Those count and yes Pac did land some of those, problem is Marquez landed more of those and they were harder and crisper. Add to that Marquez was the ring general with better defense and it becomes a easy fight to score. Tell me this, when EVERYBODY universally agrees that this was Marquez best performance of the 3, then remember that there were no knock downs in this fight (the only thing that saved Pac the last times) then how if you are not on lsd can you still score it to Pac? exactly you can not. Now factor in Roach thinking Pac lost (saying he needed the KO to win) and Arum saying openly that this was a business decision and it becomes as easy as 2 + 2. That said i do think some people that score this fight for Pac would have issues adding 2 + 2.
i can see y the judges gave pac the fight. he was the aggressor thru out the fight plus he landed more on jmm
It really is as simple as this---If you can concede that 8-10 rounds were that close that it could've been scored either way then you can objectively say that either guy could've won. ...but these knuckleheads scoring 10-2, 9-3 for Marquez is just straight up nuthuggery.
All these debates boils down to what went down in the rounds, other arguments are secondary. I think people overestimate themselfes when they are dead sure about what went on. We have two fast fighters in constant moving. Both Pac and JMM used their guard and mobile defence. I assume it was difficult even from ringside. So why some posters insist that the fight was easy to score is beyond me. Ring general means nothing. Both fought catiously and tried to box. Pac leaped in and landed and then got out again. Occasionally JMM clocked him on the way, but often Pac was merely grazed or took the shots on the guard. But since he did not keep the attack up some posters believe he was countered in every of these exchanges. In reality going in and back out again was what Roach had prepared him for. In spurts it seemed to work real well. The better defence argument is questionable. I give rounds to the guy that lands more. I dont give freebies to a boxer just because he is on his back foot and is tentativa to let his hands go. All those elite boxers saying JMM won is a very heavy argument. I ought to rewatch the whole fight in slow mo before I could comment on it. As it is now I only did it for the first four rounds, of which I had Pac nicking three. The rest of the rounds seemed very close. Saying you need a KO to win is a common way to encourage the fighter. Kessler was told the same thing against Froch. And what is the source for Bob Arums statement?
A good hockeyplayer is not always a good hockeycoach or ref. The same with boxing. There were 70% mexicans in the arena. Shocker. His face said nothing. He cheered before the cards were read too.
Of course Roach is telling the truth in the ring? Or...not. Coaches always lies in the ring. It's a way of making their boxer offensive. He also said "were down" or something after the seventh. That automatically means he really meant that at the time, but he said it to the boxer. It's about psychology.
marquez beat pacquiao at least twice in three fights. the third one was his clearest victory. many *******s are saying that because he landed more punches pacquiao deserved to win. according to that logic marquez should definitely have won the first and second fights because he connected more overall. that doesnt make sense. the quality of the punches is more important. marquez's defense was also better and his overall strategy was much better than pacquiao's. marquez's face was more banged up because pacquiao has heavier hands.
......and a trainer saying "it could have gone either way" is code for "we got a gift." There is'nt a trainer in the world who gets a gift and publicly concedes he thinks his fighter lost. So instead of saying "I think we lost," he say's the code statement for it, "it was a close fight that could have gone either way. Khan-Peterson was truly a fight that could have gone either way, you dont see Roach saying, "it could have gone either way." A close fight Roach feels Khan got robbed.
The only one who knows what Freddie Roach genuinly thinks about the outcome is Freddie Roach. Boxing is full of fights that could have gone either way. Pac vs JMM seems like one. JMM was punched in the face a tad to often to cry robbery, IMO. Bad example. They are trying to get loss overturned, so those involved cant state whatever in public.
Absolutely not. A persons mannerisms when he speaks say alot. Roach did'nt look all to comfortable at the post fight press conference. Anyone not biased and with a brain can figure out he knows they got a gift. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbZGHJCSKOg&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL400F3F6555C2559F"]ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbZGHJCSKOg&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL400F3F6555C2559F[/ame] The theme throughout the whole post fight conference was about Marquez having Pacquiao's number and the controversy that surrounded the decision. It does'nt take an Einstein to figure out this fight would not have had a scent of controvesy if the decision had went to Marquez. Decision goes to Paquiao=Controversy because the wrong fighter gets his hands raised. Decision goes to Marquez= No controversy. Marquez gets the props he deserves, and there would'nt be a single ******* in this forum trying to make a case for Pacquiao when there is'nt one. In fact there would'nt be a ******* in this forum, except for the few who could'nt stomach it and were honest enough to voice Marquez had won on their scorecard. The decsion going Pacquiao's way is the only straw *******s can grasp on to in making there case as they erroneously can state "proffesional judges are proffesional judges, and everyone else is'nt qualified to judge a fight." Its a naive way to defend a Pac victory, but its the only straw they can grasp.
I dont buy into this mind reading stuff. You rarely see people with Parkinson look comfortable. Pac where supposed to whip Pac, instead he only managed to squeeze out a debatable decision. What have Roach to be happy about? Judges can get it wrong, all right. But even so I did watch the fight myself, and saw a close bout that could have gone either way. I am not sure why people are so upset.
Because there is actually people that do know how to score a fight and they saw a disgusting robbery, hence a LOT of people are upset including most of the actual professional fighters, trainers, observers, writers etc etc etc. Would you not be very upset if you saw a disgusting robbery? i know you are not capeble of scoring a fight but lets say that you did acknowledge that there was a BLATENT robbery im sure youd be upset too.