Worse Robbery- Chavez/Whitaker or Manny/JMM

Valid and interesting topic , but this is gonna end in tears.

 

Chavez - Whitaker for me, Whitaker pretty much dominated that fight throughout. The question is valid though, I had marquez winning 9-3 in their last fight.

 

JCC sr. fan right here, but this isn't close.
Chavez vs Whitaker it is.

 

I agree with this Chavez - Whitaker, I can't remember what I scored the last Manny Marquez fight but I definetly gave it to Marquez and I'm a closet *******.

 

Stop it. . . .

 

JCC vs Pernell was onesided,the other was a close fight.

 

Chavez vs Whitaker wasn't a robbery dousche bag.

 

Pac-JMM III was the closest..

You judge a fight round per round and not as a whole.. And you judge it in four categories..

1. Effective Aggression.. Who was the aggressor? Was he effective? You are the biggest fool to think JMM wins this category in most rounds.. He was clearly trying to not get knocked down, that's why he constantly moves backward.. He forgot that he was the challenger and he was supposed to bring the fight to Manny..

2. Defense.. JMM landed his best shots at Manny's guard.. Just gloves, arms, and elbows.. Was his body punching clean? No it wasn't..

3. Ring generalship.. Who controls the tempo of the fight? Manny was the one who engages and counters if he wants to.. JMM stopped most of his attacks because he was getting tagged by the right hand counter of Pac almost all the time.. And I can't remember something significant about JMM except those moving backwards move.. You think if you move backwards, you win fights?

4. Clean and Hard punching..

Now if you think Manny did not connect clean.. You must see this..

Watch it again and you'll see..

 

Obviously.

This content is protected

 

I win three times!!!!!
Robbery!

 

Hilarious.

Pacquiao was swinging and missing all night, I would hardly call it 'effective'.

Defense, pacquiaos defence was a mess, he was getting tagged with counters all night.

Ring generalship, I don't think you really understand this one, Pacquiao was instigating exchanges but the fight was not at a tempo he set thus when he was instigating exchanges he was ineffective (going back to point 1) and getting countered. Marquez set the pace.

The eye catching and effective shots were (for the most part) thrown and landed by Marquez.

I'm not sure why you would want anyone to 'watch it again', even the most die hard Pacquiao fans scored this for marquez while watcing the fight live. After pac was declared the 'winner' a trail of threads followed on here which included "I watched it again and heres how I scored it" (to pacquiao), many of them will have rewatched the fight and looked for reasons as to how pacquiao won the fight. The fact is that just about everyone had it (rightly) to Marquez and had it wide in his favour. So how was it not a robbery? the judges didn't watch the fight twice then score it did they?

 

Castillo-Floyd 1 was closer to being a 'robbery' than Pac-JMM 3 was.

 

on a single fight basis whitaker/chavez. but pac-jmm is 3x a robbery so it's worse

 

How is a close fight that happened to go the other way from what you wanted a robbery