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

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by MichiganWarrior, Sep 2, 2010.


  1. divac

    divac Loyal Member Full Member

    31,154
    2,104
    Jul 24, 2004
    I dont know if you're a bonafide ******* or not, but in any regard, you may have subconciously given Pacquiao some rounds simply because Pac had done better in a round than what he was previously doing.

    Proffesional judges in many instances fall into this trap.
    "you did better in that round, I'm going to give it to you".....even though the fighter did'nt really outdo the other, but simply got it because he was'nt dominated as much.


    I'm inclined by what you wrote on the highlighed above that this is what occured with your scoring.


    Any round that Marquez seized to hit Pacquiao at "will" you automatically gave to Pac (you're actually alluding to it with the highlighted you yourself wrote.).......in other words Marquez has to prove more to you to earn a round, he has to dominate it where Pacquiao does not.

    Thats how many scored both fights, not just the first.
    Somehow because Marquez' name does'nt carry the same weight as Pacquiao's, you and many others put more burden on him.....and that burden is to dominate the round or not get it.

    I"ll say it again, if Marquez did'nt dominate a round, you did'nt give it to him.
    You did'nt give Pacquiao that same burden.
     
  2. titan

    titan Active Member Full Member

    954
    0
    Sep 16, 2010
    if jmm did not land on his ass 3x, he would have won the fight period. and I am a *******.

    but the notion that jmm schooled pac for the last 11 is dumb, stupid and idiotic.

    replace dumb, stupid and idiotic with divac, nallege and uliuli.

    you get the same thing.
     
  3. divac

    divac Loyal Member Full Member

    31,154
    2,104
    Jul 24, 2004
    Does'nt really matter ******* whether Marquez lands on the seat of his pants or not......had he not gone down, I'm certain the ******* would have found a few more rounds to steal from Marquez to make up for the knockdowns not happening.....

    The *******s stole just enough rounds from Marquez in a fight that had Marquez going down three times, to give Pacquiao the fight by a point......

    ......and in a fight where Marquez went down just once, they took even more rounds from him so that the equation has Pac winning again by a point.
    .....had Marquez not gone down at all in that rematch, I'm certain you and your *******s would have stole one more round from Marquez column so that your final score has Pac ahead by a point.

    The knockdowns would'nt have meant a damn thing except to find more round to take from Marquez to compensate for the knockdowns not occuring.
    .....of this I'm absolutely certain.

    ....
     
  4. RAW

    RAW Active Member Full Member

    1,208
    0
    Mar 26, 2010
    should've been scored 10-6 under unification rules.
     
  5. divac

    divac Loyal Member Full Member

    31,154
    2,104
    Jul 24, 2004
    Wow.......How were you able to figure it out?
     
  6. titan

    titan Active Member Full Member

    954
    0
    Sep 16, 2010
    because you are stupid. by your assumption, pac has to score a KD to win a round.

    ****ing dumb ass, does jmm have that work rate to win 22 rounds in the 24 that they met, or are you seriously that dumb?
     
  7. causality

    causality Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,096
    1
    Jun 8, 2010
    That said, you only gave Pac the rounds where he got KDs:rofl:rofl
     
  8. divac

    divac Loyal Member Full Member

    31,154
    2,104
    Jul 24, 2004

    Wow, you gave Marquez 22 of 24........I disagree with you, I had Marquez winning only 18 of 24 rounds.
     
  9. divac

    divac Loyal Member Full Member

    31,154
    2,104
    Jul 24, 2004
    Read post above clown!:D
     
  10. titan

    titan Active Member Full Member

    954
    0
    Sep 16, 2010
    reading comprehension is a problem of yours? :rofl:lol:
     

  11. :lol::lol::lol::lol:
     

  12. :lol::lol:

    care to make a poll you psychiatric escapee LOL
     
  13. titan

    titan Active Member Full Member

    954
    0
    Sep 16, 2010
    precisely. :deal
     
  14. titan

    titan Active Member Full Member

    954
    0
    Sep 16, 2010
    :rofl:rofl. is nallege his sidekick?
     

  15. 10 - 7.


    This content is protected


    This content is protected



    :yep