that boxing scoring is not an exact science so until they find a better way on how to score a fight, we can disagree with the result but in a VERY CLOSE fight, you cannot insist that your score is right and the judges are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesOkay, Pac got the verdict of the judges in their second bout. But boxing scoring is not an exact science and when you have most boxing writers and forum members arguing that Marquez won then you have to give that its weight as well. This means that the boxing writers and forum members judging are likewise not an exact science. So how can one be better than the other when both are not exact science. And what do you mean by most? How many are this in numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner
They say history is only written by the winners, but that does not mean that we ignore what really happened and what contemporary commentators really thought at the time. But you are giving great value to the scores of those commentators who agrees with you. How many commentators did you know of that expressed their opinion as to who won?
The second fight in particular was close, but most believe Marquez edged it. How many in numbers is this 'most' that you talk about with regards to all the people who watched the fight.?
How many boxing writers are there in the world who watched both fights and how many of their opinions do you know of?
An adequate selection is listed on boxing rec and forum polls are there for you to search at will.
I am asking how many do you know? If you are relying on their opinion, then you should know. An estimate or a simple answer like 'I don't know' is okey.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesAre you for real?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerCan you put that 'lot' in numbers? Because some people consider 10 as a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesYes, I can because a lot more people agree with me. I believe that boxing writers are not as stupid as they appear.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerYou already said that boxing scoring is not an exact science so until they find a better way on how to score a fight, we can disagree with the result but in a VERY CLOSE fight, you cannot insist that your score is right and the judges are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesOkay, Pac got the verdict of the judges in their second bout. But boxing scoring is not an exact science and when you have most boxing writers and forum members arguing that Marquez won then you have to give that its weight as well. This means that the boxing writers and forum members judging are likewise not an exact science. So how can one be better than the other when both are not exact science. And what do you mean by most? How many are this in numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner
They say history is only written by the winners, but that does not mean that we ignore what really happened and what contemporary commentators really thought at the time. But you are giving great value to the scores of those commentators who agrees with you. How many commentators did you know of that expressed their opinion as to who won?
The second fight in particular was close, but most believe Marquez edged it. How many in numbers is this 'most' that you talk about with regards to all the people who watched the fight.?
How many boxing writers are there in the world who watched both fights and how many of their opinions do you know of?
An adequate selection is listed on boxing rec and forum polls are there for you to search at will.
So I need to know them on some personal basis? What are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerI am asking how many do you know? If you are relying on their opinion, then you should know. An estimate or a simple answer like 'I don't know' is okey.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesAre you for real?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerCan you put that 'lot' in numbers? Because some people consider 10 as a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesYes, I can because a lot more people agree with me. I believe that boxing writers are not as stupid as they appear.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerYou already said that boxing scoring is not an exact science so until they find a better way on how to score a fight, we can disagree with the result but in a VERY CLOSE fight, you cannot insist that your score is right and the judges are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesOkay, Pac got the verdict of the judges in their second bout. But boxing scoring is not an exact science and when you have most boxing writers and forum members arguing that Marquez won then you have to give that its weight as well. This means that the boxing writers and forum members judging are likewise not an exact science. So how can one be better than the other when both are not exact science. And what do you mean by most? How many are this in numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner
They say history is only written by the winners, but that does not mean that we ignore what really happened and what contemporary commentators really thought at the time. But you are giving great value to the scores of those commentators who agrees with you. How many commentators did you know of that expressed their opinion as to who won?
The second fight in particular was close, but most believe Marquez edged it. How many in numbers is this 'most' that you talk about with regards to all the people who watched the fight.?
How many boxing writers are there in the world who watched both fights and how many of their opinions do you know of?
An adequate selection is listed on boxing rec and forum polls are there for you to search at will.
'In the neutral corner' is the archetype Pacman troll, he gets like this before every fight.
If you are going against a fact (draw and a Pacquiao win based on official judges scoring) and insist that Marquez won both fights, then you should at least back it up with something objective (numbers of those who actually thought JMM won) and not something subjective (a lot, more, bunch).Quote:
Originally Posted by milesSo I need to know them on some personal basis? What are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerI am asking how many do you know? If you are relying on their opinion, then you should know. An estimate or a simple answer like 'I don't know' is okey.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesAre you for real?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerCan you put that 'lot' in numbers? Because some people consider 10 as a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesYes, I can because a lot more people agree with me. I believe that boxing writers are not as stupid as they appear.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerYou already said that boxing scoring is not an exact science so until they find a better way on how to score a fight, we can disagree with the result but in a VERY CLOSE fight, you cannot insist that your score is right and the judges are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesOkay, Pac got the verdict of the judges in their second bout. But boxing scoring is not an exact science and when you have most boxing writers and forum members arguing that Marquez won then you have to give that its weight as well. This means that the boxing writers and forum members judging are likewise not an exact science. So how can one be better than the other when both are not exact science. And what do you mean by most? How many are this in numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner
They say history is only written by the winners, but that does not mean that we ignore what really happened and what contemporary commentators really thought at the time. But you are giving great value to the scores of those commentators who agrees with you. How many commentators did you know of that expressed their opinion as to who won?
The second fight in particular was close, but most believe Marquez edged it. How many in numbers is this 'most' that you talk about with regards to all the people who watched the fight.?
How many boxing writers are there in the world who watched both fights and how many of their opinions do you know of?
An adequate selection is listed on boxing rec and forum polls are there for you to search at will.
You cannot answer some simple questions, so you retort to name calling. Pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
I am just asking those who insist (not those who rendered them as an opinion) that Marquez won twice to back up their claims. I am not even extolling any Pacquiao virtues.
You are really talking a lot of hogwash, but that is the norm from you. Marquez is known as the victor of the last fight and convincingly so, I don't even know what you are arguing about here.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerIf you are going against a fact (draw and a Pacquiao win based on official judges scoring) and insist that Marquez won both fights, then you should at least back it up with something objective (numbers of those who actually thought JMM won) and not something subjective (a lot, more, bunch).Quote:
Originally Posted by milesSo I need to know them on some personal basis? What are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerI am asking how many do you know? If you are relying on their opinion, then you should know. An estimate or a simple answer like 'I don't know' is okey.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesAre you for real?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerCan you put that 'lot' in numbers? Because some people consider 10 as a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesYes, I can because a lot more people agree with me. I believe that boxing writers are not as stupid as they appear.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerYou already said that boxing scoring is not an exact science so until they find a better way on how to score a fight, we can disagree with the result but in a VERY CLOSE fight, you cannot insist that your score is right and the judges are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesOkay, Pac got the verdict of the judges in their second bout. But boxing scoring is not an exact science and when you have most boxing writers and forum members arguing that Marquez won then you have to give that its weight as well. This means that the boxing writers and forum members judging are likewise not an exact science. So how can one be better than the other when both are not exact science. And what do you mean by most? How many are this in numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner
They say history is only written by the winners, but that does not mean that we ignore what really happened and what contemporary commentators really thought at the time. But you are giving great value to the scores of those commentators who agrees with you. How many commentators did you know of that expressed their opinion as to who won?
The second fight in particular was close, but most believe Marquez edged it. How many in numbers is this 'most' that you talk about with regards to all the people who watched the fight.?
How many boxing writers are there in the world who watched both fights and how many of their opinions do you know of?
An adequate selection is listed on boxing rec and forum polls are there for you to search at will.
I gave you a source for a lot of views on the verdict of that second fight and you keep on coming back talking like a gay.
Known by who? Convincingly? So the perception is wrong that it's a close fight?Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Still can't give the estimate, can you? Hurry up with an objective reply because I have to go somewhere soon. And another name calling, lol!
I have no idea what you are talking about. 'Known by who'? How does that relate to anything I wrote?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerKnown by who?Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Still can't give the estimate, can you? Hurry up with an objective reply because I have to go somewhere soon. And another name calling, lol!
It is impossible to reply to you because you don't make any sense. Most writers think Pac lost the last fight and you just talk gibberish. It is understandable. You are dumb and have never studied, you just hang off a couple of testicles.
You are the one who wrote that 'known' and now you don't have any idea who those are.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI have no idea what you are talking about. 'Known by who'? How does that relate to anything I wrote?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerKnown by who?Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Still can't give the estimate, can you? Hurry up with an objective reply because I have to go somewhere soon. And another name calling, lol!
It is impossible to reply to you because you don't make any sense. Most writers think Pac lost the last fight and you just talk gibberish. It is understandable. You are dumb and have never studied, you just hang off a couple of testicles.
There you go with that subjective word ('most') again. Anything objective to back it up.
Third name calling and an insult. As you can see, I'm still sticking to what is being discussed and not retorted to them.
I gave you a source.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerYou are the one who wrote that 'known' and now you don't have any idea who those are.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI have no idea what you are talking about. 'Known by who'? How does that relate to anything I wrote?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerKnown by who?Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Still can't give the estimate, can you? Hurry up with an objective reply because I have to go somewhere soon. And another name calling, lol!
It is impossible to reply to you because you don't make any sense. Most writers think Pac lost the last fight and you just talk gibberish. It is understandable. You are dumb and have never studied, you just hang off a couple of testicles.
There you go with that subjective word ('most') again. Anything objective to back it up.
Third name calling and an insult. As you can see, I'm still sticking to what is being discussed and not retorted to them.
Marquez beat Paquiao the second time out. :rolleyes:
Do you want me to really insult you?
So okey ..... estimate number of people who thought Marquez won is unknown.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI gave you a source.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerYou are the one who wrote that 'known' and now you don't have any idea who those are.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI have no idea what you are talking about. 'Known by who'? How does that relate to anything I wrote?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerKnown by who?Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Still can't give the estimate, can you? Hurry up with an objective reply because I have to go somewhere soon. And another name calling, lol!
It is impossible to reply to you because you don't make any sense. Most writers think Pac lost the last fight and you just talk gibberish. It is understandable. You are dumb and have never studied, you just hang off a couple of testicles.
There you go with that subjective word ('most') again. Anything objective to back it up.
Third name calling and an insult. As you can see, I'm still sticking to what is being discussed and not retorted to them.
Marquez beat Paquiao the second time out. :rolleyes:
This is stupid. You are begging to be insulted.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerSo okey ..... estimate number of people who thought Marquez won is unknown.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI gave you a source.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerYou are the one who wrote that 'known' and now you don't have any idea who those are.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI have no idea what you are talking about. 'Known by who'? How does that relate to anything I wrote?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerKnown by who?Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Still can't give the estimate, can you? Hurry up with an objective reply because I have to go somewhere soon. And another name calling, lol!
It is impossible to reply to you because you don't make any sense. Most writers think Pac lost the last fight and you just talk gibberish. It is understandable. You are dumb and have never studied, you just hang off a couple of testicles.
There you go with that subjective word ('most') again. Anything objective to back it up.
Third name calling and an insult. As you can see, I'm still sticking to what is being discussed and not retorted to them.
Marquez beat Paquiao the second time out. :rolleyes:
What, you also don't agree with that? What is it then?Quote:
Originally Posted by milesThis is stupid. You are begging to be insulted.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerSo okey ..... estimate number of people who thought Marquez won is unknown.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI gave you a source.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerYou are the one who wrote that 'known' and now you don't have any idea who those are.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI have no idea what you are talking about. 'Known by who'? How does that relate to anything I wrote?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerKnown by who?Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Still can't give the estimate, can you? Hurry up with an objective reply because I have to go somewhere soon. And another name calling, lol!
It is impossible to reply to you because you don't make any sense. Most writers think Pac lost the last fight and you just talk gibberish. It is understandable. You are dumb and have never studied, you just hang off a couple of testicles.
There you go with that subjective word ('most') again. Anything objective to back it up.
Third name calling and an insult. As you can see, I'm still sticking to what is being discussed and not retorted to them.
Marquez beat Paquiao the second time out. :rolleyes:
..... I'm out.
Marquez has beaten Pac twice. It is you with the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerWhat, you also don't agree with that? What is it then?Quote:
Originally Posted by milesThis is stupid. You are begging to be insulted.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerSo okey ..... estimate number of people who thought Marquez won is unknown.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI gave you a source.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerYou are the one who wrote that 'known' and now you don't have any idea who those are.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesI have no idea what you are talking about. 'Known by who'? How does that relate to anything I wrote?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerKnown by who?Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Still can't give the estimate, can you? Hurry up with an objective reply because I have to go somewhere soon. And another name calling, lol!
It is impossible to reply to you because you don't make any sense. Most writers think Pac lost the last fight and you just talk gibberish. It is understandable. You are dumb and have never studied, you just hang off a couple of testicles.
There you go with that subjective word ('most') again. Anything objective to back it up.
Third name calling and an insult. As you can see, I'm still sticking to what is being discussed and not retorted to them.
Marquez beat Paquiao the second time out. :rolleyes:
That is why you are so absurd. Pac is huge favourite, but it doesn't erase history.
This fight is pure calculation.
As an aside, neither the judge nor the jury said, "OJ is innocent." "Not guilty" is not the same thing as innocent. It means that it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt - the highest standard of proof. Every single juror could have thought OJ did it and still vote not guilty. Still had to vote not guilty, if they thought that yeah, he did it, but the proof wasn't convincing enough. NOBODY (whose opinion mattered as far as what happened to OJ) said he was "innocent."
Trust me, you are nowhere near my level when it comes to intelligence or boxing knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by :::PSL:::You have to forgive him. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed.Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyOJ was declared innocent by a Jury, not because the Judge said so. Marquez lost the second fight because two of the three Judges said so. That is just a fact, not an opinion. I've watched both fights and I can honestly say that in my opinion they can both be called draws.Quote:
Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita
I know many of you pactards never graduated high school but try to stay on point, lil man.
Whether it was the judge or the jury is not important. The point is, OJ is guilty and he was able to get away with it.
You guys are bums. lol Stop living your dreams through one man.
The two fights I gave to JMM, it's just what I think?;DQuote:
Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamitaTrust me, you are nowhere near my level when it comes to intelligence or boxing knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by :::PSL:::You have to forgive him. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed.Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyOJ was declared innocent by a Jury, not because the Judge said so. Marquez lost the second fight because two of the three Judges said so. That is just a fact, not an opinion. I've watched both fights and I can honestly say that in my opinion they can both be called draws.Quote:
Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita
I know many of you pactards never graduated high school but try to stay on point, lil man.
Whether it was the judge or the jury is not important. The point is, OJ is guilty and he was able to get away with it.
You guys are bums. lol Stop living your dreams through one man.
As far as the legal analogy, just because you did the act doesn't make you 'guilty' (as a legal term af art).
As far as MP-JMM I and II, obviously, a lot of people thought differently about who won the first two fights. I don't know that there was an overwhelming consensus either way. I did a Google search and found an article that reported a survey of 80 'experts' and it was 38-33 with 9 draws for Pacqiao (second fight), but it didn't source the survey or name the experts. All of the ESPN panel had it for Marquez by one point. Whatever you thought about either fight, several credible experts agreed with you.
Expert's we are all Expert's here.;DQuote:
Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX
Geeze, what's all the noise about, it's gonna be resolved for good in just few hours, can't you fellas just wait. I'll save my saliva and let the fighters do the 'talking' on the ring, which means I'll just sit, relax, get some nice drink, enjoy the fight - and -
wait for the result...
...I'm just mighty glad this issue's going to be resolved today...
And in the meantime, you know better than to ask me whom I'm rooting for. Cool, kiddos...
The hell I can't. My scorecard is right. Anybody else that disagrees with it is wrong. And I know more than you. Scoring fights is not an exact science. It doesn't have to be. There is still a right way and wrong way to do it. Lot of muthfukkas think that just cuz a fool is an offical judge he knows the sport. Wrong. 60% have no buisness being judges.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerYou already said that boxing scoring is not an exact science so until they find a better way on how to score a fight, we can disagree with the result but in a VERY CLOSE fight, you cannot insist that your score is right and the judges are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesOkay, Pac got the verdict of the judges in their second bout. But boxing scoring is not an exact science and when you have most boxing writers and forum members arguing that Marquez won then you have to give that its weight as well. This means that the boxing writers and forum members judging are likewise not an exact science. So how can one be better than the other when both are not exact science. And what do you mean by most? How many are this in numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner
They say history is only written by the winners, but that does not mean that we ignore what really happened and what contemporary commentators really thought at the time. But you are giving great value to the scores of those commentators who agrees with you. How many commentators did you know of that expressed their opinion as to who won?
The second fight in particular was close, but most believe Marquez edged it. How many in numbers is this 'most' that you talk about with regards to all the people who watched the fight.?
Some of you dudes on here need to sign up for Violent Demise's school of fight scoring, immediately. You know who you are. Did VD mention that classes are for free? Take advantage of it..
Can you sign me up bud.haha;D:excited:Quote:
Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita
I have no problem with what is recorded as the official result of the previous two Pacquiao-Marquez fights. If they have recorded both as a Marquez win, I would not agree with it but I would not argue against it because I would not be able to back it up. Those fights were that close.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
And I see another insult. Lots of insult but still nothing to back up your claim.
And there is nothing wrong with that. A close fight can go to either fighter. Anyone who insists that Pacquiao or Marquez convincingly won should be able to back it up objectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dia bandoThe two fights I gave to JMM, it's just what I think?;DQuote:
Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamitaTrust me, you are nowhere near my level when it comes to intelligence or boxing knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by :::PSL:::You have to forgive him. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed.Quote:
Originally Posted by fan johnnyOJ was declared innocent by a Jury, not because the Judge said so. Marquez lost the second fight because two of the three Judges said so. That is just a fact, not an opinion. I've watched both fights and I can honestly say that in my opinion they can both be called draws.Quote:
Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita
I know many of you pactards never graduated high school but try to stay on point, lil man.
Whether it was the judge or the jury is not important. The point is, OJ is guilty and he was able to get away with it.
You guys are bums. lol Stop living your dreams through one man.
Sorry, Bando.. This class is only for those who dont know how to score a fight properly so you are not eligible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dia bandoCan you sign me up bud.haha;D:excited:Quote:
Originally Posted by FinitoElDinamita
........... rrrrrright.Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent DemiseThe hell I can't. My scorecard is right. Anybody else that disagrees with it is wrong. And I know more than you. Scoring fights is not an exact science. It doesn't have to be. There is still a right way and wrong way to do it. Lot of muthfukkas think that just cuz a fool is an offical judge he knows the sport. Wrong. 60% have no buisness being judges.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerYou already said that boxing scoring is not an exact science so until they find a better way on how to score a fight, we can disagree with the result but in a VERY CLOSE fight, you cannot insist that your score is right and the judges are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesOkay, Pac got the verdict of the judges in their second bout. But boxing scoring is not an exact science and when you have most boxing writers and forum members arguing that Marquez won then you have to give that its weight as well. This means that the boxing writers and forum members judging are likewise not an exact science. So how can one be better than the other when both are not exact science. And what do you mean by most? How many are this in numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner
They say history is only written by the winners, but that does not mean that we ignore what really happened and what contemporary commentators really thought at the time. But you are giving great value to the scores of those commentators who agrees with you. How many commentators did you know of that expressed their opinion as to who won?
The second fight in particular was close, but most believe Marquez edged it. How many in numbers is this 'most' that you talk about with regards to all the people who watched the fight.?
Question for you: Are those two fights close or did any of them dominate the other?
To those who think that they are better than any of the judges, why don't you apply to work as a judge so that boxing can use your God-given talent? You get paid and get to see the fight for free.
JMM is my favourite current boxer, i haven't really been following boxing or the lead up to this fight. But i will be rooting for JMM all the way.
Team Dinamita baby. Screwed twice..it's time to get what's yours! Marquez via 12 rounds of schooling.
The 2nd one I Marquez winning 115-112 I believe it was. Up to you to decide if that's a consider a close fight or not. The 1st fight I had it 115-110 Marquez. Which is actually the same card provided by Guy Jutras (who thank God just recently returned to judging fights). The other 2 idiots Burt Clements and John Stewart had it wrong. Clements is a decent judge. He clearly had an off night. Stewart is a terrible judge. No surprise he turned in a deplorable scorecard. Neither one has the boxing knowledge Guy Jutras has. Combined them and they still don't come close. Jutras is a boxing encyclopedia. His card mirrored mine. We gave Pacquiao the first (10-6) and the 2nd round. After that it was all Marquez. 115-110. By all rights that should of been the universal scorecard. But it wasn't. Cuz to many muthafukkas pay attention to what they scored the previous round. So they see they given Marquez 6 rounds in a row. And they start thinking people might think there being bias Marquez. So they give the next close round to Pacquiao despite it not really being deserved.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner........... rrrrrright.Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent DemiseThe hell I can't. My scorecard is right. Anybody else that disagrees with it is wrong. And I know more than you. Scoring fights is not an exact science. It doesn't have to be. There is still a right way and wrong way to do it. Lot of muthfukkas think that just cuz a fool is an offical judge he knows the sport. Wrong. 60% have no buisness being judges.Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCornerYou already said that boxing scoring is not an exact science so until they find a better way on how to score a fight, we can disagree with the result but in a VERY CLOSE fight, you cannot insist that your score is right and the judges are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesOkay, Pac got the verdict of the judges in their second bout. But boxing scoring is not an exact science and when you have most boxing writers and forum members arguing that Marquez won then you have to give that its weight as well. This means that the boxing writers and forum members judging are likewise not an exact science. So how can one be better than the other when both are not exact science. And what do you mean by most? How many are this in numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheNeutralCorner
They say history is only written by the winners, but that does not mean that we ignore what really happened and what contemporary commentators really thought at the time. But you are giving great value to the scores of those commentators who agrees with you. How many commentators did you know of that expressed their opinion as to who won?
The second fight in particular was close, but most believe Marquez edged it. How many in numbers is this 'most' that you talk about with regards to all the people who watched the fight.?
Question for you: Are those two fights close or did any of them dominate the other?
It's not that I don't like Pacquiao, who really comes across as a gentleman and one of the good guys who actually does end up victorious, but I do want JMM to spring an upset. I remember staying up to watch the second fight, and I was completely exhausted, but within 3 minutes I was wide awake again. JMM won a convert with his bravery that night, and I didn't think Pac deserved the win.
Hopefully we get back to the JMM of those days, and this time he can turn the screw on the Pac-man and his significant hype machine.
I don't like or dislike manny, but marquez is a favorite so hope he got one last great one in him and gets the w but sadly doubtful, this one is probably a couple years to late...