Manny Pacquiao V Juan Manuel Márquez ,a very close,could have gone either way IMO!

[porkypara]

I think it all comes down to what you favour when you are scoring a fight.

If you go for work rate and landing the more shots you are likley to go for PM but if you prefere harder cleaner shots you would proboly go for JMM.

Either way,it was a close but NOT controvercial desision.

[Andre]

I think it all comes down to what you favour when you are scoring a fight.

If you go for work rate and landing the more shots you are likley to go for PM but if you prefere harder cleaner shots you would proboly go for JMM.

Either way,it was a close but NOT controvercial desision.

I agree with all of that and as an amateur fight I would be forced to give it to Pac on your exact reasons.

This was a pro fight and I gave those rounds to Jmm for your other reason in bold. I didnt score glances and clean taps or ones checked by a glove or ones that touched but Juans head was already moving back or out in reaction. Juan remained in full contact range and yet disolved most of Pacs power but was right there to return those hits with interest added.
That takes so much more skill to do that.
More so against a fighter of Pacs caliber!

[porkypara]

I think it all comes down to what you favour when you are scoring a fight.

If you go for work rate and landing the more shots you are likley to go for PM but if you prefere harder cleaner shots you would proboly go for JMM.

Either way,it was a close but NOT controvercial desision.

I agree with all of that and as an amateur fight I would be forced to give it to Pac on your exact reasons.

This was a pro fight and I gave those rounds to Jmm for your other reason in bold. I didnt score glances and clean taps or ones checked by a glove or ones that touched but Juans head was already moving back or out in reaction. Juan remained in full contact range and yet disolved most of Pacs power but was right there to return those hits with interest added.
That takes so much more skill to do that.
More so against a fighter of Pacs caliber!

Scoring is so subjective.

Boxing history is full of examples of boxers winning by throwing more shots.

Calzaghe-Hopkins and Leonard-Hagler come to mine as examples of close fights where the fighter that threw the most shots won.

[Andre]

I think it all comes down to what you favour when you are scoring a fight.

If you go for work rate and landing the more shots you are likley to go for PM but if you prefere harder cleaner shots you would proboly go for JMM.

Either way,it was a close but NOT controvercial desision.

I agree with all of that and as an amateur fight I would be forced to give it to Pac on your exact reasons.

This was a pro fight and I gave those rounds to Jmm for your other reason in bold. I didnt score glances and clean taps or ones checked by a glove or ones that touched but Juans head was already moving back or out in reaction. Juan remained in full contact range and yet disolved most of Pacs power but was right there to return those hits with interest added.
That takes so much more skill to do that.
More so against a fighter of Pacs caliber!

Scoring is so subjective.

Boxing history is full of examples of boxers winning by throwing more shots.

Calzaghe-Hopkins and Leonard-Hagler come to mine as examples of close fights where the fighter that threw the most shots won.

It is subjective its unavoidable. In this latest case though I think to avoid and counter harder than the initial attacker, is so much more difficult than the aggressive reverse.
Its as if those who score (A wide margin for the reverse style) dont wish to see those skills continue in boxing.

[JazzWolf]

It was a close fight. My guess is, some of the judges deducted Marquez's crotch-shot at the end of round 1.

[shza]

Watched the replay (had watched it live too), scored it rbr this time, and still thought Pac edged it, 115-113. I thought 4 rounds were complete toss-ups though (4 and 9-11), so I could see as wide as 116-112 *either way*. Calling it a "robbery" is ridiculous and does a disservice to guys like Eraslandy Lara who actually did get robbed.

Basically, the fight, though tense, was highly uneventful in terms of action. More or less nothing happened in a number of rounds. And where there was action, there was so little that you had to decide the rounds on the basis of a couple punches.

I definitely have zero interest in seeing jmm-pac IV. Even rewatching this one was not terribly enjoyable.

pac jmm
r1 10 9 v. little landed; pac lands a couple, jmm basically nothing
r2 9 10 same - 2 ok punches from jmm are the differnce
r3 10 9 nothing happens; pac steals at the end of the round
r4 9 10 total toss-up; jmm gets a couple of body shots and one upstairs vs. 2 upstairs from pac
r5 9 10 nothing for most of the round; jmm wins clearly in last 30 seconds
r6 10 9 again v. close; pac better thru first 2 min
r7 9 10 clearest round so far
r8 9 10 fairly clear
r9 10 9 total toss-up
r10 10 9 total toss-up (pac maybe steals it in the end; really a 10-10)
r11 10 9 toss-up; marquez too negative
r12 10 9 ditto - a little clearer for pac

[ICB]

Watched the replay (had watched it live too), scored it rbr this time, and still thought Pac edged it, 115-113. I thought 4 rounds were complete toss-ups though (4 and 9-11), so I could see as wide as 116-112 *either way*. Calling it a "robbery" is ridiculous and does a disservice to guys like Eraslandy Lara who actually did get robbed.

Basically, the fight, though tense, was highly uneventful in terms of action. More or less nothing happened in a number of rounds. And where there was action, there was so little that you had to decide the rounds on the basis of a couple punches.

I definitely have zero interest in seeing jmm-pac IV. Even rewatching this one was not terribly enjoyable.

pac jmm
r1 10 9 v. little landed; pac lands a couple, jmm basically nothing
r2 9 10 same - 2 ok punches from jmm are the differnce
r3 10 9 nothing happens; pac steals at the end of the round
r4 9 10 total toss-up; jmm gets a couple of body shots and one upstairs vs. 2 upstairs from pac
r5 9 10 nothing for most of the round; jmm wins clearly in last 30 seconds
r6 10 9 again v. close; pac better thru first 2 min
r7 9 10 clearest round so far
r8 9 10 fairly clear
r9 10 9 total toss-up
r10 10 9 total toss-up (pac maybe steals it in the end; really a 10-10)
r11 10 9 toss-up; marquez too negative
r12 10 9 ditto - a little clearer for pac

Quite a few people say round 9 was close, but i thought that was a clear round for JMM. He clearly landed more combination's in that round, and landed the more eye catching punches especially the uppercuts.

[miron_lang]

Watched the replay (had watched it live too), scored it rbr this time, and still thought Pac edged it, 115-113. I thought 4 rounds were complete toss-ups though (4 and 9-11), so I could see as wide as 116-112 *either way*. Calling it a "robbery" is ridiculous and does a disservice to guys like Eraslandy Lara who actually did get robbed.

Basically, the fight, though tense, was highly uneventful in terms of action. More or less nothing happened in a number of rounds. And where there was action, there was so little that you had to decide the rounds on the basis of a couple punches.

I definitely have zero interest in seeing jmm-pac IV. Even rewatching this one was not terribly enjoyable.

pac jmm
r1 10 9 v. little landed; pac lands a couple, jmm basically nothing
r2 9 10 same - 2 ok punches from jmm are the differnce
r3 10 9 nothing happens; pac steals at the end of the round
r4 9 10 total toss-up; jmm gets a couple of body shots and one upstairs vs. 2 upstairs from pac
r5 9 10 nothing for most of the round; jmm wins clearly in last 30 seconds
r6 10 9 again v. close; pac better thru first 2 min
r7 9 10 clearest round so far
r8 9 10 fairly clear
r9 10 9 total toss-up
r10 10 9 total toss-up (pac maybe steals it in the end; really a 10-10)
r11 10 9 toss-up; marquez too negative
r12 10 9 ditto - a little clearer for pac

Quite a few people say round 9 was close, but i thought that was a clear round for JMM. He clearly landed more combination's in that round, and landed the more eye catching punches especially the uppercuts.

That's a Pacquiao round

Pac
Left straight @ 2:11
combination @ 1:36
Left @1:18

They traded @ 44 and @25

JMM
combination @ 1: 56
Good right hand @ 09


Terribly close round that should go to the aggressor who landed more shots.