Was a ROBBERY Please look :D

[jroc]

A deception!!!

[Beanz]

I'll send you a signed photo if you like?

I'm not arrogant enough to believe my scorecard is 100% bombproof definitive. I accept scoring fights is open to interpretation. It's subjective.

It was utterly IRRELEVANT whether or not miron_lang had seen the fight. His post highlighted a contradiction in peoples scorecards. It was a great expose on the hypocrisy of "robberies" in boxing. His idea could be put to use on all the robbery claims over the years, the fact it was this bout is irrelevant.

So, unless you believe your opinion is far superior to anyone elses (like Miles ), then it should be perfectly reasonable to accept people interpeted a fight different. Simple as that.

It was not IRRELEVANT whether miron_lang had seen the fight. His post called out all those people who thought they had witnessed a robbery and then used a very flawed piece of naive statistical analysis to propagate his massively prejudiced views. Imagine a crime occurring and being captured on cctv, people witness it and there is video evidence available, but before watching the cctv footage you start to question peoples interpretation of it and call into question the crime occuring at all. The only people who believe their opinion is far superior to anyone else, are those who draw conclusions without examining the evidence first hand. How was it a great expose on the hypocrisy of "robberies" in boxing. Great exposé's draw together numerous threads from extensive research to make irrefutable points. The fact that there is a contradiction in the scorecards of the super 5 is not a supporting fact for your argument at all, if anything it undermines your hypothesis. Judges scorecards very rarely tally exactly round for round, the discrepancy proves that the super 5 were being honest in their interpretation and no collusion has occurred.Not agreeing on rounds is minutiae, small and trivial compared to the overriding FACT that they all had JMM as a clear winner. If you used the idea that 5 separate people would have to agree round for round on the scoring of individual exact rounds before any decision could be questioned it would mean Judges have never ever have been corrupt, inept or flawed ever. It is only when 5 scorecards are identical round for round that you can then question their authenticity.Even the crackpot judging ringside by the official judges was not identical round for round.You are quite right people interpret a fight differently, so why is it using your own logic you can not see that the super 5's different interpretation of rounds won does nothing to undermine their conclusion that JMM won a fight erroneously awarded to Manny Pacquiao ? the only people suggesting mine or Miles's opinion is far superior to anyone else is you.You can discount both of our opinions and the overwhelming evidence of a ROBBERY will still be there. Simple as that, and yes a signed photo would be lovely

[Gandalf]

Robert Guerrero had it 8-4 too:



I am more than happy for my 8-4 card to be replaced by his if it would make people happy. Or else we could just add his and many more like it to the pile and realise that there is a correlation in the outcome that seems to have emerged. That being that Marquez was indeed the landslide winner.

[Fenster]

Jesus fucking Christ!!!

I give up. OK It was a robbery. The judges were corrupt. Marquez clearly won. Happy? (even though no-one could agree on who won what fucking rounds )

For a fiver, I'll throw in a signed poster too

[Gandalf]

You thought he won the fight too, Fenster. And so you must be added to the list of 135, 634, 963 others who thought so too. The Manny won camp still stays at the 2 judges, HBO, Miron Lang and PSL. Oh, and Compubox who is now dead. Nothing more than a numerical Goebbel's exercise as far as I am concerned.

[Fenster]

Some respected boxing writers scored it for Pac too. And lots had it a draw.

I know, I know, they are obviously corrupt/inept/thick. They should all be sacked and never allowed to watch boxing again. Or better still horse whipped to death. How could anyone possibly have got such a clear-cut, and in no way ambiguous fight so wrong.

[Gandalf]

Some respected boxing writers scored it for Pac too. And lots had it a draw.

I know, I know, they are obviously corrupt/inept/thick. They should all be sacked and never allowed to watch boxing again. Or better still horse whipped to death.

I would like to see a long list of them all emerge as I recall in the wake of the second fight where Marquez seemed to be the dominant winner. I would be surprised if it wasn't the same here. And when I say dominant winner, I just mean the person with the most W's in the column.

[Fenster]

Some respected boxing writers scored it for Pac too. And lots had it a draw.

I know, I know, they are obviously corrupt/inept/thick. They should all be sacked and never allowed to watch boxing again. Or better still horse whipped to death.

I would like to see a long list of them all emerge as I recall in the wake of the second fight where Marquez seemed to be the dominant winner. I would be surprised if it wasn't the same here. And when I say dominant winner, I just mean the person with the most W's in the column.

Does it matter? It's not like you'd give their opinion any credit anyway

[Gandalf]

Some respected boxing writers scored it for Pac too. And lots had it a draw.

I know, I know, they are obviously corrupt/inept/thick. They should all be sacked and never allowed to watch boxing again. Or better still horse whipped to death.

I would like to see a long list of them all emerge as I recall in the wake of the second fight where Marquez seemed to be the dominant winner. I would be surprised if it wasn't the same here. And when I say dominant winner, I just mean the person with the most W's in the column.

Does it matter? It's not like you'd give their opinion any credit anyway

Agreed or not, I would be curious to see such a list and more so if their viewpoints went with them. I have my views, but I do read and listen too.

I don't just read a newspaper and take it at face value. You read it and then evaluate what you read.

It's the same with posters and fight reviews. I read every word, but it doesn't mean I need to agree with it all. But it's interesting nonetheless.

[Fenster]

Some respected boxing writers scored it for Pac too. And lots had it a draw.

I know, I know, they are obviously corrupt/inept/thick. They should all be sacked and never allowed to watch boxing again. Or better still horse whipped to death.

I would like to see a long list of them all emerge as I recall in the wake of the second fight where Marquez seemed to be the dominant winner. I would be surprised if it wasn't the same here. And when I say dominant winner, I just mean the person with the most W's in the column.

Does it matter? It's not like you'd give their opinion any credit anyway

Agreed or not, I would be curious to see such a list and more so if their viewpoints went with them. I have my views, but I do read and listen too.

I don't just read a newspaper and take it at face value. You read it and then evaluate what you read.

It's the same with posters and fight reviews. I read every word, but it doesn't mean I need to agree with it all. But it's interesting nonetheless.

Here you go then, here's Graham Houston's opinion, I've never seen anything other than total respect for this man in the boxing business -

NO CLOSURE: Manny Pacquiao W12 (maj.) Juan Manuel Marquez

Clearly though he doesn't understand boxing and his opinion is utterly worthless. How could he possibly think it wasn't a robbery. Shocking.

[Beanz]

Some respected boxing writers scored it for Pac too. And lots had it a draw.

I know, I know, they are obviously corrupt/inept/thick. They should all be sacked and never allowed to watch boxing again. Or better still horse whipped to death. How could anyone possibly have got such a clear-cut, and in no way ambiguous fight so wrong.

Your right Daniel Herbert in today's Boxing News had it as a draw but even he acknowledges most writers ringside had it as a win for Marquez. This is not the first time the judging ability of Trowbridge has been questioned and it would be a start if he was not used in future when so many of his scorecards are so at odds with reality.8 rounds to 4 for JMM seems to be the average consensus. It is a little sad that youtube is now full of people not happy with Manny's win being questioned, asserting that Juan is a cheat who used headbutts, footstomping and steroids to even win the few rounds they begrudgingly acknowledge him ! It was a very competitive fight albeit a fight clearly dominated by an accurate counter punching underdog who smashed open the doors to the BHOF on this his career defining fight, only for the bottom to drop out of his world on the announcement of his vanquished and clearly demoralised foe being awarded the decision.

[Fenster]

Some respected boxing writers scored it for Pac too. And lots had it a draw.

I know, I know, they are obviously corrupt/inept/thick. They should all be sacked and never allowed to watch boxing again. Or better still horse whipped to death. How could anyone possibly have got such a clear-cut, and in no way ambiguous fight so wrong.

Your right Daniel Herbert in today's Boxing News had it as a draw but even he acknowledges most writers ringside had it as a win for Marquez. This is not the first time the judging ability of Trowbridge has been questioned and it would be a start if he was not used in future when so many of his scorecards are so at odds with reality.8 rounds to 4 for JMM seems to be the average consensus. It is a little sad that youtube is now full of people not happy with Manny's win being questioned, asserting that Juan is a cheat who used headbutts, footstomping and steroids to even win the few rounds they begrudgingly acknowledge him ! It was a very competitive fight albeit a fight clearly dominated by an accurate counter punching underdog who smashed open the doors to the BHOF on this his career defining fight, only for the bottom to drop out of his world on the announcement of his vanquished and clearly demoralised foe being awarded the decision.

So how come he didn't think it was a robbery?

[Gandalf]

Some respected boxing writers scored it for Pac too. And lots had it a draw.

I know, I know, they are obviously corrupt/inept/thick. They should all be sacked and never allowed to watch boxing again. Or better still horse whipped to death.

I would like to see a long list of them all emerge as I recall in the wake of the second fight where Marquez seemed to be the dominant winner. I would be surprised if it wasn't the same here. And when I say dominant winner, I just mean the person with the most W's in the column.

Does it matter? It's not like you'd give their opinion any credit anyway

Agreed or not, I would be curious to see such a list and more so if their viewpoints went with them. I have my views, but I do read and listen too.

I don't just read a newspaper and take it at face value. You read it and then evaluate what you read.

It's the same with posters and fight reviews. I read every word, but it doesn't mean I need to agree with it all. But it's interesting nonetheless.

Here you go then, here's Graham Houston's opinion, I've never seen anything other than total respect for this man in the boxing business -

NO CLOSURE: Manny Pacquiao W12 (maj.) Juan Manuel Marquez

Clearly though he doesn't understand boxing and his opinion is utterly worthless. How could he possibly think it wasn't a robbery. Shocking.

Stop using such hyperbole. I like Graham Houston and generally speaking respect what he says too, but I do disagree with him. It doesn't kill his opinion, but it does mean I take issue with what he said. But for every writer that you produce who gives Manny the win, there are numerous others who give it to Marquez and not only writers, but seemingly the vast majority of boxers and forum pollsters too.

Al Bernstein scored it two points in favour of Marquez. Have I now cancelled out your Houston verdict? He is a pretty level headed chap too.

Like I say, I would like to see a list of them all side by side, just to see how they pan it out. Not because I am right, but because I am curious to see how my views pan out amongst them. And yours too, and you yourself thought Marquez won by a couple so I don't know what you are arguing really. What I saw is correlating far more with you than what Houston saw.

[Beanz]

Some respected boxing writers scored it for Pac too. And lots had it a draw.

I know, I know, they are obviously corrupt/inept/thick. They should all be sacked and never allowed to watch boxing again. Or better still horse whipped to death. How could anyone possibly have got such a clear-cut, and in no way ambiguous fight so wrong.

Your right Daniel Herbert in today's Boxing News had it as a draw but even he acknowledges most writers ringside had it as a win for Marquez. This is not the first time the judging ability of Trowbridge has been questioned and it would be a start if he was not used in future when so many of his scorecards are so at odds with reality.8 rounds to 4 for JMM seems to be the average consensus. It is a little sad that youtube is now full of people not happy with Manny's win being questioned, asserting that Juan is a cheat who used headbutts, footstomping and steroids to even win the few rounds they begrudgingly acknowledge him ! It was a very competitive fight albeit a fight clearly dominated by an accurate counter punching underdog who smashed open the doors to the BHOF on this his career defining fight, only for the bottom to drop out of his world on the announcement of his vanquished and clearly demoralised foe being awarded the decision.

So how come he didn't think it was a robbery?

Because he has a different opinion to the Majority of writers to which he is entitled. He points out Pacquiao's lack of a consistent weapon and the fact that he was seemingly mesmerised by Marquez's timing and distance, with Manny just following him around and even backing off in the ninth, he then gives Pacquiao all three final rounds which seems to be a little generous and would account for his draw scorecard giving
JMM
1
3
5
7
8
9
MP
2
4
6
10
11
12

Ron Borges scored it 117-111 for JMM, Thomas Hauser 116-113 for JMM, Lance Pugmire 115-113 for JMM, Bob Velin 115-113 for JMM, Ed Grainey 115-113 for JMM,Matthew Aguilar 115-112 for JMM and the Wall Steet Journal ?! 115-113 for JMM.

So Herbert was unusual in scoring a draw. I am interested to see what Hugh Mcillvaney says if he is well enough to comment in the Times on Sunday. He is always objective and IMO possibly the greatest boxing writer alive.

[Fenster]

err.. what? Whether I think Marquez won or not is irrelevant. I've took umbrage with the cries of robbery. My argument is against the so-called robbery, not the winner of the contest.

If I produce writers that thought Marquez won, writers that thought Manny won and writers that thought it was a draw, what would that indicate to you? To me it would mean a CLOSE fight that split opinion. If it's CLOSE and debatable how can it be a robbery? Even if most people slightly favour one man over another. Madness. Utter madness.

(Courtesy of Ratcatrat) - Press row was split. Dan Rafael had this fight a draw. Max Kellerman had the fight a draw too. Steve Kim from maxboxing.com had the fight 115-113 Marquez. Steven Edwards on boxingtalk.com had it 115-113 Pacquiao. Doveed Linder also from boxingtalk.com had it 6-6.

Goerge Willis from the New York Post - "it was a tough fight to score." http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/boxin...PD1gTqeGrikrkI

Dan Rafael
Pacquiao-Marquez: Manny Pacquiao picks off Juan Manuel Marquez, ready for Floyd Mayweather - ESPN

Michael Woods
No, Marquez was not 'robbed' vs. Pacquiao - New York Boxing Blog - ESPN New York

Gareth A Davies
Manny Pacquiao v Juan Manuel Marquez: round-by-round verdict - Telegraph