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

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.

I agree.


and they have always judged that way.


Pretty even round? give it to the one pressing the action.

I hardly ever agree with the hobbit but I have to concede here. Another thing I have to add is that judges do not have the whole different camera angles that the fans watching on tv enjoy. And if I'm not mistaken they can't use instant replays to help them score a round.

I can't comprehend how someone could defend that scoring. Highlighting that fights are all pinned on aggression by giving us a few examples where the aggressive fighter is out-boxed and still wins doesn't prove anything other than the fact that this kind of thing happens all too much.
BTW, none of those fights (other than maybe toney/peter - haven't seen that in a while) had the scoring differential of Pac/Marquez III. I'm sorry but Pac didn't win this one. Even a few of the 'Pactards' have come out and admitted it. It was a pretty good fight and def wasn't the worst robbery I've ever seen but JMM deserves his credit (finally), this shouldn't happen at this level of the sport. The fans shouldn't condone this kind of thing (even Pac fans) - next time it could be your favorite fighter who gets robbed of a well-deserved win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBranMan

I can't comprehend how someone could defend that scoring. Highlighting that fights are all pinned on aggression by giving us a few examples where the aggressive fighter is out-boxed and still wins doesn't prove anything other than the fact that this kind of thing happens all too much.
BTW, none of those fights (other than maybe toney/peter - haven't seen that in a while) had the scoring differential of Pac/Marquez III. I'm sorry but Pac didn't win this one. Even a few of the 'Pactards' have come out and admitted it. It was a pretty good fight and def wasn't the worst robbery I've ever seen but JMM deserves his credit (finally), this shouldn't happen at this level of the sport. The fans shouldn't condone this kind of thing (even Pac fans) - next time it could be your favorite fighter who gets robbed of a well-deserved win.

---

How did you score it?

i respect how they like to score them but i wish that an even round should be even, or at least awarded to the 38 years old man over the 33, because of that strange advantage and many boxers nowadays duck others if they are in their prime and later fans unfairly take it too seriously when the young man beats the legend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

I agree.


and they have always judged that way.


Pretty even round? give it to the one pressing the action.

---

I agree.

Thats why Marvin Hagler famously won his super fight with Sugar Ray Leonard.

Oh wait a minute... ;D:rolleyes:

Judges do score consistently, they consistently go with the big money fighter, and are consistently corrupt throughout different eras and decades.

THAT is the only consistency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fairyrak

i respect how they like to score them but i wish that an even round should be even, or at least awarded to the 38 years old man over the 33, because of that strange advantage and many boxers nowadays duck others if they are in their prime and later fans unfairly take it too seriously when the young man beats the legend

---

A very good post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBranMan

I can't comprehend how someone could defend that scoring. Highlighting that fights are all pinned on aggression by giving us a few examples where the aggressive fighter is out-boxed and still wins doesn't prove anything other than the fact that this kind of thing happens all too much.
BTW, none of those fights (other than maybe toney/peter - haven't seen that in a while) had the scoring differential of Pac/Marquez III. I'm sorry but Pac didn't win this one. Even a few of the 'Pactards' have come out and admitted it. It was a pretty good fight and def wasn't the worst robbery I've ever seen but JMM deserves his credit (finally), this shouldn't happen at this level of the sport. The fans shouldn't condone this kind of thing (even Pac fans) - next time it could be your favorite fighter who gets robbed of a well-deserved win.

---

How did you score it?

---

I only gave Pac the 6th and the 10th (even that is debatable). On a generous day I could give Pac the first as well (I had it a draw), but to mess up the scorecard like Lederman AND ALL 3 OF THE JUDGES did... it shows they have another agenda - accidents/miricles like that don't happen when there is this much money flowing through the golden child (Pac)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hulk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

I agree.


and they have always judged that way.


Pretty even round? give it to the one pressing the action.

---

I agree.

Thats why Marvin Hagler famously won his super fight with Sugar Ray Leonard.

Oh wait a minute... ;D:rolleyes:

Judges do score consistently, they consistently go with the big money fighter, and are consistently corrupt throughout different eras and decades.

THAT is the only consistency.

---

yeah. That helps too ;D

This was an easy fight to score. Pac was coming forward, but it was hardly what Calzaghe was doing with Hopkins where it was all hustle and work. Pac was coming forward, but not throwing that much. In fact he appeared to be trying to box Marquez which just made him look lazy. The clean, crisp punches were all from Marquez and you saw it in most of the rounds.

It was a robbery. I don't like threads like this which try to put a spin on it. Most people thought Calzaghe beat Hopkins, most people thought Marquez beat Pac. Different kinds of fights completely, but popular opinion wins out. This was easier to score IMO as it wasn't dirty, had little clinching and had no KD's.

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.

It wasn't a domination, no. Calzaghe/Lacy is domination. However, I do believe it was a convincing and clear Marquez victory. It is difficult to argue against how well he boxed and landed with all too frequent precision.

Lets see if I can phrase this correctly and succinctly:
It was a robbery. Wasn't a domination. Was a clear win. Surprised that they're pushing the envelope this far at this level of the "sport".

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.

Not a bad thought Bilbo, but the fact is that all of the guys who won in the fights you listed were either the house fighter or pretty close to it, certainly the networks and promoters had a much greater vested interest in their winning. As far as comparing the actual action itself I'd say the only one that belongs in the same breath as last nights fight was Toney-Peter, because it was also clearly a bad decision imo. Hopkins flat out didn't do anything for 4 or 5 rounds in each of those, Marquez was sticking to his gameplan and fighting at a very consistent pace last night.

To call Herald Lederman a trained judge as if that's supposed to carry more weight than him being an old fart who works for HBO is kind of ridiculous to me. His scoring has been increasingly biased over the last few years and boxing on HBO in general is becoming more and more desperate to ensure they can still put on big fights imo. Its like putting stock in Kellerman and Lampleys wild praise of pretty well anyone that might make the network a few bucks down the line, obviously they actually know better. HBO has really been pissing me off lately, the commentary for that Kirland Angulo fight for example was just stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBranMan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bilbo

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

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.

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

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.