Not a ROBBERY Please look :D

[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.

[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!

[:::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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[:::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.

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.

Lol! Yeah. But let's not forget. Those 3 KDs still counts. Those were the money punches that really hurt JMM on judges scorecards. Technically, it was suppose to be a win by Pac. One judge didn't know it was a 10-6 round. He acknowledged that.

Pac scored KDs both in those fights.

What he should have done last saturday was KO Pac or score 3 KDs to win. But we saw none of that.

[miron_lang]

i watched it again and realizing how hostile people in here i wont say it
I had it the same as one of the judges


any score from 116-112 Pacquiao to 116-112 Marquez is a good SCORING.


There were only about 2 CLEAR ROUNDS for each fighter.


What happened or is happening is


1. Pac supoorter and JMM supporter expected a dominating performance from Pac
2. Each combo or hit by JMM was cheered by at least 70% mexican crowd that clearly influenced the viewers.


I believe that this is a COMPLETE replica of fight 2 where almost ALL ROUNDS could go either way except about 4 rounds TOPS.



This is not a fight for Emotional people to judge

[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.

[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.

Lol! Yeah. But let's not forget. Those 3 KDs still counts. Those were the money punches that really hurt JMM on judges scorecards. Technically, it was suppose to be a win by Pac. One judge didn't know it was a 10-6 round. He acknowledged that.

Pac scored KDs both in those fights.

What he should have done last saturday was KO Pac or score 3 KDs to win. But we saw none of that.

Your right.

Knockdowns do affect the scoring but a knockdown only counts for 1 point.

The first fight had three of them so Marquez was in a big hole very early but the second fight only had one which would of been very easy for Marquez to overcome and based on the "compubox" numbers, Marquez was the better more consistent fighter.

i'm laughing my ass off at your last comment in the bold by the way. What Marquez should of done is either KO pacquiao which hasn't been done in years or at least drop him a few times which again hasn't been done in forever to get a win.

Last time i checked a fighter can beat another fighter by simply winning more rounds than he does which is what Marquez did.

[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.