At first look I had the fight 115-113 for Pacman, I re-watched it and had it 116-112 for Pac-man...He was the busier man, was the aggressor and blocked a lot of Marquez's punches. A lot of the rds were close but more of the ones I gave to Marquez. Manny did not dominate Marquez like Floyd and watching it live I felt that Manny was not doing as well as I expected. I felt that way watching it again and Marquez was the strongest I have seen him in a while but Manny clearly won the fight IMO I am going to watch it a 3rd time when I get the time and divide each round into 3-1 minutes portions but If I did not know the players I would be impressed with Manny, his hand-speed,his footwork but knowing him I expected more.
I feel one of the problems was that Manny was being held to a far higher standard. We expect him to win every round and make a mess of his opponents, so when it doesn't happen we all think he lost!
Don't divide each round into 3 one minute portions.That's no way to score a fight, just stick with what you got in your first couple of tries watching it naturally...even if everyone takes the **** for giving it Pacmanaio by 4 points.
I think keeping an eye on the clock and judging who won each minute gives you a good perspective, and it's a effective way to do it. Sometimes you can lose track, especially if you're not concentrating. 3 mins in some ways is a long time. Enough time to forget, but not enough time to judge by all four criteria individually. Especially if you haven't got a 'good eye'. I personally like splitting the 3 minutes when scoring a fight, and i notice a difference when the clock is not there.
Sarcasm? One of the judges, I think Hoyle says he divides the fight up per 1 minute for each round to asses the round. I apply the same concept more so mentally than rigidly. As for the fight. You've got to really stretch to score the fight for Pac. It's pretty apparent Marquez wins his rounds more clearly, more often. I think 116-112 is an awful card Bummy. I don't think you can score for activity or aggression. People in general (Yeah, it's **** I should know better) keep talking about aggression (Not necessarily effective aggression) as if it's the most important part of scoring. They talk about close rounds having to go the aggressor. As if fights are judged by clean-effective punches, and then aggression. Defense and ring-generalship don't even seem to exist within the minds of an average Pac fan. It's amazing, and sad.
I thought Pac looked pretty bad regardless of what I expected from him, which wasn't much. I don't take scoring fights very seriously but I thought Marquez won at least 6 rounds.
Does that even make sense? Time to stop the stalking and continue the troll patrol back in the general.
The fight was close for sure. Had it 7-5 Marquez but will rewatch later. This fight reminded me of the first jones-tarver bout in a way. Jones, like pac, was held to a higher standard. When tarver made it a close fight, most screamed robbery when jones got the decision but all the scores from the media I saw had jones winning or a draw.
Wow. I had it 8-4 Marquez. Pacquiao rarely connected hard-Most of his stuff was glancing, or simply looked good because of his speed. Marquez frequently connected with big, jolting shots. He worked the body. He absolutely dominated at controlling the pace of the fight. Pacquiao was uncomfortable, and Marquez wasn't. Marquez made Pacquiao miss and countered him. Pacquiao had to throw punches in bunches and pray, effectively. Marquez won every category, and he did it it damn near every round. Pacquiao's aggression was largely ineffective, and frankly a big reason that he got hit with big and clear shots. I don't think it's proof that Pacquiao is inferior to Marquez or anything of the sort: I think he had a bad night, he was out of sorts, and he didn't execute. Pacquiao lost that fight, and in my personal opinion he did so clearly. The most appropriate course of action is a 4th fight. That will set the record straight, I feel. The mini-scandal erupting will ensure a neutral location with fair judges. The winner will have to win. I'd pick Pacquiao to win, and be happy if I was right. That would make these guys, in reality, just about inseperable in terms of their head to head rivalry. I find it hard to argue that Marquez doesn't have a clear h2h edge based on the action I've seen in the ring. When he's not being dropped, he's in command and Manny looks bothered.
8-4 is pretty extreme, but there were a lot of close rounds in this fight. I just think the robbery calls are laughable. Regarding breaking fights into minute rounds, I don't think you should be doing it as such. It's about who got the better of the round as a whole, not who got the better of the majority of the round. You can be in control for 2:45 of the round and still lose the round if the better work was done in that 15 second stretch by the other fighter.
Marquez outright schooled Pacquaio, if you're scoring it to Pacman you really don't know how to score a fight, I keep hearing these words: Busier: doesn't matter he didn't land Aggressive: doesn't matter it wasn't effective aggression, it was completely neutralised Marquez missed: not nearly as much as Pacman That's without talking about defence and ring generaliship, which Marquez obviously bossed Bottom line all of the best punches of the fight were thrown by Marquez by a massive margin and Pacquaio was completely ineffective
There were many rounds that could go either way, but Marquez won at least 6 of them. JMM had rounds in which he dominated, so the general view of the fight is that he was a better fighter. We all know the criteria of scoring the fight: clean punching, effective aggressivnes, defence, ring generalship but the most important factor in a fight is who made more damage. And Marquez was the one doing it. I had it 115-113 Marquez with 11 and 12 for Pacquiao so the last two rounds made the score closer.