Not a ROBBERY Please look :D

[Gandalf]

Well, how come the vast majority of all fans had Marquez winning then. You cannot evaluate a fight not being a robbery on the basis of 5 forum posters alone. I'm sure if you did a statistical analysis of all the cards posted online of this fight that you would have Marquez winning the vast majority of them. Marquez in the eyes of most was the undeniable winner. Anyone giving Manny 8 rounds is INSANE. Anyone giving Manny the majority of rounds is mildly demented and anyone having it a draw is a serious Manny fanboy at best.

It most definitely was a robbery and the polls showing Marquez as victor suggest as much. If the poll is neck and neck you have a case for it being a close fight, but when someone is polling so much more then it has to be a robbery. The tiny minority are suggesting a draw or Pac win.

Nah.. all the best boxing writers/journos had it close either way. No robbery.

The point about the judges cards compared to your own is this - when they score the round the same as you they are correct, right? Yet when their score doesn't match yours they are clearly inept/corrupt/wrong?

You and all three judges agreed on the 1st round. Obviously they were doing a good job in the 1st. But then two disagree with you about the 2nd round, they are clearly inept/corrupt/wrong, right? But the other judge must be right because he saw it like you. Now in the 3rd round, the judge that scored the first two like you, has scored it oppposite to you. He must now be inept/corrupt/wrong, right?

And so it goes...

No I gave Pac the rounds he deserved and Marquez the rounds he deserved. It isn't only me on the planet who is seeing a Marquez win, it is most of the people who make their voices heard on the internet. See we can erase my viewpoints entirely and still the vast majority of folks saw a Marquez win. It doesn't need my viewpoint to validate it in any way. But the numbers of people all seemingly seeing the same man win most definitely counts for something.

Pac himself showed that he lost by his immediate reaction, that was a man that knew he had throw it away.

I understand the majority on internet forums have Marquez the winner. That still doesn't mean robbery though.

You gave Pac and Marquez the rounds they "deserved?" Therein lies the problem. All the other people that scored it did the same, no? They gave each man the rounds they "deserved?" Unfortunately there was mass disagreement on the exact rounds they "deserved"

Which means, it's highly probable that Pac won just by the nature of the fight. Which means NO robbery, irrelevant of whom we personally think won.

I have said this before but boxing is not an exact science. It is very rare that 3 judges ever agree on each of the rounds in a fight and that is the disparity between 3 so called 'experts' and suddenly we are to say that because 5 posters here are not perfectly correlated that this somehow signifies that the fight is not a robbery? It is a flawed statistical logic. You are bound to get an even great disparity between 5 posters rather than 3 judges, but unlike those judges each of those posters had something in common. Marquez was the winner! So something seriously went wrong with the judges if not only are they massively disagreeing on who won the rounds, but also ALL fail to have Marquez as the winner. The judges were an abortion which totally fail to correlate in ANY way with popular opinion.

What it suggests is that the posters were true to what they saw and that the judges were completely corrupt. There is no way to see it otherwise. We all saw Marquez winning the fight fairly convincingly and yet one judge gave Pac 8 rounds and no judge gave Marquez the fight. Now show me any poll that shows Marquez receiving less than even a third of the votes which is what the overall cards even refused to give us. I bet even the Pac sites would be more honest that the judges were.

It was a shocking display of officiating and it is difficult to see it any other way. I struggle to see how Marquez wasn't robbed.

OK miles... anyone that agrees with you is right anyone that doesn't is wrong. Just as I said.

I might as well just write blah, blah, blah...

No, I have no issues with accepting when my views might out of synch which at times they have been. I was definitely slanted on JMM against Barrera, but mainly because I think that KD should have been scored. But in this instance I didn't see neck and neck rounds like I saw with Barrera/Marquez where rounds were being determined by a couple of jabs here and there. Marquez certainly through rounds 2 and onwards here was sweeping the fight with his lead right and flashy combinations. It was only Pac's urgency as the rounds were running out that brought him even some way back.

I can argue my point of view all night long, but like I said before we can just subtract my own views and still Marquez is the popular winner of the fight and many amongst them would likely argue the case for a robbery.

A close fight is one where views are evenly split, views are not evenly split on this fight. And a cross reference of 5 random posters is not a valid means of statistical evaluation. You need to input the data of far more scorecards than that and actually breakdown as a percentage how many people are giving which fighter each rounds. However, just saying that 'some of these guys 5 guys disagree on which rounds to give him means it wasn't a robbery' is an extremely inconclusive way to evaluate things and especially so when the OP hadn't even seen the fight.

It was a bizarre OP and really makes no sense whatsoever.

[bikersk]

It's kind of funny how people get so worked up. I will say I had a similar experience to the Lewis V Holyfield fight. Watched them both at the same pub and had to leave before the results were announced but confident of who I was sure was the winner. In both instances I was proven wrong. All I can say is that the fight must look very different from where the judges sit. Always has been always will be and seems to be in boxing, MMA, Thai Fighting etc etc.

[Fenster]

Well, how come the vast majority of all fans had Marquez winning then. You cannot evaluate a fight not being a robbery on the basis of 5 forum posters alone. I'm sure if you did a statistical analysis of all the cards posted online of this fight that you would have Marquez winning the vast majority of them. Marquez in the eyes of most was the undeniable winner. Anyone giving Manny 8 rounds is INSANE. Anyone giving Manny the majority of rounds is mildly demented and anyone having it a draw is a serious Manny fanboy at best.

It most definitely was a robbery and the polls showing Marquez as victor suggest as much. If the poll is neck and neck you have a case for it being a close fight, but when someone is polling so much more then it has to be a robbery. The tiny minority are suggesting a draw or Pac win.

Nah.. all the best boxing writers/journos had it close either way. No robbery.

The point about the judges cards compared to your own is this - when they score the round the same as you they are correct, right? Yet when their score doesn't match yours they are clearly inept/corrupt/wrong?

You and all three judges agreed on the 1st round. Obviously they were doing a good job in the 1st. But then two disagree with you about the 2nd round, they are clearly inept/corrupt/wrong, right? But the other judge must be right because he saw it like you. Now in the 3rd round, the judge that scored the first two like you, has scored it oppposite to you. He must now be inept/corrupt/wrong, right?

And so it goes...

No I gave Pac the rounds he deserved and Marquez the rounds he deserved. It isn't only me on the planet who is seeing a Marquez win, it is most of the people who make their voices heard on the internet. See we can erase my viewpoints entirely and still the vast majority of folks saw a Marquez win. It doesn't need my viewpoint to validate it in any way. But the numbers of people all seemingly seeing the same man win most definitely counts for something.

Pac himself showed that he lost by his immediate reaction, that was a man that knew he had throw it away.

I understand the majority on internet forums have Marquez the winner. That still doesn't mean robbery though.

You gave Pac and Marquez the rounds they "deserved?" Therein lies the problem. All the other people that scored it did the same, no? They gave each man the rounds they "deserved?" Unfortunately there was mass disagreement on the exact rounds they "deserved"

Which means, it's highly probable that Pac won just by the nature of the fight. Which means NO robbery, irrelevant of whom we personally think won.

I have said this before but boxing is not an exact science. It is very rare that 3 judges ever agree on each of the rounds in a fight and that is the disparity between 3 so called 'experts' and suddenly we are to say that because 5 posters here are not perfectly correlated that this somehow signifies that the fight is not a robbery? It is a flawed statistical logic. You are bound to get an even great disparity between 5 posters rather than 3 judges, but unlike those judges each of those posters had something in common. Marquez was the winner! So something seriously went wrong with the judges if not only are they massively disagreeing on who won the rounds, but also ALL fail to have Marquez as the winner. The judges were an abortion which totally fail to correlate in ANY way with popular opinion.

What it suggests is that the posters were true to what they saw and that the judges were completely corrupt. There is no way to see it otherwise. We all saw Marquez winning the fight fairly convincingly and yet one judge gave Pac 8 rounds and no judge gave Marquez the fight. Now show me any poll that shows Marquez receiving less than even a third of the votes which is what the overall cards even refused to give us. I bet even the Pac sites would be more honest that the judges were.

It was a shocking display of officiating and it is difficult to see it any other way. I struggle to see how Marquez wasn't robbed.

OK miles... anyone that agrees with you is right anyone that doesn't is wrong. Just as I said.

I might as well just write blah, blah, blah...

No, I have no issues with accepting when my views might out of synch which at times they have been. I was definitely slanted on JMM against Barrera, but mainly because I think that KD should have been scored. But in this instance I didn't see neck and neck rounds like I saw with Barrera/Marquez where rounds were being determined by a couple of jabs here and there. Marquez certainly through rounds 2 and onwards here was sweeping the fight with his lead right and flashy combinations. It was only Pac's urgency as the rounds were running out that brought him even some way back.

I can argue my point of view all night long, but like I said before we can just subtract my own views and still Marquez is the popular winner of the fight and many amongst them would likely argue the case for a robbery.

A close fight is one where views are evenly split, views are not evenly split on this fight. And a cross reference of 5 random posters is not a valid means of statistical evaluation. You need to input the data of far more scorecards than that and actually breakdown as a percentage how many people are giving which fighter each rounds. However, just saying that 'some of these guys 5 guys disagree on which rounds to give him means it wasn't a robbery' is an extremely inconclusive way to evaluate things and especially so when the OP hadn't even seen the fight.

It was a bizarre OP and really makes no sense whatsoever.

Makes perfect sense to me. Don't know why you're hung-up on the five scorecards he chose. Pick another five different scorecards. I'm pretty certain they'll highlight the exact same point - that MOST rounds could have been scored either way, which quite simply means it was a close fight. Which quite simply means it's not absurd to find Pacquiao the winner.

Simple as.

[Beanz]

Finally got the fight. Ive seen the first 3 rounds and definately PAC won 1 and 3. and good claim at round 2 as well.


Pugilistic

since no one among the 5 of you gave round 3 to PAC are you willing to debate with me that Pacquiao won round 3? lets make a thread about it.

I am watching ROUND 3 right now for the 2nd time and IMO it is a CLEAR ROUND for Pacquiao.

Surely you are jesting. You had the temerity to post a thread flying in the face of majority opinion,common sense,and public indignation from a position of extreme ignorance having not even watched the fight? !!! like Bilbo who watched it on a mobile and then cherry picked so called boxing experts based on them supporting his very weak argument.You have no right to air any opinion if all you are basing it on is other peoples posts. Really you are clutching at straws. It seems you, Fenster and Bilbo think that agreeing with the majority will undermine some mythical kudos and so to underline your specialness you have to disagree with reality.
Re: Not a ROBBERY Please look

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.

you are correct JMM clearly won. Nobody gave Pacquiao 9 rounds. NOBODY. ZILCH. ZERO. tHe most given to him by the super 5 was 5 three gave him 4 rounds and one only 2.
So i may be a little rusty on maths but to get an average using your logic 5 posts over 12 rounds equals 60 rounds. the 5 posts gave Pacquiao a total of 20 rounds. thats 20 out of 60 one third. one third of 12 rounds is 4. 4 rounds not 9.There is never in any scenario 9 potential rounds for Pacquiao only 4 at most. The problem is your logic is not simple it requires the universe to be turned on it's head. Being given a win in such a manner is not only bad for boxing it is bad for Manny. It tarnishes his career it puts into question other results so even Pac fanboys should be and are disappointed. I was not rooting for any particular fighter like many i called it as i saw it. So before you start accusing people of bias maybe you should look in the mirror. Robbery.FACT, FACT nailed on, indisputable,Mutha**ckin FACT

[Gandalf]

A judge is someone that is paid to evaluate the fight arbitrarily and to a degree I think people watching the fight do the same. You are supporting a fighter, but you know who won a round or not. A judge shouldn't be clouded by any of that, but it seems almost as though they have attempted to give Manny absolutely everything and did so. That is not how you evaluate a fight. And I am sick of hearing this 'but you have to take it from the champ' nonsense. Again, a fight is scored round by round. You don't give a close round to someone because you think he is champ. You sit back for 30 seconds and run it all back through your mind. Who was the better fighter for those 3 minutes? And then you check your box.

Even though boxing scoring is not an exact science, you expect the quality to shine through in the score cards to some degree but the cards really made little sense. I knew on hearing the first card it would be stolen and I was right. The last card was just a kick at anyone who sees sense. And on seeing the cards later you just think 'WTF?'

A total nonsense.

[Fenster]

Greenbeanz, I haven't even said who I thought won. So for the record - I think Marquez won. That makes him 3-0 over Pac in my book.

However, not ONE single fight was a ROBBERY and I scored the 2nd fight widest of all. Fact.

[Gandalf]

Well, how come the vast majority of all fans had Marquez winning then. You cannot evaluate a fight not being a robbery on the basis of 5 forum posters alone. I'm sure if you did a statistical analysis of all the cards posted online of this fight that you would have Marquez winning the vast majority of them. Marquez in the eyes of most was the undeniable winner. Anyone giving Manny 8 rounds is INSANE. Anyone giving Manny the majority of rounds is mildly demented and anyone having it a draw is a serious Manny fanboy at best.

It most definitely was a robbery and the polls showing Marquez as victor suggest as much. If the poll is neck and neck you have a case for it being a close fight, but when someone is polling so much more then it has to be a robbery. The tiny minority are suggesting a draw or Pac win.

Nah.. all the best boxing writers/journos had it close either way. No robbery.

The point about the judges cards compared to your own is this - when they score the round the same as you they are correct, right? Yet when their score doesn't match yours they are clearly inept/corrupt/wrong?

You and all three judges agreed on the 1st round. Obviously they were doing a good job in the 1st. But then two disagree with you about the 2nd round, they are clearly inept/corrupt/wrong, right? But the other judge must be right because he saw it like you. Now in the 3rd round, the judge that scored the first two like you, has scored it oppposite to you. He must now be inept/corrupt/wrong, right?

And so it goes...

No I gave Pac the rounds he deserved and Marquez the rounds he deserved. It isn't only me on the planet who is seeing a Marquez win, it is most of the people who make their voices heard on the internet. See we can erase my viewpoints entirely and still the vast majority of folks saw a Marquez win. It doesn't need my viewpoint to validate it in any way. But the numbers of people all seemingly seeing the same man win most definitely counts for something.

Pac himself showed that he lost by his immediate reaction, that was a man that knew he had throw it away.

I understand the majority on internet forums have Marquez the winner. That still doesn't mean robbery though.

You gave Pac and Marquez the rounds they "deserved?" Therein lies the problem. All the other people that scored it did the same, no? They gave each man the rounds they "deserved?" Unfortunately there was mass disagreement on the exact rounds they "deserved"

Which means, it's highly probable that Pac won just by the nature of the fight. Which means NO robbery, irrelevant of whom we personally think won.

I have said this before but boxing is not an exact science. It is very rare that 3 judges ever agree on each of the rounds in a fight and that is the disparity between 3 so called 'experts' and suddenly we are to say that because 5 posters here are not perfectly correlated that this somehow signifies that the fight is not a robbery? It is a flawed statistical logic. You are bound to get an even great disparity between 5 posters rather than 3 judges, but unlike those judges each of those posters had something in common. Marquez was the winner! So something seriously went wrong with the judges if not only are they massively disagreeing on who won the rounds, but also ALL fail to have Marquez as the winner. The judges were an abortion which totally fail to correlate in ANY way with popular opinion.

What it suggests is that the posters were true to what they saw and that the judges were completely corrupt. There is no way to see it otherwise. We all saw Marquez winning the fight fairly convincingly and yet one judge gave Pac 8 rounds and no judge gave Marquez the fight. Now show me any poll that shows Marquez receiving less than even a third of the votes which is what the overall cards even refused to give us. I bet even the Pac sites would be more honest that the judges were.

It was a shocking display of officiating and it is difficult to see it any other way. I struggle to see how Marquez wasn't robbed.

OK miles... anyone that agrees with you is right anyone that doesn't is wrong. Just as I said.

I might as well just write blah, blah, blah...

No, I have no issues with accepting when my views might out of synch which at times they have been. I was definitely slanted on JMM against Barrera, but mainly because I think that KD should have been scored. But in this instance I didn't see neck and neck rounds like I saw with Barrera/Marquez where rounds were being determined by a couple of jabs here and there. Marquez certainly through rounds 2 and onwards here was sweeping the fight with his lead right and flashy combinations. It was only Pac's urgency as the rounds were running out that brought him even some way back.

I can argue my point of view all night long, but like I said before we can just subtract my own views and still Marquez is the popular winner of the fight and many amongst them would likely argue the case for a robbery.

A close fight is one where views are evenly split, views are not evenly split on this fight. And a cross reference of 5 random posters is not a valid means of statistical evaluation. You need to input the data of far more scorecards than that and actually breakdown as a percentage how many people are giving which fighter each rounds. However, just saying that 'some of these guys 5 guys disagree on which rounds to give him means it wasn't a robbery' is an extremely inconclusive way to evaluate things and especially so when the OP hadn't even seen the fight.

It was a bizarre OP and really makes no sense whatsoever.

Makes perfect sense to me. Don't know why you're hung-up on the five scorecards he chose. Pick another five different scorecards. I'm pretty certain they'll highlight the exact same point - that MOST rounds could have been scored either way, which quite simply means it was a close fight. Which quite simply means it's not absurd to find Pacquiao the winner.

Simple as.

Boxing scoring is not an exact science. It is inevitable that people scoring a fight will see things differently. But for people (judges) to see an entirely different 'result' than the entire boxing public means that something is amiss. The majority of us had the same winner. Now do the stats on a round by round basis for a higher number of random cards and you can be assured that you will begin to see a level of distinct correlation....a certain Marquez as winner and a pattern of rounds which Marquez is also deemed to have been the favoured victor. Maybe not everyone will agree, but the winner of most of the rounds will likely be Marquez even with some level of disparity over which particular rounds they are. I would also predict there to be distinct pattern in the rounds that Pac is deemed to have won as he no doubt won rounds of his own. It is unlikely that it would have made it a particularly close fight though considering how the overwhelming viewpoint is that Marquez won.

Statistically the five have Marquez the overwhelming winner and statistically you would assume the general public to have Marquez the winner too. So I don't how any of these arguments suggest that Marquez wasn't robbed. It has little to support it. The rounds that Marquez won looked convincing and I am sure statistical analysis of how others score it would back me up.

[Gandalf]

Greenbeanz, I haven't even said who I thought won. So for the record - I think Marquez won. That makes him 3-0 over Pac in my book.

However, not ONE single fight was a ROBBERY and I scored the 2nd fight widest of all. Fact.

Fenster, I would like to see how you scored the fight.

[Fenster]

A judge is someone that is paid to evaluate the fight arbitrarily and to a degree I think people watching the fight do the same. You are supporting a fighter, but you know who won a round or not. A judge shouldn't be clouded by any of that, but it seems almost as though they have attempted to give Manny absolutely everything and did so. That is not how you evaluate a fight. And I am sick of hearing this 'but you have to take it from the champ' nonsense. Again, a fight is scored round by round. You don't give a close round to someone because you think he is champ. You sit back for 30 seconds and run it all back through your mind. Who was the better fighter for those 3 minutes? And then you check your box.

Even though boxing scoring is not an exact science, you expect the quality to shine through in the score cards to some degree but the cards really made little sense. I knew on hearing the first card it would be stolen and I was right. The last card was just a kick at anyone who sees sense. And on seeing the cards later you just think 'WTF?'

A total nonsense.

The exact same can be levelled at you, or anyone that supports any fighter for that matter.

You wanted Marquez to win. You scored a lot of close rounds for Marquez. How can we trust your judgement wasn't influenced by your support for Marquez? Your scorecard is clealry unreliable.

The cards made little sense because of the closeness of the rounds.

[Fenster]

Greenbeanz, I haven't even said who I thought won. So for the record - I think Marquez won. That makes him 3-0 over Pac in my book.

However, not ONE single fight was a ROBBERY and I scored the 2nd fight widest of all. Fact.

Fenster, I would like to see how you scored the fight.

I don't ever write down rd-by-rds (unless I specifically rewatch a fight for something). I just ENJOY the contest.

I thought it could have gone either way with Marquez edging it. Numbers are utterly irrelevant for someone coming from my rational position. Who won means nothing to me. Reverse the decision and I will argue the EXACT same thing. NO robbery.

[Gandalf]

A judge is someone that is paid to evaluate the fight arbitrarily and to a degree I think people watching the fight do the same. You are supporting a fighter, but you know who won a round or not. A judge shouldn't be clouded by any of that, but it seems almost as though they have attempted to give Manny absolutely everything and did so. That is not how you evaluate a fight. And I am sick of hearing this 'but you have to take it from the champ' nonsense. Again, a fight is scored round by round. You don't give a close round to someone because you think he is champ. You sit back for 30 seconds and run it all back through your mind. Who was the better fighter for those 3 minutes? And then you check your box.

Even though boxing scoring is not an exact science, you expect the quality to shine through in the score cards to some degree but the cards really made little sense. I knew on hearing the first card it would be stolen and I was right. The last card was just a kick at anyone who sees sense. And on seeing the cards later you just think 'WTF?'

A total nonsense.

The exact same can be levelled at you, or anyone that supports any fighter for that matter.

You wanted Marquez to win. You scored a lot of close rounds for Marquez. How can we trust your judgement wasn't influenced by your support for Marquez? Your scorecard is clealry unreliable.

The cards made little sense because of the closeness of the rounds.

I gave the rounds that I believed were closest to Manny because I felt that I had to be as impartial as best I could. If I was being mean I would have had it 10-2, 8-4 was a display of impartiality on my part.

Some of the rounds were close for sure, but the clear Marquez ones seemed to outweigh them and that seems to be what others were seeing too. I keep on arguing the point that we can just discount my own views and the consensus still exists. My own possibly 'unreliable' card is only one in a great ocean of the buggers.

And in response to your last post Fenster, I watched the fight first time out for the event too. And I loved it and had no doubt that Marquez won. I only scored it properly on watching it again.

I don't see how Manny won. He was fighting at the pace of Marquez and practically gifted him numerous rounds. None of the so called improvements were there and Marquez fought like he knew that.

[generalbulldog]

Miles you are anything but impartial when evaluating fighters you don't like. I remember the Amir Khan-Marcos Maidana fight where you screamed bloody robbery that Khan got the win. And we all know how much you like Khan?

The same applies here with Pacquiao.

[Gandalf]

Miles you are anything but impartial when evaluating fighters you don't like. I remember the Amir Khan-Marcos Maidana fight where you screamed bloody robbery that Khan got the win. And we all know how much you like Khan?

The same applies here with Pacquiao.

I screamed bloody robbery that Khan had got the win? Only on re watching surely. I think I have deflated your argument.

[Gandalf]

Less flippantly though, I know when a fighter wins a fight. I will give Khan the Maidana fight which was a close fight in the end, but Khan did do enough AND had a KD. This fight had none of that, nobody was hurt and I was able to just sit back and enjoy it. There was no fighter eating up rounds with activity and hitting gloves. Manny seemed half asleep and that makes it so much easier to give rounds to Marquez who really was so much sharper.

Totally different fights really.

[generalbulldog]

Miles you are anything but impartial when evaluating fighters you don't like. I remember the Amir Khan-Marcos Maidana fight where you screamed bloody robbery that Khan got the win. And we all know how much you like Khan?

The same applies here with Pacquiao.

I screamed bloody robbery that Khan had got the win? Only on re watching surely. I think I have deflated your argument.

Actually no. This proves my statement. Miles, you screamed robbery at the fighter you disliked that wins a close decision. Well to be fair, a lot of boxing fans do that also. But come on, to present yourself as some fair and impartial guy.