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

Could have gone either way, I had it Marquez by a point which means there was only one round in it as a lot of other people had it. I'd say a draw would have been appropiate, but can see how Manny won it on points as well.

 

i had it 114-113 pac but it could've easily been 114-113 jmm. a few of the rounds were very close and could've gone either way.

 

I had it for JMM, wouldnt call it a robbery, just a wrong decision

 

First i'm a Pac fan so the close round I would have to score it for Pac. I'm sure the Marquez fan would have to score the close round for Marquez. If they gave the fight to Marquez I would have been very disappointed but I don't think I would have disagree with it. It was a very close fight for both fighter that could have gone either way. This was no robbery, you'll know a robbery when you see one.

 

No....close fight.

 

I wouldn't call it a robbery. It was a close fight.

Wait a minute.

Robbery means that someone took something that belongs to someone else. I didn't go to a dictionary on that definition, but I'm pretty sure it'll hold up.

If you take a victory that does not belong to you, wouldn't you have just taken something that belongs to someone else?

Well, judges were involved. Maybe it should be called receiving stolen goods.

Anyway. I really thought the fight was a close decision loss for Pac. I believe I had it 8-4 in terms of rounds.

 

I said it already, but I think it still needs to be said again.

It was a close, close fight that could have been scored either way. As it turns out, two of the official judges had it for PacMan, while the other for Marquez. If it had been a split verdict for Marquez it would have been totally acceptable.

What is unacceptable at this point is repeating over and over again that it should have been a lopsided victory for Marquez going to the lengths of scoring a round (eighth) as a 10-8 for Marquez when there was never a near-knockdown.

This is total hypocrisy for one's pet fighter. If you're such a ***** to score something like this as such, then you WOULD have scored the 3rd a 10-7, for it didn't just seem like Marquez was knocked down twice, he was knocked down a second time--only the rope kept him up. That's a fact.

This glaring omission from those who say it was lopsided for JMM only makes one thing clear. If they took the time to score the 8th 10-8 JMM and not score the 3rd 10-7 Pac it makes you wonder about their credibility to score the close rounds impartially at all, and ultimately the robbery claims go down the drain.

A close, close fight that was scored a split decision which didn't favor your fighter isn't a robbery.

 

Very well said buddy.

 

not robbery

 

He was robbed of only 1 round...that's round 12. Get over it gentlemen.

I have this whole series a draw which would be a robbery to the losers.

 

Should be a third option - "Close, no robbery, but CLEAR"

that's my vote.

 

i had it marquez but it was a close fight with no one clearly winning the rounds.

people forget about that in boxing no-one is really a winner unless the judges called it

 

the fight was close, but i tought Marquez won, but cant be mad at the judges for their decicions, with Marquez being down once and all those phillipinos screaming everytime Pacquiao raised his hand, you cant blame them.

great fight

 

It could have gone either way, I was cheering for Pacman but thought Marquez just edged it, but the scorecards reflected what it was, a very close fight, no complaints from me and there would have been none had the cards read in favour of Marquez.

I stopped listening to half of the people on here on subjects like this after there was a huge cry that Mosley got robbed against Cotto :-( some people just see what they want to see.