Not a ROBBERY Please look :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by :::PSL:::

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugilistic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by :::PSL:::

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugilistic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruthless rocco

i saw most of the rounds as almost even punch for punch.
i believe the rounds that marquez won, he won more clearly than pac those that pac won...
but there were alot of rounds that were so close that they really could have gone either way. they were within an effective punch of each other almost the whole way thru the fight.

at the start of the 10th round harold letterman explains that when a fight is so close, you look to other things such as aggressiveness, defense and ringeneralship. which is where pac shows his dominance.

i'm no pac fan. i wanted marquez to win....but after watching the fight really closely i saw pac with rounds 1,3,4,6,9,10,12 mar 2,5,7,8,11. i believe tha 10th was there for marquez but he decided to counterpunch the last half of the round instead of asserting himself.

other quotes from the commentators that i found valuable... stewart said that we shouldn't confuse a fighter doing better than expected with winning a fight.
...and around the 3rd round either letterman or stewart asked about whether marquez's style of subtle counterpunching would really score him as many points as pac's very animated and always moving forward aggressive style.

it was a great fight tho.

---

Pacquiao did not dominate those catergories, he didn't even win them for the most part.

Pacquiao was aggressive and he did come forward but the judges score "effective" aggression or are supposed to anyway.

Marquez was more effective with his aggression than Pacquiao was which is evident by the fact he landed the cleaner more effective punches round by round.

How can Pacquiao dominate the defense catergory when he is the one getting hit with the cleaner punches all night ? point is he didn't. Marquez was the better defensive fighter on the night.

Ring generalship is how the pace of the fight goes and which fighter is the one setting the pace for the most part.

Pacquiao was fighting at Marquez's pace the whole night. I can't see how Pacquiao "dominated" in this catergory either.

Marquez won.

He wasn't pretty with his work and some rounds were close but you can't deny that he was the rightful winner after 12 rounds.

---

Neither of them dominated the fight. But the fact that Pacquiao threw more punches and connected more (both power punches and jabs), imo he did enough to win the fight. With that being said, Pacquiao was evidently the agressive one. Plus he didn't bitch out in the 12th round.

---

Being aggressive and "effectively" aggressive are two different things. Pacquiao had his moments but for the most part, Marquez was the more effective aggressor.

I can agree with Pacquiao throwing more but landing more ? please.

Compubox is lame before you try and give that as evidence on a Pacquiao win.

Two guys counting missed and landed punches doesn't sound like it can be very accurate to me.

---

Did you have the best seat when you watch the fight? Well, those two guys did.

These guys too...

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...73820615_n.jpg

I'm talking about the judges ofcourse.

---

A TV viewer of a multi-camera shoot is much better placed to score a fight than someone in a fixed position at ringside. At ringside, you see many punches thrown without knowing whether they landed or not; consequently, the effectiveness of the busier fighter gets overrated. See also: Williams-Lara.

---

But boxing fights are scored by judges sitting in a fixed position, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

So, you're saying if one judge has a fight 120-108, and another judge has the same fight 120-108 the other way, that's perfectly reasonable as long as there's at least one person who agrees with each judge on each of the 12 rounds? You're right...it's hilarious!

---

It happened in the 1st and 2nd fight for two judges. the other one decides. It happens when rounds are extremely close.

I cant believe too many boxing forumers doesnt get this.

---

I suspect it's not that people don't get it, but rather that they disagree about the significance of it. If same fighter gets all eight of the 50-50 rounds, you can't complain about any of the rounds, but you can complain about the fight. It's like a roulette wheel that comes up red every time. There's no reason it shouldn't have on any given spin, but when it happens every time, there's a question in the whole that isn't necessarily just answered by the sum of the parts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LobowolfXXX

I suspect it's not that people don't get it, but rather that they disagree about the significance of it. If same fighter gets all eight of the 50-50 rounds, you can't complain about any of the rounds, but you can complain about the fight. It's like a roulette wheel that comes up red every time. There's no reason it shouldn't have on any given spin, but when it happens every time, there's a question in the whole that isn't necessarily just answered by the sum of the parts.

---

It would appear that sometime it is wrong but that is the way in scoring fights ( 10 pt must

ALL CLOSE or UNCLEAR ROUNDS most likely wont be split between the fighters but to the fighters work of his preference.

Example.


Johny vs Pedro

Round 1 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 2 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 3 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 4 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 5 : Johny Dominates Pedro

Round 6 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference ( Agression, Defense blah blah blah )

Round 7 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 8 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 9 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 10 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 11 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 12 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference



Pedro wins and Johny appears to be robbed in the eyes of the crowd. but the official winner is Pedro 115-113.



If a judge split the even rounds then question of consistency comes to play.

Does a judge gives the next even round to Fighter A because he gave the previous even round to figter B? That type of judging is more open to question IMO. Judges must be consistent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

It would appear that sometime it is wrong but that is the way in scoring fights ( 10 pt must

ALL CLOSE or UNCLEAR ROUNDS most likely wont be split between the fighters but to the fighters work of his preference.

Example.


Johny vs Pedro

Round 1 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 2 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 3 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 4 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 5 : Johny Dominates Pedro

Round 6 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference ( Agression, Defense blah blah blah )

Round 7 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 8 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 9 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 10 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 11 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 12 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference


Pedro wins and Johny appears to be robbed in the eyes of the crowd. but the official winner is Pedro 115-113.

If a judge split the even rounds then question of consistency comes to play.

Does a judge gives the next even round to Fighter A because he gave the previous even round to figter B? That type of judging is more open to question IMO. Judges must be consistent.

---

Can it be Bill vs. Tom?
Instead of Johny vs. Pedro?

When I read your post it just doesn't flow when I say Johny and then Pedro... :-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutMeMick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

I suspect it's not that people don't get it, but rather that they disagree about the significance of it. If same fighter gets all eight of the 50-50 rounds, you can't complain about any of the rounds, but you can complain about the fight. It's like a roulette wheel that comes up red every time. There's no reason it shouldn't have on any given spin, but when it happens every time, there's a question in the whole that isn't necessarily just answered by the sum of the parts.

It would appear that sometime it is wrong but that is the way in scoring fights ( 10 pt must

ALL CLOSE or UNCLEAR ROUNDS most likely wont be split between the fighters but to the fighters work of his preference.

Example.


Johny vs Pedro

Round 1 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 2 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 3 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 4 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 5 : Johny Dominates Pedro

Round 6 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference ( Agression, Defense blah blah blah )

Round 7 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 8 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 9 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 10 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 11 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 12 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference


Pedro wins and Johny appears to be robbed in the eyes of the crowd. but the official winner is Pedro 115-113.

If a judge split the even rounds then question of consistency comes to play.

Does a judge gives the next even round to Fighter A because he gave the previous even round to figter B? That type of judging is more open to question IMO. Judges must be consistent.

---

Can it be Bill vs. Tom?
Instead of Johny vs. Pedro?

When I read your post it just doesn't flow when I say Johny and then Pedro... :-\

---

I should have used Juan and Pedro but Marquez's first name is Juan.


but you're right. I'll use more appropriate names next time ;)

No worries, next time... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Pac's were harder. JMM is visibly shaken everytime. and Pac were almost on attack mode when receiving those blows while Marquez was always on defensive stance.

notice how most of the time Marquez were still back pedalling despite landing some combos.

==

Pac move forward when he lands and move forward when got tagged
JMM move backward when he lands and move backward when got tagged.


This has INFLUENCE on the judges as Many times been mentioned before.

---

What fight were you watching ? shaken up everytime Pacquiao landed ? please.

Marquez was the one shaking up Pacquiao with his punches.

Marquez is a counter puncher. If backing up/ fighting on the backfoot in a fight even after landing means you deserve to lose then Mayweather shouldn't be undefeated.

Being over aggressive against Pacquiao cost Marquez in previous fights so he was smart to back up after landing good combinations.

The majority feel Marquez landed the better punches and got the better of Pacquiao in the other scoring criterias like ring generalship, defence and effective aggression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by :::PSL:::

I was basing that comment on their last sat's official scorecards. He needed to score multiple KDs to win.

Knockdowns counts. They are big deal. A 10-6, 10-7, or 10-8 round is always better that 10-9 round.

---

10 - 8, 10-7, etc is obviously better than a 10-9 round and it can be the difference between a fighter winning and losing especially when the fights are close.

In regards to their first two fights it had it's effects on the scorecards. Those fights were very close and I have no problem with those fights going either way.

I thought Pacquiao was the the winner of the first fight and Marquez was the winner of the second fight.

This third fight was a Marquez fight. He should of won. The majority of fans agree with me. A judge would have to be generous to Pacquiao to give him a win imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugilistic

What fight were you watching ?

---

Probably the same fight.

BUT

We;re not looking at the same thing that's why we dont have the same score.

That fight can be interpreted in a lot of different ways that even 117-111 either way is justifiable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre

What they do need is a screen to look into on their bench when the ref or the other fighter gets in the way of their view. ( that happens allot in a fight.)

Many other sports in the world are going the way of instant replays to denote if somethings out of play so thats a obvious installation to make boxing more fair.

Why not have that when someone whole career could be on the line?
It doesnt stop the fight, it just makes the judges job a fair one cause they can see clearly the whole time.

---

JMM have a less chance on winning in a replay. review the rounds mate, Pac's combinations are so fast you might miss a whole lot.


add the equation that everybody expects him to roll over JMM enhanced the image of how Juan was winning the fight where its was totally dead even in most rounds. with Pacquiao landing more and Juan landing the eye catching shots.


NO objection in JMM pts win BUT a Pac pts win is equally fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugilistic

What fight were you watching ?

---

Probably the same fight.

BUT

We;re not looking at the same thing that's why we dont have the same score.

That fight can be interpreted in a lot of different ways that even 117-111 either way is justifiable.

---

Just curious ? how did you score the fight ?

116-112 in favor of Pacquiao was a joke. I think Pacquiao deserved a draw at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

I'm not sure what's wrong with Trowbridge's scorecard?

He gave Marquez rounds 4, 5, 7 and 12. Cutmemick and Elterrible gave Pac round 4, CutMemick gave Pac round 5, Miles gave Pac round 7 and CutMemick and Elterrible gave Pac round 12.

Theoretically, if Trowbridge had seen those rounds the same way these particular forum members did, then Pac wins 120-108.

This is hilarious. ;D

---

:coolclick:



a close fight can have a wide decision for the winner if the judge consistently scores the rounds according to what he is looking for.


I would assume that many boxing people knows this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugilistic

Just curious ? how did you score the fight ?

116-112 in favor of Pacquiao was a joke. I think Pacquiao deserved a draw at best.

---

a joke according to you because you think all people should judge like you. wherein retired official judge Leddermen has explain WHY and HOW he did scored those rounds.

You think the whole world should judge a round like you do and not like Leddermen who was official judge for many years?


You have to accept the fact that you scored the fight according to your preference and NO fighter dominated in this fight. simple right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

Clearly it does have obvious rounds, as there appears to be an obvious pattern if you are willing to go beyond the opinions of just the 5 Saddo's posters. There is a general pattern of the rounds people are giving to Manny and to Marquez.

All suggesting that Marquez was a relatively clear winner and thus making the fight a robbery.

---

LMAO

What? hhhahaha

sorry i missed this one Miles ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

I'm not sure what's wrong with Trowbridge's scorecard?

He gave Marquez rounds 4, 5, 7 and 12. Cutmemick and Elterrible gave Pac round 4, CutMemick gave Pac round 5, Miles gave Pac round 7 and CutMemick and Elterrible gave Pac round 12.

Theoretically, if Trowbridge had seen those rounds the same way these particular forum members did, then Pac wins 120-108.

This is hilarious. ;D

---

:coolclick:



a close fight can have a wide decision for the winner if the judge consistently scores the rounds according to what he is looking for.


I would assume that many boxing people knows this.

---

THERE YOU GO LADIES AND GENTS...

http://www.caseclosedteam.com/images/caseclosed2.gif

THERE WAS NO ROBBERY!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugilistic

Just curious ? how did you score the fight ?

116-112 in favor of Pacquiao was a joke. I think Pacquiao deserved a draw at best.

---

a joke according to you because you think all people should judge like you. wherein retired official judge Leddermen has explain WHY and HOW he did scored those rounds.

You think the whole world should judge a round like you do and not like Leddermen who was official judge for many years?


You have to accept the fact that you scored the fight according to your preference and NO fighter dominated in this fight. simple right?

---

I think everyone should judge a fight based on the four scoring criterias which are Clean effective punching, effective aggression, ring generalship and defence.

I don't have a preference and no judge should. They should score based on the scoring criterias right ?

Lederman has had loads of odd looking scorecards in the past. I'm not saying i'm the best judge in the world because i'm not but when the majority of fans/experts,etc are all coming up with similar scores as me with the same winner then i must be doing something right.

I never said Marquez "dominated" the fight. Pacquiao was able to have his moments in there but for the most part Marquez was able to do better in all of the scoring criterias imo which i why after scoring round by round, i had him the clear winner.

You still didn't tell me your scorecard by the way. What is it ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugilistic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugilistic

Just curious ? how did you score the fight ?

116-112 in favor of Pacquiao was a joke. I think Pacquiao deserved a draw at best.

---

a joke according to you because you think all people should judge like you. wherein retired official judge Leddermen has explain WHY and HOW he did scored those rounds.

You think the whole world should judge a round like you do and not like Leddermen who was official judge for many years?


You have to accept the fact that you scored the fight according to your preference and NO fighter dominated in this fight. simple right?

---

I think everyone should judge a fight based on the four scoring criterias which are Clean effective punching, effective aggression, ring generalship and defence.

I don't have a preference and no judge should. They should score based on the scoring criterias right ?

Lederman has had loads of odd looking scorecards in the past. I'm not saying i'm the best judge in the world because i'm not but when the majority of fans/experts,etc are all coming up with similar scores as me with the same winner then i must be doing something right.

I never said Marquez "dominated" the fight. Pacquiao was able to have his moments in there but for the most part Marquez was able to do better in all of the scoring criterias imo which i why after scoring round by round, i had him the clear winner.

You still didn't tell me your scorecard by the way. What is it ?

---

Clean effective punching = You define this, Judge define theirs both fighters landed good shots
effective aggression = You dont think Pac wasnt effective as the agressor? I think so
ring generalship = You define this, Judge define theirs
defence.= Both fighters were able to him the other with combos


Round 1 Pacquiao ( Slightly Clear ) * 2 straight lefts landed @30 and @10 secs
Round 2 Pacquiao ( Could have gone either way )
Round 3 Pacquiao ( Could have gone either way )
Round 4 Pacquiao ( Slightly clear )
Round 5 Marquez ( Clear )
Round 6 Pacquao ( Could have gone either way )
Round 7 Marquez ( Clear )
Round 8 Marquez ( Could have gone either way )
Round 9 Pacquiao ( Terribly close Could have gone either way )
Round 10 Pacquio ( Terribly close Could have gone either way )
Round 11 Marquez ( Terribly close Could go either way *Right hand by JMM cliched it at the end )
Round 12 Pacquiao ( Slightly Clear )

I had it 116-112 Pacquiao


Pick a round that you like to dispute and lets debate about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugilistic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugilistic

Just curious ? how did you score the fight ?

116-112 in favor of Pacquiao was a joke. I think Pacquiao deserved a draw at best.

---

a joke according to you because you think all people should judge like you. wherein retired official judge Leddermen has explain WHY and HOW he did scored those rounds.

You think the whole world should judge a round like you do and not like Leddermen who was official judge for many years?


You have to accept the fact that you scored the fight according to your preference and NO fighter dominated in this fight. simple right?

---

I think everyone should judge a fight based on the four scoring criterias which are Clean effective punching, effective aggression, ring generalship and defence.

I don't have a preference and no judge should. They should score based on the scoring criterias right ?

Lederman has had loads of odd looking scorecards in the past. I'm not saying i'm the best judge in the world because i'm not but when the majority of fans/experts,etc are all coming up with similar scores as me with the same winner then i must be doing something right.

I never said Marquez "dominated" the fight. Pacquiao was able to have his moments in there but for the most part Marquez was able to do better in all of the scoring criterias imo which i why after scoring round by round, i had him the clear winner.

You still didn't tell me your scorecard by the way. What is it ?

---

Clean effective punching = You define this, Judge define theirs both fighters landed good shots
effective aggression = You dont think Pac wasnt effective as the agressor? I think so
ring generalship = You define this, Judge define theirs
defence.= Both fighters were able to him the other with combos


Round 1 Pacquiao ( Slightly Clear ) * 2 straight lefts landed @30 and @10 secs
Round 2 Pacquiao ( Could have gone either way )
Round 3 Pacquiao ( Could have gone either way )
Round 4 Pacquiao ( Slightly clear )
Round 5 Marquez ( Clear )
Round 6 Pacquao ( Could have gone either way )
Round 7 Marquez ( Clear )
Round 8 Marquez ( Could have gone either way )
Round 9 Pacquiao ( Terribly close Could have gone either way )
Round 10 Pacquio ( Terribly close Could have gone either way )
Round 11 Marquez ( Terribly close Could go either way *Right hand by JMM cliched it at the end )
Round 12 Pacquiao ( Slightly Clear )

I had it 116-112 Pacquiao


Pick a round that you like to dispute and lets debate about it.

---

I will have to rewatch before i get into a debate about what fighters won what rounds exactly.

Don't worry though, i will be back. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugilistic

when the majority of fans/experts,etc are all coming up with similar scores as me with the same winner then i must be doing something right.

---

When you and the majority have the same scores and having different winner accross all rounds simply means that you and the majority are looking for the same thing and feeling the same looking at the fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugilistic

I will have to rewatch before i get into a debate about what fighters won what rounds exactly.

Don't worry though, i will be back. :)

---

Thanks. I'll wait. :)

this is getting interesting. i think this is the best thread so far in all boxing fora regarding the controversy in last saturdays fight. im with miron lang here that the fight is not a robbery either fighter can win it is so close if you watch it carefully and with no pretense what so ever.

ALL FOUR JUDGES GAVE ROUND 4 to MARQUEZ

and i say Manny Pacquiao won ROUND 4


anybody likes to engage about round 4? Im sure we can learn many things about this round :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

ALL FOUR JUDGES GAVE ROUND 4 to MARQUEZ

and i say Manny Pacquiao won ROUND 4


anybody likes to engage about round 4? Im sure we can learn many things about this round :D

---

ive just watched it and i thought pac won round four

i put little notes next to my scoring and for round 4 i put

very close round, landed very similar amount of punches, pac by far the aggressor

by the way i thought pac won :cool: