Did you see a robbery in the scoring of Pacman-JMM II?

For the people that are clueless let me explain what robbery is.

If a fight is too one sided (NOT CLOSE) then the decision went the other way then and only then you can call it ROBBERY. If it is a close fight and you felt another fighter won then it is NOT ROBBERY.

 

With the zero percent of respect you show for ones opinion I guess you are a little kid of 14.
Good luck with your pathatic life. I bet you will never learn how to be a normal human being.
:hi:

 

voted yes as imho Marquez definitely won the fight, whether by 1 2 3 or 4 pts then i could understand but the best i could give it for Pac was 115/113 in favour of Marquez

 

well, it's your personal opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. however, it is definitely not shared by a very overwhelming majority of boxing fans here.

 

I had it 114:113 for Marquez ... like the first fight, I had him ahead one point again (2004: 113-112 Marquez).

I think Marquez deserved the win more ... but it was to close to call it a robbery I think.
Althought the 115:112 score for Pacquiao seemed to be to high.

 

Clean punching means clean landed punches, regardless of power. Effective punching is what is doing damage OR just simply scoring more effectively.

One guy gets in a lot of clean feather work but eats some partially blocked bombs and body shots and is getting tossed around, the effective work is what is going to score even if the clean punching fighter is landing more accurate work.

 

I'm sure it was. Nice avatar. :think

 

As was the 115-112 score for Marquez. What's your point?

 

It was clearly a robbery!

To have Pacquiao winning that fight or even a draw, is to go beyond the call of duty to deperately find rounds that are even remotely close to give to Pac.

I even said it before the fight was fought, that it was going to be a hard endevour for JMM to win the fight by decision if Pac was even semi-competitive in it.

The flow of the fight was almost like the flow of JMM's fight with MAB....competitive but with JMM clearly distinqguishing himself in the great majority of the rounds to take them clearly.

To give these rounds to Pac is just to want to give them to him because his name is Pacquiao and he happens to be the more recognizable fighter.

The fact that Pac scored a knockdown in the fight is a crutch for those of those who scored for Pacquiao to try to find a crutch to justify their dishonesty, because at the end of the day, its one round that is scored 10-8, and should'nt be a factor in the way one would score any other round.
Its as if people scoring for Pacquiao are convincing themselves that it was he that consistently landed the harder punches and point to the knockdown as proof.....:rofl :rofl :nut Hillarious, it was clearly JMM for the great majority of the rounds consistently landing the harder, cleaner and more telling punches, round after round.

The closer rounds of the fight were rounds 1,7,and 9, how you score those rounds is the difference of whether one has Pacquiao winning or JMM winning.
I've rewatched all of them, and come to the conclusion that in each of those rounds JMM clearly landed the harder, cleaner, more telling blows.
To give those rounds to Pac is to make up your mind that you were'nt going to give them to JMM unless it was by clear domination.

To score the 1st round for example to Pac is outright ridiculous. It was a feelout round with not much in the way of clean effective punching.
Only two clean telling blows were landed by either fighter in that round, a hard clearn right hand landed flush on Pac's face, and an uppercut type shot landed on Pac's midsection to close the round for JMM.
.......yet, to have Pac winning this fight, you need to give him the 1st round, and those who had Pac winning the fight, dishonestly did!

......his name is Manny Pacquiao afterall!:-(

A robbery? Without a doubt!

 

You still failed to acknowledge the 3rd should have been 10-7 for Pacquiao, and you want people to listen to you?

I didn't score the 1st for Pac, but I have it 114-113 for him.

 

Exactly my friend! Whether you had JMM winning anywhere from 7 to 9 rounds, one thing is of absolute certainy.....and that is that Manny Paquiao did not win 6 rounds of that fight, which would be the only way to score the fight for him.

The fact that some people gave Pac as many as 7 rounds is beyond ludicrous, which in turn=robbery!

 

The mere fact that people, sports analyst and sports writters are saying it could have gone both ways . . . justifies it's not a robbery.

Fans who are on the losing end just like their fighter JMM are the only ones crying robbery.

Now live with it . . . this **** is getting old. :yep

 

I thought JMM edged however this fight was far from being a robbery. A robbery is Whitaker vs Ramirez 1. This fight was too close to call

 

No robbery in jmm pacman fight.
People are banding robbery around too much for this one. Maybe we need to find a new word for 'robbery' so fans can jump on it, if we call a robbery of old a 'disgraceful decision'
and a close call a 'robbery', JMM Pacman was a 'robbery' :tong
Casamayor vs santa cruz now there was a 'disgraceful decision'