Not a ROBBERY Please look :D

[armyash]

Great thread that has sparked a great debate!

Thing is some of the rounds that were given to Pac could have been given to JMM too and vice versa as has been pointed out BUT JMM won his rounds more convincingly and in my eyes more of them. Seen the fight twice and to be honest i could score some rounds differently each time i watch it but that means rounds i gave to pac i might give to JMM - He might even win it by a wider margin next time i win it.

But there's not a cat in hells chance that i can ever give it to Pac, not even a draw. The closest it could possibly get is JMM by a round.

Anyone scoring for Pac has to be judging it solely on Pac going forward but look how wary he was of letting his shots go because he knew he was getting countered all night long!!

Just because you fight on the back foot does not mean you are not landing the better more hurtful shots.

Whether it's outside the pub, in an actual bout or even just sparring you know when someone gets the better of you and that's the look Manny has had since that final bell went. Dejected. Possibly even since a few rounds from the end.

So even though i disagree with you that it was not a robbery 'cool' post for the hard work and sparking a good debate.

[Gandalf]

I can only assume some of the more longer term residents here are trolling. You cannot argue with popular opinion and the facts are that Marquez was deemed to have won by about 2/3rd of the public. Only a few diehards and a couple of corrupt judges give it to Pac and some argue for a keep the peace draw. Those saying that Manny might have won are a tiny minority.

I had it 8-4 and GAVE two of my 'even' rounds to Pac. Unless you are giving Manny every benefit you can only have him losing by a closer margin. To have Marquez losing 8-4 is sick. To have Marquez down at the half way mark is sick. There was something terribly wrong with the scoring and the fix was in.

How people are defending that is disgusting and shame on anyone that does so.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

I can only assume some of the more longer term residents here are trolling. You cannot argue with popular opinion and the facts are that Marquez was deemed to have won by about 2/3rd of the public. Only a few diehards and a couple of corrupt judges give it to Pac and some argue for a keep the peace draw. Those saying that Manny might have won are a tiny minority.

I had it 8-4 and GAVE two of my 'even' rounds to Pac. Unless you are giving Manny every benefit you can only have him losing by a closer margin. To have Marquez losing 8-4 is sick. To have Marquez down at the half way mark is sick. There was something terribly wrong with the scoring and the fix was in.

How people are defending that is disgusting and shame on anyone that does so.

How many people is that public that you are pertaining to in here? And what is the source of your information?

[Rantcatrat]

I legitimately saw this as a draw. I'm no Pactard nor Flomo and I'm no anti-pactard nor anti-Flomo. I'm not Mexican nor Filipino. Really, I have no real ethnic allegiences when it comes to boxing by the way although I like a good underdog. Tangentially, I'm not anti-British or pro-British - I admire Froch for fighting all-comers and believe Joe Calzaghe was a great fighter. To me, this fight was close, I'm sorry to me it was. It's shown by how many rounds different people gave to different fighters. I had it a draw. I've watched it twice. Once without volume and once with volume. My main caveat is that I wasn't at the event. Lastly, I called this from the getgo. I told everyone this would be tougher for Pacquiao than they thought. I said it would be tougher for Pacquiao than Ortiz was for Mayweather. Marquez shocked me at how effective he was at welterweight, but he didnt' shock me with how he was able to neutralize Pacquiao because he's been doing it for two fights. Hats off two both Pacquiao and Marquez for providing us with a hell of a trilogy.

[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.

[Galaxy]

I don't think it was as bad as some other decisions I've seen, not an outright robbery. I had Marquez winning but thought it was a close fight

[Pugilistic]

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.

[:::PSL:::]

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.

[Gandalf]

I can only assume some of the more longer term residents here are trolling. You cannot argue with popular opinion and the facts are that Marquez was deemed to have won by about 2/3rd of the public. Only a few diehards and a couple of corrupt judges give it to Pac and some argue for a keep the peace draw. Those saying that Manny might have won are a tiny minority.

I had it 8-4 and GAVE two of my 'even' rounds to Pac. Unless you are giving Manny every benefit you can only have him losing by a closer margin. To have Marquez losing 8-4 is sick. To have Marquez down at the half way mark is sick. There was something terribly wrong with the scoring and the fix was in.

How people are defending that is disgusting and shame on anyone that does so.

How many people is that public that you are pertaining to in here? And what is the source of your information?

Do you really live with your head in the sand? Take a gander at some of the polls on general forums. Fightnews, Eastside, here etc. Take a look at the scores of so called boxing experts. You will see an obvious correlation in the viewpoints and the consensus is that Marquez won.

We even have filipinos here who admit he lost and so did the people they were watching the fight with. Pac looked defeated himself.

Everyone but the diehards sees this.

[Gandalf]

Clearly nations haven't done referendums on this, but most people who watched the fight and aren't afraid to get their views out there saw Marquez winning. Fact.

[miron_lang]

Clearly nations haven't done referendums on this, but most people who watched the fight and aren't afraid to get their views out there saw Marquez winning. Fact.

Yes you think JMM won

Yes many others do think JMM won


But matured individual like you should accept the facts presented here. You have your preference regarding Pacquiao that maybe clouds your analysis on this one.


Your expectations of the fight and cheering for Marquez in your mind concluded that Juan Manuel Marquez have no way of losing this fight, but as presented here. that is not the case.

[miron_lang]

Greenbeanz


ROBBERIES = FIGHT you CLEARLY WON but was AWARDED TO THE OTHER FIGHTER


IF 9 Potential rounds are there for Pacquiao to claim then this is not a robbery. I thought that was simple enough.

[Nameless]

I can only assume some of the more longer term residents here are trolling. You cannot argue with popular opinion and the facts are that Marquez was deemed to have won by about 2/3rd of the public. Only a few diehards and a couple of corrupt judges give it to Pac and some argue for a keep the peace draw. Those saying that Manny might have won are a tiny minority.

I had it 8-4 and GAVE two of my 'even' rounds to Pac. Unless you are giving Manny every benefit you can only have him losing by a closer margin. To have Marquez losing 8-4 is sick. To have Marquez down at the half way mark is sick. There was something terribly wrong with the scoring and the fix was in.

How people are defending that is disgusting and shame on anyone that does so.

I was absolutely convinced that MArquez would get steamrolled, didn't want to watch the fight but finally decided to see it as my 2 cousins joined after my godfather's b-day. I understand Fenster argument of the round by round but I disagree with it because everybody at some point is tempted to say "ok, I think Marquez won that one but for the sake of trying to be impartial, I'd give that one to Marquez", which is a part of why I believe the scoring cards on some rounds are a bit different. I've seen the match again and I still can't give less than 8 rounds to Marquez. I could make a compromise with those that say that it was not a robbery but something damn shady, I'd do that for the sake of good faith but inside, I feel like it's an utter robbery.

[Addicted to Boxing]

Suggestion watch the fight twice: one without audio as the HBO telecast omits almost everything JMM does.then view it again with audio and see the non verbal communication in Roach and PAC. Listen to Pac's corner advice . Based on the announcers painting of the fight it appears as though it was another day in the park for PAC. If this fight was for the blind then it was not a robbery. Truth is it was an embarrassment. A JMM win would have been better for boxing. Now who wants a 4th fight with similar results or a PBF destruction of Pac ? No way Pac deserves to have the larger purse than PBF after this last fight. QUOTE=armyash;1026375]Great thread that has sparked a great debate!

Thing is some of the rounds that were given to Pac could have been given to JMM too and vice versa as has been pointed out BUT JMM won his rounds more convincingly and in my eyes more of them. Seen the fight twice and to be honest i could score some rounds differently each time i watch it but that means rounds i gave to pac i might give to JMM - He might even win it by a wider margin next time i win it.

But there's not a cat in hells chance that i can ever give it to Pac, not even a draw. The closest it could possibly get is JMM by a round.

Anyone scoring for Pac has to be judging it solely on Pac going forward but look how wary he was of letting his shots go because he knew he was getting countered all night long!!

Just because you fight on the back foot does not mean you are not landing the better more hurtful shots.

Whether it's outside the pub, in an actual bout or even just sparring you know when someone gets the better of you and that's the look Manny has had since that final bell went. Dejected. Possibly even since a few rounds from the end.

So even though i disagree with you that it was not a robbery 'cool' post for the hard work and sparking a good debate.[/QUOTE]

[miron_lang]

Judges score it round by round. and not the whole fight straight up.


This thread's purpose is to convince you guys that it wasnt a robbery using your own data. I think everybody realizes it was not.


Robberies are crystal clear seven rounds for the perceived winner.




-Peace i