Cards as of the stoppage in Pacquiao vs. Marquez IV

this fight imo, demonstrates why judges should prefer to score rounds to the aggressor since they are risking more than the defensive fighters in close rounds. btw, did anyone saw jmm's mouthpiece flew out in round 6 or was it just my imagination?

 

"Risking more" and "coming forward" are not criteria for scoring.

Those are people's subjective preferences, which should take a backseat to the actual existing criteria.

 

IB, sometimes you are like Ron Glass' afro, my brother.

 

make a fifth fight.. i'll paid to watch it

:hat

 

Give us a better undercard. :dead

 

Prime Glass, mind.

 

and imo, more judges should prefer to score for those fighters because they take a lot more risk and energy. they also make fights more exciting.

 

gamboa-farenas and pac-jmm alone made me paying $13 satisfied. gesta is a total disappointment.

 

Gamboa vs. Farenas had occasional drama, but it wasn't exactly top drawer.

Vazquez vs. Gesta...well, it went exactly how I thought it would go. (other than Gesta's non-effort, not that it would have made a difference). That isn't a compliment. With all due respect to Vazquez.

Fortuna vs. Hyland was just abysmal.

 

That's preposterous!

Judges should interpolate their personal likes and dislikes rather than remain professional and use the actual guidelines for their job?

Uh, no.

That's like saying referees should blow more whistles on LeBron James because they didn't like how he handled The Decision...or blow fewer on him because he's a superstar and they'd secretly love his autograph or to sniff his jockstrap. No. They should strive to only call fouls when they actually see them, and not call them when they don't.

Likewise, boxing judges should only apply the actual criteria for scoring each individual round under the 10-point must on a RBR basis. "Liking" guys who just blindly come forward and show aggression - whether effective or not - at all times...that's something for the fans to pass judgment on. Fans can reward that approach by supporting those fighters...and punish more tactical or "boring" operators by boycotting them. That is their prerogative. JUDGES, however, shouldn't let their likes and dislikes in approach to the game color their determinations. Appreciating guys who "press the action" should be kept to one's self (like a politician's religious beliefs, for instance) and should certainly never be a factor in arbitration of otherwise close and difficult to score rounds.

If it's difficult, figure it out. Comb through all the nuances and figure out who actually did more of what's actually supposed to be scored on. Don't get lazy and just fall back on "what do you like". That's how judging shouldn't ever be done.


Unconditional aggression (effective or ineffective) and forward movement - that's a style...one available method of going about your work - not a skill. Not what to score on. :deal

 

47-46/48-45 to Pacquiao

Am unsure about one of the rounds and another was very close but Pacquiao just edges it. Need to watch it again

 

Of course, other times, you're like Kurt Rambis' glasses.

 

It doesn't ****ing matter OMG!

He got KTFO! Not to mention there were 6 rounds left.

For the sake of argument, let's say Manny got up from the KD it would be another 10-8 round for Marquez.

It wouldn't matter if Manny got KO'd in the 12, and he was ahead 10 rounds to 1....he still got KO'd

 

O...K. :huh

So we can't discuss how people scored the first five?

 

Sometimes a past-prime Foghorn Leghorn's wattle.