Not a ROBBERY Please look :D

[miron_lang]

Pugiistic

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


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

[miron_lang]

The notion that there have to be 7 clear rounds for Marquez to make it a robbery is simply mistaken. Your (Miron's) example in the other thread where Marquez "clearly dominated" 5 rounds, and other 7 are all even, and would lose the fight 115-113, would CLEARLY be a robbery.

Not saying that's what happened in this fight, but that notion is just flat-out wrong. If you're not ANY worse in ANY rounds, and you clearly dominate 5 out of 12 rounds, and you lose by 2, you were robbed. Bigtime.

NO.

Winning 7 rounds CLEARLY is a TECHNICAL proof that a fighter won a fight. and therefore you can CRY ROBBERY.


You cant cry robbery if you have it 116-112 and have 8 ROUNDS as EXTREMELY CLOSE.

[Pugilistic]

Pugiistic

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


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

You don't get it.

I hate compubox and think it is poop.

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

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

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

[miron_lang]

Pugilistic

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


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

JMM WON 2 ROUNDS WITHOUT A DOUBT.

[Pugilistic]

Pugilistic

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


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

JMM WON 2 ROUNDS WITHOUT A DOUBT.

Marquez's shots were the harder cleaner shots.

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

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

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

[miron_lang]

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.

EXACTLY! If the rounds were not clear and judge prefers a certain work. then an extrremely competitive looking FIGHT might look like more than 116-112.

[miron_lang]

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!

It happened in the 1st and 2nd fight for two judges. the other one decides. It happens when rounds are extremely close.

I cant believe too many boxing forumers doesnt get this.

[miron_lang]

Marquez's shots were the harder cleaner shots.

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

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

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

Pac's were harder. JMM is visibly shaken everytime. and Pac were almost on attack mode when receiving those blows while Marquez was always on defensive stance.

notice how most of the time Marquez were still back pedalling despite landing some combos.

==

Pac move forward when he lands and move forward when got tagged
JMM move backward when he lands and move backward when got tagged.


This has INFLUENCE on the judges as Many times been mentioned before.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

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

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

[:::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.

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.

I was basing that comment on their last sat's official scorecards. He needed to score multiple KDs to win.

Knockdowns counts. They are big deal. A 10-6, 10-7, or 10-8 round is always better that 10-9 round.

[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?

[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!

It happened in the 1st and 2nd fight for two judges. the other one decides. It happens when rounds are extremely close.

I cant believe too many boxing forumers doesnt get this.

I suspect it's not that people don't get it, but rather that they disagree about the significance of it. If same fighter gets all eight of the 50-50 rounds, you can't complain about any of the rounds, but you can complain about the fight. It's like a roulette wheel that comes up red every time. There's no reason it shouldn't have on any given spin, but when it happens every time, there's a question in the whole that isn't necessarily just answered by the sum of the parts.

[miron_lang]

I suspect it's not that people don't get it, but rather that they disagree about the significance of it. If same fighter gets all eight of the 50-50 rounds, you can't complain about any of the rounds, but you can complain about the fight. It's like a roulette wheel that comes up red every time. There's no reason it shouldn't have on any given spin, but when it happens every time, there's a question in the whole that isn't necessarily just answered by the sum of the parts.

It would appear that sometime it is wrong but that is the way in scoring fights ( 10 pt must

ALL CLOSE or UNCLEAR ROUNDS most likely wont be split between the fighters but to the fighters work of his preference.

Example.


Johny vs Pedro

Round 1 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 2 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 3 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 4 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 5 : Johny Dominates Pedro

Round 6 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference ( Agression, Defense blah blah blah )

Round 7 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 8 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 9 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 10 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 11 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 12 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference



Pedro wins and Johny appears to be robbed in the eyes of the crowd. but the official winner is Pedro 115-113.



If a judge split the even rounds then question of consistency comes to play.

Does a judge gives the next even round to Fighter A because he gave the previous even round to figter B? That type of judging is more open to question IMO. Judges must be consistent.

[CutMeMick]

It would appear that sometime it is wrong but that is the way in scoring fights ( 10 pt must

ALL CLOSE or UNCLEAR ROUNDS most likely wont be split between the fighters but to the fighters work of his preference.

Example.


Johny vs Pedro

Round 1 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 2 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 3 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 4 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 5 : Johny Dominates Pedro

Round 6 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference ( Agression, Defense blah blah blah )

Round 7 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 8 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 9 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 10 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 11 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 12 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference


Pedro wins and Johny appears to be robbed in the eyes of the crowd. but the official winner is Pedro 115-113.

If a judge split the even rounds then question of consistency comes to play.

Does a judge gives the next even round to Fighter A because he gave the previous even round to figter B? That type of judging is more open to question IMO. Judges must be consistent.

Can it be Bill vs. Tom?
Instead of Johny vs. Pedro?

When I read your post it just doesn't flow when I say Johny and then Pedro...

[miron_lang]

I suspect it's not that people don't get it, but rather that they disagree about the significance of it. If same fighter gets all eight of the 50-50 rounds, you can't complain about any of the rounds, but you can complain about the fight. It's like a roulette wheel that comes up red every time. There's no reason it shouldn't have on any given spin, but when it happens every time, there's a question in the whole that isn't necessarily just answered by the sum of the parts.

It would appear that sometime it is wrong but that is the way in scoring fights ( 10 pt must

ALL CLOSE or UNCLEAR ROUNDS most likely wont be split between the fighters but to the fighters work of his preference.

Example.


Johny vs Pedro

Round 1 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 2 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 3 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 4 : Johny Dominates Pedro
Round 5 : Johny Dominates Pedro

Round 6 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference ( Agression, Defense blah blah blah )

Round 7 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 8 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 9 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 10 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 11 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference
Round 12 : 50-50 Judges give round to pedro because of their preference


Pedro wins and Johny appears to be robbed in the eyes of the crowd. but the official winner is Pedro 115-113.

If a judge split the even rounds then question of consistency comes to play.

Does a judge gives the next even round to Fighter A because he gave the previous even round to figter B? That type of judging is more open to question IMO. Judges must be consistent.

Can it be Bill vs. Tom?
Instead of Johny vs. Pedro?

When I read your post it just doesn't flow when I say Johny and then Pedro...

I should have used Juan and Pedro but Marquez's first name is Juan.


but you're right. I'll use more appropriate names next time