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

[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.

[Gandalf]

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.

[TheBranMan]

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.

[mnmc10]

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

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

[Andre]

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

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

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

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

[Tam Seddon]

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

[Gocougars3]

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

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