Does anyone feel Pacquiao won?

So the first time you scored it live for JMM by one point. Then re-watched it and scored it for JMM by 5 points. That's a big difference...

 

I had pac winning 116-112, easy work!

 

Neither really, fights should never be scored on agression, especially if it's not effective.

Marquez in 95% of the boxing publics mind won by atleast 2 rounds, some had 4 or more.

 

So what about JMM's aggression, or lack there of?

 

Maybe he was swayed by the disgusting bias that HBO were showing Manny.

 

His counter-punching was crisp and affective, landing clean shots. Good ring generalship. That is what won him the fight.

 

:rofl

Geez look at your own score...115-113..."Dont know how anybody can make a case for Pac winning" :rofl:rofl

 

So what is scored higher Ineffective aggression or no aggression?

95% of the boxing public thought Pac would blow Marquez out the water. 99% don't know what they are looking at.

 

It makes me sick to my stomach that JMM should be at least 2 and 1 against Pac( 3 and 0 in my book) but cant get a decision for some reason.....just sad.

 

But I'm reffering to when there was no action and the crowd was booing like a mug. When there is no action. what scores higher ineffective aggression or nothing?

 

I will put my head over the parapet here because I had Pacquiao winning 115-114. It was so close that the cries of robbery are a little bit silly.

Can Marquez seriously expect to go to Vegas as a challenger against a man who might take part in one of the biggest fights ever in May, land less than ten punches of consequence and go backwards for 90% of the fight and expect to carry a decision? Wishful thinking, but even so we're talking about a fight here where very little happened. Without serious, eye catching punches being landed by either man, the scorer turns to things like ring generalship and I saw the fight taking place where Pacquiao wanted it to. In the later rounds I saw several displays of footwork which had Marquez chasing shadows. And so, I had Pacquiao winning a close fight very narrowly and based mostly on factors other than clean, effective punching (of which there was barely any).

 

I had Marquez by a round or two.

 

The fact that most people have it by only a couple of rounds shows that it was hardly a "robbery"

Maybe the judges were wrong but robbery indicates that Marquez won easily, 117-111 or more, yet they still gave it to Pac.

I think people like to throw out the "robbery" tag too easily.

116-112 DOES seem excessive obviously,however.

 

For the people that had Marquez winning 11 rounds, get ****ing serious!!

 

Ofcourse when there is no action and one fighter is being agressive, they will score for him.

What does that have to do with anything, that hardly ever happened in the fight. Marquez was being patient and waiting for openings and exicuted his gameplan.