Not a ROBBERY Please look :D

[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.

[Gandalf]

Saying that the judges scored the fight for Manny therefore Manny clearly won is extremely blinkered. You cannot argue against popular opinion which is that Marquez won. It doesn't matter that the judges had decent seats as they don't appear to have watching the fight.

[miron_lang]

Saying that the judges scored the fight for Manny therefore Manny clearly won is extremely blinkered. You cannot argue against popular opinion which is that Marquez won. It doesn't matter that the judges had decent seats as they don't appear to have watching the fight.

Yeah I agree.


MOST people score it for Juan Manuel Marquez. I dont have a problem with 116-112 SCORECARD for JMM.


But official judges who score it differently compared to normal fans like you and me.

You can CRY ROBBERY if you have at least 7 rounds that you think MARQUEZ WON Without any DOUBT.

He won ROUNDS 5 and 7 CLEARLY IMO.

[LobowolfXXX]

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.

A TV viewer of a multi-camera shoot is much better placed to score a fight than someone in a fixed position at ringside. At ringside, you see many punches thrown without knowing whether they landed or not; consequently, the effectiveness of the busier fighter gets overrated. See also: Williams-Lara.

[ruthless rocco]

the williams - lara fight was a robbery!

[shza]

the williams - lara fight was a robbery!

True. Which is why it's so obnoxious when people scream "robbery" about Pac/Marquez or any other close fight. It takes away from the egregiousness of fights like Williams/Lara that actually were robberies.

[:::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.

A TV viewer of a multi-camera shoot is much better placed to score a fight than someone in a fixed position at ringside. At ringside, you see many punches thrown without knowing whether they landed or not; consequently, the effectiveness of the busier fighter gets overrated. See also: Williams-Lara.

If what you're saying is true, then we don't really need those judges sitting there in front of the ring don't we? They can just judge the fight at the comfort of their home, sipping margarita or something. The thing though is they'd still be missing 2 major horizontal angles just by watching it on TV.

Try again bud.

Try again...

[Andre]

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.

A TV viewer of a multi-camera shoot is much better placed to score a fight than someone in a fixed position at ringside. At ringside, you see many punches thrown without knowing whether they landed or not; consequently, the effectiveness of the busier fighter gets overrated. See also: Williams-Lara.

If what you're saying is true, then we don't really need those judges sitting there in front of the ring don't we? They can just judge the fight at the comfort of their home, sipping margarita or something. The thing though is they'd still be missing 2 major horizontal angles just by watching it on TV.

Try again bud.

Try again...

What they do need is a screen to look into on their bench when the ref or the other fighter gets in the way of their view. ( that happens allot in a fight.)

Many other sports in the world are going the way of instant replays to denote if somethings out of play so thats a obvious installation to make boxing more fair.

Why not have that when someone whole career could be on the line?
It doesnt stop the fight, it just makes the judges job a fair one cause they can see clearly the whole time.

[miron_lang]

What they do need is a screen to look into on their bench when the ref or the other fighter gets in the way of their view. ( that happens allot in a fight.)

Many other sports in the world are going the way of instant replays to denote if somethings out of play so thats a obvious installation to make boxing more fair.

Why not have that when someone whole career could be on the line?
It doesnt stop the fight, it just makes the judges job a fair one cause they can see clearly the whole time.

JMM have a less chance on winning in a replay. review the rounds mate, Pac's combinations are so fast you might miss a whole lot.


add the equation that everybody expects him to roll over JMM enhanced the image of how Juan was winning the fight where its was totally dead even in most rounds. with Pacquiao landing more and Juan landing the eye catching shots.


NO objection in JMM pts win BUT a Pac pts win is equally fair.

[erics44]

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.

A TV viewer of a multi-camera shoot is much better placed to score a fight than someone in a fixed position at ringside. At ringside, you see many punches thrown without knowing whether they landed or not; consequently, the effectiveness of the busier fighter gets overrated. See also: Williams-Lara.

the judging there is pretty consistant

i still havent seen the fight

[ninjaspy3]

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.

A TV viewer of a multi-camera shoot is much better placed to score a fight than someone in a fixed position at ringside. At ringside, you see many punches thrown without knowing whether they landed or not; consequently, the effectiveness of the busier fighter gets overrated. See also: Williams-Lara.

the judging there is pretty consistant

i still havent seen the fight

Eric... please, please.. watch the fight already.

[Beanz]

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.

A TV viewer of a multi-camera shoot is much better placed to score a fight than someone in a fixed position at ringside. At ringside, you see many punches thrown without knowing whether they landed or not; consequently, the effectiveness of the busier fighter gets overrated. See also: Williams-Lara.

the judging there is pretty consistant

i still havent seen the fight

Maybe you should refrain from commenting until you have. Then again why not Start a thread claiming that through bizarre analysis of 5 scorecards that have JMM winning, you have proof it wasn't a robbery even though you have not seen the fight. Oh someone did that already.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

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.

A TV viewer of a multi-camera shoot is much better placed to score a fight than someone in a fixed position at ringside. At ringside, you see many punches thrown without knowing whether they landed or not; consequently, the effectiveness of the busier fighter gets overrated. See also: Williams-Lara.

But boxing fights are scored by judges sitting in a fixed position, right?

[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.

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.

Well if you think compubox is reliable then i guess Marquez was the rightful winner of their 2nd fight.

Juan Manuel Marquez vs. Manny Pacquiao (2nd meeting) - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia

And the first fight.

Juan Manuel Marquez vs. Manny Pacquiao (1st meeting) - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia

Based on the super "reliable" compubox numbers.