Question about the Manny Pacquiao vs Juan Manuel Marquez I, scoring controversy

The thread starters question has been answered.
The judge admitted to believing he could no score wider than a 10-7, which was not the case.


Now, for those of you who dont know, the judge admitting his mistake in not knowing he could score wider could not be overuled and overturned because nowhere in the unified rules does it state that a 3 knockdown round is to be scored 10-6.

Even under the unified rules, the rules leave it to the judges discretion to score a 3 knockdown round however they wish. It does not have to be 10-6 if the judge did'nt think the round was one sided enough.

From my understanding there has never been a round that any governing body has ever said was changed from what the judge originally had it.

There have been circumstances where a decision was overturned because the master scorer tabulated the scorecards incorrectly, but never has a score for a round ever been publicly stated to have been changed.

 

yes but the judge did make a mistake. it should have been 10-6. pac would have won.

 

ignore Divac he is as bias as they come but tries to justify it with some kind of rationale. He would try to convince you that drinking **** and eating **** is more nutritional for a boxer than regular food if JMM and JCC both did it.

 

The judge did admit to make a mistake. Pac would have won on his scorecard........
.......likewise, had there not been a bafoon of a corrupt judge who had his scorecard filled out beforehand, and I'm talking about the judge that gave Pacquiao 7 rounds, the chances are that an honest judge has the fight scored as the consensus did, for JMM.

.....which in hindsight evens it out......on one side a judge made a mistake of not knowing he could score wider than 10-7 and on the other side we have a judge who was corrupt and was going to score for Pacquiao not matter what.
......I think the latter is the worse of the offenses.

 

Yes I use rational opinions and debate rationally, you are right.

......you however dont hide the audacity of your irrational thought process that you dont even begin to try and debate using rational methods.

.......in other words, you're so far off in your bias, why even bother trying to be rational.

 

and one judge gave jmm 10 rounds?

the double standard by this butt hurt mexican :rofl

 

divac has been drinking the **** juice lately. Watch out.

This content is protected

 

Don't forget that the judge himself said that if he only knew he could give 10-6, he would have and even ask if he can still change it after realising his mistake.

 

Wait suddenly judges are corrupt because they can't see it your way? Come on now.

At least the *******s have proof the judge made a mistake. JMMaggots seem to pull the corrupt and conspiracy theory the same place *****s pulled the PED/Roid theory - out of their asses.

It is a convenient way to defend the scoring. There are no proof other than saying it has happened before. It makes your side look good because it makes it as if you are anti-corruption. . But at the bottom of it all, it is just another excuse and accusation based out of nothing.

So I will say this again, if a Mexican gets another gift decision I will follow your advice and call it a corrupt judge.

Got it.

 

Seeing as we are talking about scorecards again, I rewatched this yesterday and my card was:

Round 1: Manny Pacquiao 10-6
Round 2: Manny Pacquiao 10-9
Round 3: Juan Manuel Marquez 10-9
Round 4: Juan Manuel Marquez 10-9
Round 5: Juan Manuel Marquez 10-9
Round 6: Juan Manuel Marquez 10-9
Round 7: Manny Pacquiao 10-9
Round 8: Juan Manuel Marquez 10-9
Round 9: Manny Pacquiao 10-9
Round 10: Manny Pacquiao 10-9
Round 11: Juan Manuel Marquez 10-9
Round 12: Juan Manuel Marquez 10-9

113-112 Manny Pacquiao

 

How did you give pac the round 2 and 9 & 10 please.

 

My guess is that he actually watched the fight.

 

That was the prevailing ******* score, as even the majority of them did not have the audacity to sit and watch that fight and convince themselves that Pac won more rounds than was necessary to tally him up a winner on the scorecard.

In other words, a ******* has to watch the whole fight and just take the least onesided of the rounds and rob those from Marquez.......
Pacquiao won 3 rounds in that fight, so in order to tally up a Pacquiao victory, you take the closest next two rounds and give them to Pacquiao, and I have absolutely no doubt in my mind this is whats happening, as I've watched the fight quite a few times over the years and come to realize that for anyone to give the fight to Pacquiao, you have to do so fully knowing they're being dishonest. That fight was just to easy to score to think otherwise.

 

Dude you had Chavez ahead of Taylor going in to the last round of their first fight you're way too biased towards certain mexican fighters to be taken serious when it comes to these type of discussions.

 

I sure did......and I've debated it on a round by round basis many times over the years.

You and I both know that HBO influences viewers, so much so that I've debated bafoons here that like HBO and Ray Leonard would claim Taylor was winning every round......nut:nut
...and thats exactly what happend with Chavez-Taylor.