 |
|
Thanks: 0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Forum Greatest Of All Time
Array
Re: Not a ROBBERY Please look :D
Judges score it round by round. and not the whole fight straight up.
This thread's purpose is to convince you guys that it wasnt a robbery using your own data. I think everybody realizes it was not.
Robberies are crystal clear seven rounds for the perceived winner.
-Peace i
Forum Greatest Of All Time
Array
Re: Not a ROBBERY Please look :D
I agreeOriginally Posted by ICB
Pacquiao landed more and the harder shots, his connects are a lil awkward looking though
Forum Greatest Of All Time
Array
Re: Not a ROBBERY Please look :D
No, based on his premise, the first and second fights also were not "robberies" -- they were close fights. Hardly seems controversial to me.
Forum Contender
Array
Re: Not a ROBBERY Please look :D
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.
Forum Amature
Array
At first I did not favor a PBF vs PAC fight as pbf will destroy him. Confused on if a PAC destruction would be more pleasurable or a Jmm like result happeneng to PAC . I would say option two but that would be impossible as any close fight is going to be gift wrapped for PAC and his charming Geico caveman smile..No, based on his premise, the first and second fights also were not "robberies" -- they were close fights. Hardly seems controversial to me.
Forum Amature
Array
I had PAC winning the first losing fight two and three . Robbery seems to be word that offends so I believe they misjudged fights Is more apt.At first I did not favor a PBF vs PAC fight as pbf will destroy him. Confused on if a PAC destruction would be more pleasurable or a Jmm like result happeneng to PAC . I would say option two but that would be impossible as any close fight is going to be gift wrapped for PAC and his charming Geico caveman smile..No, based on his premise, the first and second fights also were not "robberies" -- they were close fights. Hardly seems controversial to me.
Last edited by Addicted to Boxing; 11-15-2011 at 08:17 AM.
Cunt of a Mod. Fact.
Array
Re: Not a ROBBERY Please look :D
For the millionth time - Judges score round by round. They have to hand in a score at the end of each and every round.
If the fans, that all scored it for Marquez, can't agree on precisely what rounds he won then how can it be a robbery? What have the judges done wrong? The rounds were clearly ambiguous!!! Unclear!!! Not obvious or definite!!!
For it to be a robbery everyone needs to agree on the majority of rounds. If you have people giving Pac all sorts of rounds then it's possible some people will have him winning the fight. And that includes the judges. Simple as. Marquez was just unlucky not to get the decision. That's it.
(brilliant post by miron_lang. Fact.)
Last edited by Fenster; 11-15-2011 at 10:14 AM.
3-Time SADDO PREDICTION COMP CHAMPION.
Banned
Array
Re: Not a ROBBERY Please look :D
Well, how come the vast majority of all fans had Marquez winning then. You cannot evaluate a fight not being a robbery on the basis of 5 forum posters alone. I'm sure if you did a statistical analysis of all the cards posted online of this fight that you would have Marquez winning the vast majority of them. Marquez in the eyes of most was the undeniable winner. Anyone giving Manny 8 rounds is INSANE. Anyone giving Manny the majority of rounds is mildly demented and anyone having it a draw is a serious Manny fanboy at best.
It most definitely was a robbery and the polls showing Marquez as victor suggest as much. If the poll is neck and neck you have a case for it being a close fight, but when someone is polling so much more then it has to be a robbery. The tiny minority are suggesting a draw or Pac win.
Cunt of a Mod. Fact.
Array
Re: Not a ROBBERY Please look :D
Nah.. all the best boxing writers/journos had it close either way. No robbery.
The point about the judges cards compared to your own is this - when they score the round the same as you they are correct, right? Yet when their score doesn't match yours they are clearly inept/corrupt/wrong?
You and all three judges agreed on the 1st round. Obviously they were doing a good job in the 1st. But then two disagree with you about the 2nd round, they are clearly inept/corrupt/wrong, right? But the other judge must be right because he saw it like you. Now in the 3rd round, the judge that scored the first two like you, has scored it oppposite to you. He must now be inept/corrupt/wrong, right?
And so it goes...
3-Time SADDO PREDICTION COMP CHAMPION.
Banned
Array
Re: Not a ROBBERY Please look :D
No I gave Pac the rounds he deserved and Marquez the rounds he deserved. It isn't only me on the planet who is seeing a Marquez win, it is most of the people who make their voices heard on the internet. See we can erase my viewpoints entirely and still the vast majority of folks saw a Marquez win. It doesn't need my viewpoint to validate it in any way. But the numbers of people all seemingly seeing the same man win most definitely counts for something.Nah.. all the best boxing writers/journos had it close either way. No robbery.
The point about the judges cards compared to your own is this - when they score the round the same as you they are correct, right? Yet when their score doesn't match yours they are clearly inept/corrupt/wrong?
You and all three judges agreed on the 1st round. Obviously they were doing a good job in the 1st. But then two disagree with you about the 2nd round, they are clearly inept/corrupt/wrong, right? But the other judge must be right because he saw it like you. Now in the 3rd round, the judge that scored the first two like you, has scored it oppposite to you. He must now be inept/corrupt/wrong, right?
And so it goes...
Pac himself showed that he lost by his immediate reaction, that was a man that knew he had throw it away.
Cunt of a Mod. Fact.
Array
Re: Not a ROBBERY Please look :D
I understand the majority on internet forums have Marquez the winner. That still doesn't mean robbery though.No I gave Pac the rounds he deserved and Marquez the rounds he deserved. It isn't only me on the planet who is seeing a Marquez win, it is most of the people who make their voices heard on the internet. See we can erase my viewpoints entirely and still the vast majority of folks saw a Marquez win. It doesn't need my viewpoint to validate it in any way. But the numbers of people all seemingly seeing the same man win most definitely counts for something.Nah.. all the best boxing writers/journos had it close either way. No robbery.
The point about the judges cards compared to your own is this - when they score the round the same as you they are correct, right? Yet when their score doesn't match yours they are clearly inept/corrupt/wrong?
You and all three judges agreed on the 1st round. Obviously they were doing a good job in the 1st. But then two disagree with you about the 2nd round, they are clearly inept/corrupt/wrong, right? But the other judge must be right because he saw it like you. Now in the 3rd round, the judge that scored the first two like you, has scored it oppposite to you. He must now be inept/corrupt/wrong, right?
And so it goes...
Pac himself showed that he lost by his immediate reaction, that was a man that knew he had throw it away.
You gave Pac and Marquez the rounds they "deserved?" Therein lies the problem. All the other people that scored it did the same, no? They gave each man the rounds they "deserved?" Unfortunately there was mass disagreement on the exact rounds they "deserved"
Which means, it's highly probable that Pac won just by the nature of the fight. Which means NO robbery, irrelevant of whom we personally think won.
3-Time SADDO PREDICTION COMP CHAMPION.
Banned
Array
Re: Not a ROBBERY Please look :D
I have said this before but boxing is not an exact science. It is very rare that 3 judges ever agree on each of the rounds in a fight and that is the disparity between 3 so called 'experts' and suddenly we are to say that because 5 posters here are not perfectly correlated that this somehow signifies that the fight is not a robbery? It is a flawed statistical logic. You are bound to get an even great disparity between 5 posters rather than 3 judges, but unlike those judges each of those posters had something in common. Marquez was the winner! So something seriously went wrong with the judges if not only are they massively disagreeing on who won the rounds, but also ALL fail to have Marquez as the winner. The judges were an abortion which totally fail to correlate in ANY way with popular opinion.I understand the majority on internet forums have Marquez the winner. That still doesn't mean robbery though.No I gave Pac the rounds he deserved and Marquez the rounds he deserved. It isn't only me on the planet who is seeing a Marquez win, it is most of the people who make their voices heard on the internet. See we can erase my viewpoints entirely and still the vast majority of folks saw a Marquez win. It doesn't need my viewpoint to validate it in any way. But the numbers of people all seemingly seeing the same man win most definitely counts for something.Nah.. all the best boxing writers/journos had it close either way. No robbery.
The point about the judges cards compared to your own is this - when they score the round the same as you they are correct, right? Yet when their score doesn't match yours they are clearly inept/corrupt/wrong?
You and all three judges agreed on the 1st round. Obviously they were doing a good job in the 1st. But then two disagree with you about the 2nd round, they are clearly inept/corrupt/wrong, right? But the other judge must be right because he saw it like you. Now in the 3rd round, the judge that scored the first two like you, has scored it oppposite to you. He must now be inept/corrupt/wrong, right?
And so it goes...
Pac himself showed that he lost by his immediate reaction, that was a man that knew he had throw it away.
You gave Pac and Marquez the rounds they "deserved?" Therein lies the problem. All the other people that scored it did the same, no? They gave each man the rounds they "deserved?" Unfortunately there was mass disagreement on the exact rounds they "deserved"
Which means, it's highly probable that Pac won just by the nature of the fight. Which means NO robbery, irrelevant of whom we personally think won.
What it suggests is that the posters were true to what they saw and that the judges were completely corrupt. There is no way to see it otherwise. We all saw Marquez winning the fight fairly convincingly and yet one judge gave Pac 8 rounds and no judge gave Marquez the fight. Now show me any poll that shows Marquez receiving less than even a third of the votes which is what the overall cards even refused to give us. I bet even the Pac sites would be more honest that the judges were.
It was a shocking display of officiating and it is difficult to see it any other way. I struggle to see how Marquez wasn't robbed.
Cunt of a Mod. Fact.
Array
Re: Not a ROBBERY Please look :D
I have said this before but boxing is not an exact science. It is very rare that 3 judges ever agree on each of the rounds in a fight and that is the disparity between 3 so called 'experts' and suddenly we are to say that because 5 posters here are not perfectly correlated that this somehow signifies that the fight is not a robbery? It is a flawed statistical logic. You are bound to get an even great disparity between 5 posters rather than 3 judges, but unlike those judges each of those posters had something in common. Marquez was the winner! So something seriously went wrong with the judges if not only are they massively disagreeing on who won the rounds, but also ALL fail to have Marquez as the winner. The judges were an abortion which totally fail to correlate in ANY way with popular opinion.I understand the majority on internet forums have Marquez the winner. That still doesn't mean robbery though.No I gave Pac the rounds he deserved and Marquez the rounds he deserved. It isn't only me on the planet who is seeing a Marquez win, it is most of the people who make their voices heard on the internet. See we can erase my viewpoints entirely and still the vast majority of folks saw a Marquez win. It doesn't need my viewpoint to validate it in any way. But the numbers of people all seemingly seeing the same man win most definitely counts for something.Nah.. all the best boxing writers/journos had it close either way. No robbery.
The point about the judges cards compared to your own is this - when they score the round the same as you they are correct, right? Yet when their score doesn't match yours they are clearly inept/corrupt/wrong?
You and all three judges agreed on the 1st round. Obviously they were doing a good job in the 1st. But then two disagree with you about the 2nd round, they are clearly inept/corrupt/wrong, right? But the other judge must be right because he saw it like you. Now in the 3rd round, the judge that scored the first two like you, has scored it oppposite to you. He must now be inept/corrupt/wrong, right?
And so it goes...
Pac himself showed that he lost by his immediate reaction, that was a man that knew he had throw it away.
You gave Pac and Marquez the rounds they "deserved?" Therein lies the problem. All the other people that scored it did the same, no? They gave each man the rounds they "deserved?" Unfortunately there was mass disagreement on the exact rounds they "deserved"
Which means, it's highly probable that Pac won just by the nature of the fight. Which means NO robbery, irrelevant of whom we personally think won.
What it suggests is that the posters were true to what they saw and that the judges were completely corrupt. There is no way to see it otherwise. We all saw Marquez winning the fight fairly convincingly and yet one judge gave Pac 8 rounds and no judge gave Marquez the fight. Now show me any poll that shows Marquez receiving less than even a third of the votes which is what the overall cards even refused to give us. I bet even the Pac sites would be more honest that the judges were.
It was a shocking display of officiating and it is difficult to see it any other way. I struggle to see how Marquez wasn't robbed.
OK miles... anyone that agrees with you is right anyone that doesn't is wrong. Just as I said.
I might as well just write blah, blah, blah...
3-Time SADDO PREDICTION COMP CHAMPION.
The Kanvas Kisser
Array
Re: Not a ROBBERY Please look :D
pacland.JPGI have said this before but boxing is not an exact science. It is very rare that 3 judges ever agree on each of the rounds in a fight and that is the disparity between 3 so called 'experts' and suddenly we are to say that because 5 posters here are not perfectly correlated that this somehow signifies that the fight is not a robbery? It is a flawed statistical logic. You are bound to get an even great disparity between 5 posters rather than 3 judges, but unlike those judges each of those posters had something in common. Marquez was the winner! So something seriously went wrong with the judges if not only are they massively disagreeing on who won the rounds, but also ALL fail to have Marquez as the winner. The judges were an abortion which totally fail to correlate in ANY way with popular opinion.I understand the majority on internet forums have Marquez the winner. That still doesn't mean robbery though.No I gave Pac the rounds he deserved and Marquez the rounds he deserved. It isn't only me on the planet who is seeing a Marquez win, it is most of the people who make their voices heard on the internet. See we can erase my viewpoints entirely and still the vast majority of folks saw a Marquez win. It doesn't need my viewpoint to validate it in any way. But the numbers of people all seemingly seeing the same man win most definitely counts for something.Nah.. all the best boxing writers/journos had it close either way. No robbery.
The point about the judges cards compared to your own is this - when they score the round the same as you they are correct, right? Yet when their score doesn't match yours they are clearly inept/corrupt/wrong?
You and all three judges agreed on the 1st round. Obviously they were doing a good job in the 1st. But then two disagree with you about the 2nd round, they are clearly inept/corrupt/wrong, right? But the other judge must be right because he saw it like you. Now in the 3rd round, the judge that scored the first two like you, has scored it oppposite to you. He must now be inept/corrupt/wrong, right?
And so it goes...
Pac himself showed that he lost by his immediate reaction, that was a man that knew he had throw it away.
You gave Pac and Marquez the rounds they "deserved?" Therein lies the problem. All the other people that scored it did the same, no? They gave each man the rounds they "deserved?" Unfortunately there was mass disagreement on the exact rounds they "deserved"
Which means, it's highly probable that Pac won just by the nature of the fight. Which means NO robbery, irrelevant of whom we personally think won.
What it suggests is that the posters were true to what they saw and that the judges were completely corrupt. There is no way to see it otherwise. We all saw Marquez winning the fight fairly convincingly and yet one judge gave Pac 8 rounds and no judge gave Marquez the fight. Now show me any poll that shows Marquez receiving less than even a third of the votes which is what the overall cards even refused to give us. I bet even the Pac sites would be more honest that the judges were.
It was a shocking display of officiating and it is difficult to see it any other way. I struggle to see how Marquez wasn't robbed.
I missed me, so Im back!
Array
Re: Not a ROBBERY Please look :D
It says Paclandpacland.JPGI have said this before but boxing is not an exact science. It is very rare that 3 judges ever agree on each of the rounds in a fight and that is the disparity between 3 so called 'experts' and suddenly we are to say that because 5 posters here are not perfectly correlated that this somehow signifies that the fight is not a robbery? It is a flawed statistical logic. You are bound to get an even great disparity between 5 posters rather than 3 judges, but unlike those judges each of those posters had something in common. Marquez was the winner! So something seriously went wrong with the judges if not only are they massively disagreeing on who won the rounds, but also ALL fail to have Marquez as the winner. The judges were an abortion which totally fail to correlate in ANY way with popular opinion.I understand the majority on internet forums have Marquez the winner. That still doesn't mean robbery though.No I gave Pac the rounds he deserved and Marquez the rounds he deserved. It isn't only me on the planet who is seeing a Marquez win, it is most of the people who make their voices heard on the internet. See we can erase my viewpoints entirely and still the vast majority of folks saw a Marquez win. It doesn't need my viewpoint to validate it in any way. But the numbers of people all seemingly seeing the same man win most definitely counts for something.Nah.. all the best boxing writers/journos had it close either way. No robbery.
The point about the judges cards compared to your own is this - when they score the round the same as you they are correct, right? Yet when their score doesn't match yours they are clearly inept/corrupt/wrong?
You and all three judges agreed on the 1st round. Obviously they were doing a good job in the 1st. But then two disagree with you about the 2nd round, they are clearly inept/corrupt/wrong, right? But the other judge must be right because he saw it like you. Now in the 3rd round, the judge that scored the first two like you, has scored it oppposite to you. He must now be inept/corrupt/wrong, right?
And so it goes...
Pac himself showed that he lost by his immediate reaction, that was a man that knew he had throw it away.
You gave Pac and Marquez the rounds they "deserved?" Therein lies the problem. All the other people that scored it did the same, no? They gave each man the rounds they "deserved?" Unfortunately there was mass disagreement on the exact rounds they "deserved"
Which means, it's highly probable that Pac won just by the nature of the fight. Which means NO robbery, irrelevant of whom we personally think won.
What it suggests is that the posters were true to what they saw and that the judges were completely corrupt. There is no way to see it otherwise. We all saw Marquez winning the fight fairly convincingly and yet one judge gave Pac 8 rounds and no judge gave Marquez the fight. Now show me any poll that shows Marquez receiving less than even a third of the votes which is what the overall cards even refused to give us. I bet even the Pac sites would be more honest that the judges were.
It was a shocking display of officiating and it is difficult to see it any other way. I struggle to see how Marquez wasn't robbed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks