referee: Kenny Bayless | judge: Adalaide Byrd | judge: Steve Weisfeld | judge: John Keane They've each been involved with at least one fight I've watched recently. Keane had Groves 115-114 over Degale. I thought that was slightly favorable to Groves, who was the more defensive fighter. He also landed slightly more punches at a higher %, mostly on counters, while DeGale created more of the action and landed the harder punches. That's how I saw it, anyway. Byrd just scored 119-109 in favor of Trout, where the others had it 117-111. One of the 117-111 scores belonged to Weisfeld. I think everyone has fresh opinions of that one, but Byrd's score seems pretty favorable to Trout. Also, both decisions in favor of the underdog that might have cost some people some money. I think Degale was the more hyped prospect in England and certainly, Cotto/Alvarez would generate plenty of cash. Another notable decision by Weisfeld, however, is Adamek over Chambers, 116-112. Rewarding the aggressor and probably bigger cash cow with a poor decision in my opinion, though not as bad as another's 119-109. Keane also had Ward over Froch 118-110, while the other two had it 115-113. Those are just a few fights, but if you guys have more thoughts, we could have a clear picture of an important aspect of the fight. Tentatively, these sound like JMM judges.
i just want a non robbery clear decision... its taken us 4 ****ING FIGHTS! good to see bayless as the ref
yup looks like jmm got this one. he could fight passively once again and those two judges would give him the rounds. pac needs to knock him out.
have you seen the odds for marquez victory? http://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting...ny-Pacquiao-V-Juan-Manuel-Marquez-449705.html HELL A DRAW IS 21 BUCKS! def chucking some money on a marquez decision victory
Byrd scored clearly for Trout which was the correct decision. Trout fighing off the backfoot was much more effective than Cotto when he was aggressive. If I'm in Marquez camp however, I'd have Byrd removed as she is the daughter of HBO's very own inept judge Harold Lederman. Lederman has shamelessly scored all three fights on HBO's orders that he do so. Julie Byrd may be influenced by what her inept dad has had to say on the previous fights. Julie Byrd may very well be honest and score a Marquez fight for Marquez, but nonetheless, there's a conflict of interest in Julie Byrd being one of the judges in this matchup that the commision should not allow. Would'nt it be funny though if Julie scored a fight Marquez dominates legit and clearly wide for Marquez, but her dad Harold at HBO has Pacquiao bogusly up in rounds 7-5 like he did that first fight?
You're nervous and you're afraid *******, and you should be. Let me make one thing clear however. If Pacquiao legitly deserves the fight saturday vs Marquez. By deserve I mean most at ringside and at home viewing see his as the legit winner....... Pacquiao will get a decision he deserves. He's not going to get robbed vs Marquez that much is clear. The same however cannot be said if Marquez deserves the decision. A deserved victory may very well get taken away from Marquez again, it aint happeing if Pacquiao does enough and clearly deserves the decision. JMM must dominate for a chance at a draw!!!!!
pac -265 jmm +220. some pretty good odds for marquez siting two judges which might be favorable to him. but of course here in ESB, jmm is the slight favorite (uncle rico's poll).
I for one wish Adalaide Lederman was the female judge working this fight, as she is far more qualified than the biased Julie Byrd.
Ol' Divac might well agree with you.... He's well up on boxin' an' judges an' stuff like that. ...but he seems to have checked out.
