.......winning is winning!" http://www.everythingaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/vin-diesel-playlist.jpg people argue that marquez vs. pacquiao was not considered a rob because "it was much closer....." well guess what....Marquez should have won, just as Pacquiao should have won.....just as CASTILLO should have won. ..........it doesn't matter if you get robbed in a close fight, or a shutout.....a rob is STILL a ROB!!!!!! :deal
Sorry, no. A win is a win, inch or a mile.. the same ****s who were saying JMM is 0-1-2 against pac OFFICIALLY can now say Bradley 1-0 Pac. Karma is a sweet ***** ain't it.
Pretty much even though I had Marquez winning 8-4 or 9-3... and I had PAC winning around the same ammount... those idiots want to save face and say they BEAT marquez when they know they didn't...
A fight can go either way in a very close fight your logic applies to pac vs jmm 3 and pac vs tim where a draw would be the most acceptable but still wrong. Floyd vs castillo was like pac vs jmm 1/2 you need to respect the decision there since it was so close.
oh i completely agree......Karma is a *****!!!!!! and now pacquiao knows how it feels like to get robbed! :thumbsup
Manny get robbery *****s! Manny win in shutout. Roach right and Bradley win 0 round. Hate ***** they spread like disease. Manny real champion and Floyd now have reason to duck and use Pacquiao lose excuse.
PAC VS. JMM 3 was not a close fight......... it was CLOSER than bradley vs. pac.....but still, JMM should have gotten the decision. but even if a fight is close......if there is a clear winner, then he is robbed if he doesn't get the decision. it's as simple as that... a fight can be close but still have a clear winner
dude....just use google translate, it would probably make more sense. Floyd would have gotten a much CLEARER decision had he fought pacquiao last night......just sayin'
Im not disagreeing man, I feel the same about oscar vs sturm or hearns vs leonard 2, but a fight like oscar vs pernell or sergio vs pw 1, those were so close you cant argue about the decision unless a judge has it extremely wide. Its not the same type of fight like last night where there is a clear close winner.
A win isn't just a win in this sport. You inquire bodily damage over the course of rounds so if you can blow out an opponent out spectacularly instead of a hard fought, close decision then you should do it. Perceptions also matter in this sport because better impressions get you better fights and more money. Winning by a mile is always better than winning by an inch in this sport of gladiators.
Not for me. My favorite fights are close ****ing fights ALA Morales-Barrera, Id rather watch Duran beat Leanard in a close fight rather than watch Leanard outbox Duran by a mile. Close fights bring the gladiator out of both fighters.:deal
i agree....and the first two fights of JMM vs. PAC were just like you said....could have gone either way, and that's fine... .....................but not the 3rd. the 3rd was quite clear......
i'm not judging anyone's preferences of how they would rather see fights go.....if they would rather see someone completely destroy someone or have it be a good competitive fight.... ...to each his own. all i'm saying is that as long as there's a clear winner.........if that person does not get the decision....then it is a robbery. someone could shut someone out 12 rounds to 0.....or someone could win 7 rounds CLEARLY out of the 12..... if it's a clear win.....then it's a robbery
