Not a ROBBERY Please look :D

[armyash]

you chose 5 of us who scored a win for JMM - There's a huge clue there!!

[Gandalf]

you chose 5 of us who scored a win for JMM - There's a huge clue there!!

It's like The DaVinci Code isn't it?

Exclude all the haters to get the right score and thus get the key to move onto the next level.

[LobowolfXXX]

There are sort of 2 different discussions going on...what constitutes a robbery, and whether this fight was one. I think by the standard of the original post, there may never have been a robbery. For just about any decision that anyone ever lost, I could probably find a few people who scored many particular rounds the other way. If a million people gave Marquez a round, and ten people didn't - even 10 unbiased people - does that mean it's not a robbery? Does a robbery have to mean a one-sided fight? What if it's 105-105 on all cards after 11, and 99.999% of viewers and experts think the same guy won the 12th, and he loses the decision? Did he not get robbed, because it was a close fight? Or because that .001% agreed with their cards? It sounds to me like yeah, there's a disagreement about whether JMM was robbed, but there's also a disagreement about what constitute a robbery in the first place.

But if the standard is literally that nobody at all disputes that he clearly won a majority of the rounds, then I submit that nobody has ever been robbed in boxing history.

[Prosinecki]

There are sort of 2 different discussions going on...what constitutes a robbery, and whether this fight was one. I think by the standard of the original post, there may never have been a robbery. For just about any decision that anyone ever lost, I could probably find a few people who scored many particular rounds the other way. If a million people gave Marquez a round, and ten people didn't - even 10 unbiased people - does that mean it's not a robbery? Does a robbery have to mean a one-sided fight? What if it's 105-105 on all cards after 11, and 99.999% of viewers and experts think the same guy won the 12th, and he loses the decision? Did he not get robbed, because it was a close fight? Or because that .001% agreed with their cards? It sounds to me like yeah, there's a disagreement about whether JMM was robbed, but there's also a disagreement about what constitute a robbery in the first place.

But if the standard is literally that nobody at all disputes that he clearly won a majority of the rounds, then I submit that nobody has ever been robbed in boxing history.

Spot on.

If only the word 'robbery' could be erased from the dictionary, then people could let go of this irrelevant argument and simply debate whether Marquez deserved the victory and whether the judges (particularly Glenn Trowbridge) displayed obvious bias towards Arum's cash cow.

Interesting quote from Nazim Richardson: "when they were starting to read the scores it didn't surprise me, because Mayweather is the only person in there allowed to beat Pacquiao by decision right about now"

It's as clear as day. That's why many people (including Pacquiao fans like myself) are up in arms over the fiasco. It's yet another example of money dictating the sport. And it's a great shame that a legend and a warrior like JMM, who has given so much to the sport, is the one who has been screwed out of his career defining moment.

[Fenster]

There are sort of 2 different discussions going on...what constitutes a robbery, and whether this fight was one. I think by the standard of the original post, there may never have been a robbery. For just about any decision that anyone ever lost, I could probably find a few people who scored many particular rounds the other way. If a million people gave Marquez a round, and ten people didn't - even 10 unbiased people - does that mean it's not a robbery? Does a robbery have to mean a one-sided fight? What if it's 105-105 on all cards after 11, and 99.999% of viewers and experts think the same guy won the 12th, and he loses the decision? Did he not get robbed, because it was a close fight? Or because that .001% agreed with their cards? It sounds to me like yeah, there's a disagreement about whether JMM was robbed, but there's also a disagreement about what constitute a robbery in the first place.

But if the standard is literally that nobody at all disputes that he clearly won a majority of the rounds, then I submit that nobody has ever been robbed in boxing history.

Spot on.

If only the word 'robbery' could be erased from the dictionary, then people could let go of this irrelevant argument and simply debate whether Marquez deserved the victory and whether the judges (particularly Glenn Trowbridge) displayed obvious bias towards Arum's cash cow.

Interesting quote from Nazim Richardson: "when they were starting to read the scores it didn't surprise me, because Mayweather is the only person in there allowed to beat Pacquiao by decision right about now"

It's as clear as day. That's why many people (including Pacquiao fans like myself) are up in arms over the fiasco. It's yet another example of money dictating the sport. And it's a great shame that a legend and a warrior like JMM, who has given so much to the sport, is the one who has been screwed out of his career defining moment.

People cry "robbery" every single week. Almost EVERY time it's a close fight open to interpretaion. That's what this fight comes under.

Nazim Richardson's conspiracy theory is utterly irrelevant. When was the last time anyone had Pacquiao close on the scorecards? Pacquiao was expected to win, because he didn't do it clear-cut he deserved to lose. It's a sure sign of corruption. That's basically what we have here.

Too many good judges scored the fight close for it to ever be a robbery.

Money has ALWAYS dictated the sport business and always will.

[armyash]

yes it was a close fight but it was clearly a victory for Marquez. That is possible, for it to be close but still be clear who the winner was. And in my eyes even if it was by 1 round, Marquez still clearly won it. So that makes it a robbery.

[Fenster]

yes it was a close fight but it was clearly a victory for Marquez. That is possible, for it to be close but still be clear who the winner was. And in my eyes even if it was by 1 round, Marquez still clearly won it. So that makes it a robbery.

I don't agree with that. If it's close it means it can go either way.

If someone sees ONE round different there is a different result.

You're basically claiming your scorecard is 100% bombproof correct. Indisputable.

Even if loads of people "only" gave Pacquiao a draw that means he didn't LOSE. So how can it possibly be a robbery? Madness.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

yes it was a close fight but it was clearly a victory for Marquez. That is possible, for it to be close but still be clear who the winner was. And in my eyes even if it was by 1 round, Marquez still clearly won it. So that makes it a robbery.

Wow, this is confusing. For something that miles claim to be NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE, how can a CLOSE fight show a CLEAR winner?

[Prosinecki]

People cry "robbery" every single week. Almost EVERY time it's a close fight open to interpretaion. That's what this fight comes under.

Nazim Richardson's conspiracy theory is utterly irrelevant. When was the last time anyone had Pacquiao close on the scorecards? Pacquiao was expected to win, because he didn't do it clear-cut he deserved to lose. It's a sure sign of corruption. That's basically what we have here.

Too many good judges scored the fight close for it to ever be a robbery.

Money has ALWAYS dictated the sport business and always will.

I wouldn't necessarily call this fight close, as I had Marquez winning comfortably, but I'd certainly call it competitive. I just find it amazing how every competitive fight is awarded to the home/money fighter.

I agree with what you're saying, and although I believe (along with the VAST majority) that Marquez won this fight, perhaps it was too close/competitve to call a robbery. Perhaps it would be possible for a judge to score 116-112 in Pacquiao's favour without going into the fight with the predetermined intention of scoring him the winner. But somehow I doubt it. Just like I doubt two judges truly believed Sturm beat Macklin 116-112 back in the summer, coincidentally in Sturm's backyard. I won't bother citing the countless other examples.

And I'm not sure what Pacquiao's recent one-sided fights have to do with this one... I'm sure most of Nazim Richardson, Marvin Hagler, Steve Collins, Bernard Hopkins, Oscar de la Hoya, Andre Dirrell, Anthony Dirrell, Andre Ward, Matthew Macklin, Steve Cunningham, Zab Judah, Terry Norris, Andre Berto, Omar Henry, Chris Arreola, Rashad Holloway, Fernando Vargas, Juan Diaz, Erik Morales, Anthony Mundine and Jean Pascal, along with myself and countless other fans, are able to judge this one fight on its own merits. I expected a competitive fight in Pac's favour. I had money on a Pacquiao UD.

As for your last comment - it is indeed a sad truth. But that doesn't make it any less sickening. There's also a huge difference between money dictating what fights are made, and money dictating the actual winner. This isn't Nazim Richardson's conspiracy theory, at this point it's evident even to Stevie Wonder. Fans of boxing shouldn't just accept it. The day I quit moaning about it will be either the day boxing sorts itself out, or the day I quit watching completely.

[miron_lang]

you chose 5 of us who scored a win for JMM - There's a huge clue there!!

Those are the only 5 that has a round by round score. Look at that thread and review it.

Look at the time stamps.

There's no hidden agenda here. These are simple facts that everybody must consider and not let their emotions rule them.

[miron_lang]

Pugiistic

Pacquiao won fight two if you use compubox round by round. you're looking at the whole fight again.


JMM outlanded PAC by a big margin in one round thats why JMM has more in total. but if you score it round by round Pac wins it again. you trust me or you tally the stats

[Pugilistic]

Pugiistic

Pacquiao won fight two if you use compubox round by round. you're looking at the whole fight again.


JMM outlanded PAC by a big margin in one round thats why JMM has more in total. but if you score it round by round Pac wins it again. you trust me or you tally the stats

You don't get it.

I hate compubox and think it is poop.

I wasn't using it as evidence for Marquez winning. I was using against him because he seems to think it is reliable and uses it as a reason as to why Pacquiao won this third fight which is dog shit.

If it's so good maybe they should just show the judges the numbers at the end of each round and make it easy for them.

Compubox is not an accurate way to score a fight. it fails to take in account other things that are happening in the ring like ring generalship, defense, etc and two guys scoring missed and landed punches for the same angle all fight doesn't seem like it can be very accurate to me.

[miron_lang]

Pugilistic

You have your preference in scoring a fight. and because there's concensus on who won what rounds its open to interpretation.


You like beautiful head snapping combos but guys like Ledderaman like's Agression and the harder shots.

JMM WON 2 ROUNDS WITHOUT A DOUBT.

[Pugilistic]

Pugilistic

You have your preference in scoring a fight. and because there's concensus on who won what rounds its open to interpretation.


You like beautiful head snapping combos but guys like Ledderaman like's Agression and the harder shots.

JMM WON 2 ROUNDS WITHOUT A DOUBT.

Marquez's shots were the harder cleaner shots.

Don't get me started on Lederman. He gives fighters rounds just for moving forward.

Not saying Pacquiao did that but he is so biased in favor of the aggressor even if his aggression isn't effective.

He scored Williams - Quintana 1 in favor of Williams. That shows you how bad he can be at scoring sometimes.

[miron_lang]

Marquez's shots were the harder cleaner shots.

Don't get me started on Lederman. He gives fighters rounds just for moving forward.

Not saying Pacquiao did that but he is so biased in favor of the aggressor even if his aggression isn't effective.

He scored Williams - Quintana 1 in favor of Williams. That shows you how bad he can be at scoring sometimes.

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.