Not a ROBBERY Please look :D

[Andre]

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.

Fair enough.

There's still no explaining Trougridges 'professional' scoring,that made Juan need a ko after the tenth.

That type of scoring is for a Pac MArgaretto kind of fight not one this close and that is a fight that proves Manny wasnt connecting hard in this last fight.

Look at the visual comparison and you know Manny was getting scored for sparring non contact.

[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.

Fair enough.

There's still no explaining Trougridges 'professional' scoring,that made Juan need a ko after the tenth.

That type of scoring is for a Pac MArgaretto kind of fight not one this close and that is a fight that proves Manny wasnt connecting hard in this last fight.

Look at the visual comparison and you know Manny was getting scored for sparring non contact.

I'm not sure what's wrong with Trowbridge's scorecard?

He gave Marquez rounds 4, 5, 7 and 12. Cutmemick and Elterrible gave Pac round 4, CutMemick gave Pac round 5, Miles gave Pac round 7 and CutMemick and Elterrible gave Pac round 12.

Theoretically, if Trowbridge had seen those rounds the same way these particular forum members did, then Pac wins 120-108.

This is hilarious.

[LobowolfXXX]

So, you're saying if one judge has a fight 120-108, and another judge has the same fight 120-108 the other way, that's perfectly reasonable as long as there's at least one person who agrees with each judge on each of the 12 rounds? You're right...it's hilarious!

[Beanz]

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 you respect only two people and everyone else is biased. Well you yourself sir are always accusing Brit/Hatton fans as being unable to be rational and impartial and i for one take that as a slur and an insult. How very dare you. You sit there with your impregnable air of detached superiority looking down on us mere mortals for becoming emotionally involved in a bout of fisticuffs, and then presume to deduct the allegiances of every person, pre fight from our post fight comments. Seriously though don't turn a desperate, badly made argument, from an ill informed massively biased poster into some excuse to settle personal scores with miles and disrespect every other person posting on this thread, by assuming we all didn't like pac to begin with.

[Beanz]

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.

The FACT is loads of people did NOT give Pacquiao a draw. That means he did lose. So how can it not be a robbery?Insanity

[Beanz]

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.

Fair enough.

There's still no explaining Trougridges 'professional' scoring,that made Juan need a ko after the tenth.

That type of scoring is for a Pac MArgaretto kind of fight not one this close and that is a fight that proves Manny wasnt connecting hard in this last fight.

Look at the visual comparison and you know Manny was getting scored for sparring non contact.

I'm not sure what's wrong with Trowbridge's scorecard?

He gave Marquez rounds 4, 5, 7 and 12. Cutmemick and Elterrible gave Pac round 4, CutMemick gave Pac round 5, Miles gave Pac round 7 and CutMemick and Elterrible gave Pac round 12.

Theoretically, if Trowbridge had seen those rounds the same way these particular forum members did, then Pac wins 120-108.

This is hilarious.

Theoretically......IF......The FACT is Trowbridge's scoring was ridiculous enough as it is. Using the scorecards of those who had Marquez winning to increase the winning margin on an already lunatic scorecard in favour of Pacquiao is nonsensical. It ain't Hilarious.

[Beanz]

I give up

[Fenster]

It's hilarious to me.

LobowolfXXX - list some universally recognised "robberies?" I'd be surprised if any genuine "robberies" have such disagreement on the winner of the rounds.

For example - Lewis-Holyfield 1 round 5. Now EVERYONE saw Lewis totally dominate this round, it was borderline a 10-8 round, yet Eugenia Williams scored it for Holyfield.

Now that's what you call corruption/inept/wrong. She went against the opinion of MILLLIONS!!! Which needed an explanation.

Pac-Marquez 3 doesn't have any rounds like this.

[Gandalf]

Clearly it does have obvious rounds, as there appears to be an obvious pattern if you are willing to go beyond the opinions of just the 5 Saddo's posters. There is a general pattern of the rounds people are giving to Manny and to Marquez.

All suggesting that Marquez was a relatively clear winner and thus making the fight a robbery.

[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.

[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.

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.

Being aggressive and "effectively" aggressive are two different things. Pacquiao had his moments but for the most part, Marquez was the more effective aggressor.

I can agree with Pacquiao throwing more but landing more ? please.

Compubox is lame before you try and give that as evidence on a Pacquiao win.

Two guys counting missed and landed punches doesn't sound like it can be very accurate to me.

[:::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.

Being aggressive and "effectively" aggressive are two different things. Pacquiao had his moments but for the most part, Marquez was the more effective aggressor.

I can agree with Pacquiao throwing more but landing more ? please.

Compubox is lame before you try and give that as evidence on a Pacquiao win.

Two guys counting missed and landed punches doesn't sound like it can be very accurate to me.

Did you have the best seat when you watch the fight? Well, those two guys did.

These guys too...



I'm talking about the judges ofcourse.