Not a ROBBERY Please look :D

[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.

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.

No, once again you are being silly.

I have said all along that we can readily erase my own viewpoint if need be and evaluate only the viewpoints of others.

I am not the judge and jury, I am more than happy to allow my scorecard to fall by the wayside. However, it seems that others will only take its place.

[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.

No, once again you are being silly.

I have said all along that we can readily erase my own viewpoint if need be and evaluate only the viewpoints of others.

I am not the judge and jury, I am more than happy to allow my scorecard to fall by the wayside. However, it seems that others will only take its place.

And pray tell, how many were really unbiased? I know someone like Andre really has no vested interest or hate for both fighters and think JMM truly won. I know Youngblood felt JMM also won. That I can respect. But then there are also a lot of people that already didn't like Pac to begin with such as yourself and your fellow Korean countryman like finitodynamita or whatever you spell it. Or people that blasted Pac in the 1st place as a fraud and cherry picker before the fight, all of a sudden are people that are impartial and unbiased when it comes to a close fight between Pac-JMM? Laughable.

BTW, I also have to add there are people that are slanted in both ways, obviously people like PSL and Miron_Lang are going to be biased in favor of Pac but then so is the other side. To really cast the majority of one side as some impartial and fair evaluator is funny. That is all.

[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.

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.

No, once again you are being silly.

I have said all along that we can readily erase my own viewpoint if need be and evaluate only the viewpoints of others.

I am not the judge and jury, I am more than happy to allow my scorecard to fall by the wayside. However, it seems that others will only take its place.

And pray tell, how many were really unbiased? I know someone like Andre really has no vested interest or hate for both fighters and think JMM truly won. I know Youngblood felt JMM also won. That I can respect. But then there are also a lot of people that already didn't like Pac to begin with such as yourself and your fellow Korean countryman like finitodynamita or whatever you spell it. Or people that blasted Pac in the 1st place as a fraud and cherry picker before the fight, all of a sudden are people that are impartial and unbiased when it comes to a close fight between Pac-JMM? Laughable.

BTW, I also have to add there are people that are slanted in both ways, obviously people like PSL and Miron_Lang are going to be biased in favor of Pac but then so is the other side. To really cast the majority of one side as some impartial and fair evaluator is funny. That is all.

So, anyone who has criticized Pac in the past has no right to score the fight? Fair enough, erase my scorecard. But nobody who has scored Marquez winning has done so by NOT WATCHING THE FIGHT TO BEGIN WITH, that is insane. Most of us watched and in its entirety. Not any evaluation on the basic framework of the people who scored it for Marquez.

That is even more outrageous and where this thread started. People can criticise my card, but if YOU take issue with it then call me out on where you take issue. But don't just be a dick and try and provoke without actually giving any verdict of your own.

That is just trolling.

[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.

[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.

No, once again you are being silly.

I have said all along that we can readily erase my own viewpoint if need be and evaluate only the viewpoints of others.

I am not the judge and jury, I am more than happy to allow my scorecard to fall by the wayside. However, it seems that others will only take its place.

And pray tell, how many were really unbiased? I know someone like Andre really has no vested interest or hate for both fighters and think JMM truly won. I know Youngblood felt JMM also won. That I can respect. But then there are also a lot of people that already didn't like Pac to begin with such as yourself and your fellow Korean countryman like finitodynamita or whatever you spell it. Or people that blasted Pac in the 1st place as a fraud and cherry picker before the fight, all of a sudden are people that are impartial and unbiased when it comes to a close fight between Pac-JMM? Laughable.

BTW, I also have to add there are people that are slanted in both ways, obviously people like PSL and Miron_Lang are going to be biased in favor of Pac but then so is the other side. To really cast the majority of one side as some impartial and fair evaluator is funny. That is all.

So, anyone who has criticized Pac in the past has no right to score the fight? Fair enough, erase my scorecard. But nobody who has scored Marquez winning has done so by NOT WATCHING THE FIGHT TO BEGIN WITH, that is insane. Most of us watched and in its entirety. Not any evaluation on the basic framework of the people who scored it for Marquez.

That is even more outrageous and where this thread started. People can criticise my card, but if YOU take issue with it then call me out on where you take issue. But don't just be a dick and try and provoke without actually giving any verdict of your own.

That is just trolling.

Trolling nah. I just call it what it is. I'm a dick? Whatever man. To me it's just sports nothing personal. I'm not that emotionally vested in who wins tbh. Nor do I need to call people names like "dick" because they gave different opinions. And yes I had JMM winning by a round.

[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.

[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.

[:::PSL:::]

Haters (you know who you are). You might wanna huddle up next time, so you can avoid shooting yourselves in the foot.

[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.

[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.

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.

If it's close it does not mean it can go either way. Going in to the 12th round it could be 6-5 to Marquez, very very close. Marquez wins the 12th that makes it a clear win for JMM. Especially if the rounds he won he did so more convincingly than when Pac won his rounds.

I fail to see how it could be made a draw.

I'm not claiming my scorecard is bomb proof (close tho ). I stand by my opinion that it was a close fight but JMM was better overall and his performance, tactics, counter punching and effective shots landed were better than what manny managed to over the 12 rounds.

Of course people will see the fight differently and i will respect the fact that others see the fight different to me but see no way i'll ever agree.