Freddie Roach Says Judges Sometimes Prefer Aggressive Fighters

I think Freddie admitted somewhere that Manny may have lost the 2nd fight with Marquez.

but you even know that judges score it because of agressiveness. I think that's what the problem is. lack of clear cut definition of what a 10-9 round should be.

that's why boxing sucks in the first place. Its decided on judging. human judging.

 

he is right...."workrate" is one of the most overused ******ed terms


swinging at air and hitting someones elbows should not get you points

 

You have absolutely no basis for that accusation, I mean they disagree with you on the outcome of a fight, I don't know how that automatically means that they are "corrupt".

 

Verbally as far as Roach has gone is to say that either fight could have gone either way, however his mannerisms when discussing Marquez-Pacquiao tell the story that Manny got a gift.

......and I dont agree with you that aggressiveness is what led the judges to tilt the fight to Pacquiao's favor.

I think most of us know that the politics of the sport and Pacquiao's explosive style being more fan friendly is what leads for the judges to dishonestly give rounds they should'nt to him.

The facts are that fighters who are pre-hyped, climb the ring with a pre-advantage and they in many instances will get rounds which are barely competitive.

Going into the fight, Pacquiao coming off of twice blowing away the great Erik Morales, you knew Marquez had to completely dominate every round he wanted to bank, and even then there were no guarantees.
Unfortunately thats just the way the business of boxing operates.

 

At what proportion? If I land 20 decent shots, nothing to write home about, but still legitimate scoring punches. You land 5-7 "cleaner/crisper" shots, who gets the round? Obviously you feel the 5-7 "cleaner/crisper" shots, some may say the 20 legit scoring punches, I mean it's a judgement call and that's why they are called judges. I don't mean that sarcastic but it's a little more subjective than who's land the cleaner shots, especially when a guy is steadily pushing the fight, and coming forward. I can tell you that I've heard more than once on this board that there's a huge difference between scoring a fight live and scoring it on TV. That being said, I can't testify as to what their perceptions were, I can only say that I also had the fight pretty close. I thought Lara won, but I didn't think he won the way HBO and many here make it out to be, and I don't see the decision as some kind of outragous travesty. I thought Lara gassed, and gave away the last 1/3 of the fight, and it cost him. My favorite fighter (Jermain Taylor) got a draw with Winky Wright based on Winky giving away the last round in a fight that when you look at the overall body of work, I think he could have won. It was Winky's fault he coasted in, no one forced him to do that, same could be said with Lara.

 

You say that's why it sucks, I would say that's what makes it interesting, the drama of it. The tough decision's are what make a bitter rivalry, they are what set up the "next" fight, the decision is one of the most exciting parts of boxing...in my opinion.

 

Doubt I'd give a round to a 7 punch person vs the 20... large part of it also is punch connect percentage. You're right it is more subjective than that.. but if they're landing at a comparable percentage, or even if the "crisper/cleaner" punches are at a slightly lower percentage and the punches landed isn't a total landslide I would give it to the "crisper/cleaner" puncher. I thought Lara won and it was by more than 1 round, not as wide as HBO had it but still a clear win. Paul and his own corner thought they were losing the fight.

 

Nah I agree with what you are saying 100%, all I'm getting at is that while we dismiss a lot of what Paul did on the inside and in the clinches...perhaps the judges who were watching it live, had a different impression of the effectiveness of those shots. Again, I had Lara winning a close fight, but I don't think it's just crazy that someone would see Williams as the winner based on him pushing the fight, Lara being in constant retreat, doing next to nothing when they were close, and landing 4 pot shot type left hands every round that essentially did nothing to discourage PW.

 

Like I have said before and this helps validate it. Williams was given the decision based off of pure work rate. Not the right decision, but not one where you should change the result either.

 

Nice theory except Pac won the first fight clearly. JMM got rounds for doing relatively better.

 

Do you think Pac won 7 rounds in that fight?

Most every boxing scribe that gave Pac the fight did'nt have Pac winning more than 5 rounds.

The range in scoring from most journalist in that first Marquez fight ranged from giving Pac anywhere from 2 to 5 rounds.
Less that about 10% who scored for Pac gave him 6 rounds, and if you could pile 1000 scribes who scored the fight, you could count on one hand the number of people who gave Pacquiao 7 rounds.

To give Pacquiao 7 rounds in that first fight, is a worst decision than Williams getting his gift vs Lara.

Btw, what happened in that fight after Pac won the first two rounds clearly was that Marquez took over the fight from the 3rd round on........
The great majority of the rounds were'nt even competitive.
So dominant was Marquez from the 3rd to the last, that what happened is that a couple of the official judges started to give Pac rounds when Marquez did'nt dominate the round the way he had the previous.

Example, Pacquiao was repeatedly round after round getting his head snapped back on a consistent basis, not much being landed effectively by Pacquiao.
When a round came up where Pac got in 3 or 4 good straight lefts in, despite Marquez having done more, the judge would give it to Pac because in this round, he too got 3 or 4 head snapping shots he had not done in previous rounds.

The judges' mentality in the fight was like, "ah, Pac actually got in a few licks here, we'll give him the round.":nut

 

Pac won and has Void running like the chicken woman beater he really is.........

 

Aggression to me is like an ace high hand in cards.
If you have nothing better, then it wins you the hand.

But the purpose of a fight at its core is to determine the better boxer and the better man in the ring. If the Paul Williams fight would go 25 rounds without corner, referee or doctor intervention, Paul Williams dies in that ring. Lara was hitting him hard and not really taking a whole lot in return. Williams tires himself out throwing sloppy arm punches and offering up his chin.

Damage is crucial. How many shitty arm punches evens out a beautiful straight left that whips the opponent's head around? I'd say infinite. If you throw 1000000000000000000000 shitty arm punches that do nothing but tire yourself out, it can be erased by one flush power shot that does damage.

 

You actually didn't disagree with what I posted.

Hard punching is basically ONLY taken into account when the workrates are hard to tell from each other.

And there's a reason why people will give points to a guy who is hitting air and shoulders and the opponent's guard:

THE OTHER GUY ISN'T HITTING BACK AT A CONSISTENT PACE.

You might say boxing is a game of hit and not get hit. But if someone's forcing you to drop your workrate to crappy levels and just pushes you around to defense all night long, then you are never going to win the round, even if your punches visibly snap your opponent's head back, you actually end up making your opponent's face look like cut open meat, or your form is better.

For the sole reason that your workrate is so completely crap and that even if he's hitting your gloves and shoulders, you're not doing any work at all at the same time.

Because again, if it's just about form and power and the bruising you caused on another guy's face that wins fights, Joshua Clottey is the clear winner against Pacquiao. But he isn't.

 

No. The purpose of the fight is to see who can score more points or knock people out.

The purpose of large amounts of power is to get KD or KOs and that is how hard punchers score points.

To counteract that and make it even with light punchers, they are allowed workrate to defeat hard punchers to win points decisions.

Just having power doesn't make you the better fighter or boxer. Boxing is not just about power. Just causing damage to the other guy doesn't mean you're the better fighter. (Aside from making the harder puncher miss and you sneaking counters in, but it's harder to score this type of match because counters are sparse throughout fights due to waiting for the hardpuncher to punch whereas swarming punches aren't).

Because if someone lands a Sunday punch on you as a fluke, that don't mean he's better than you. It just means he lucked out on you. Power is a great equalizer, but so is workrate for those who don't have the power to KO others.

It's two sides to a coin, a race to whoever gets to their goal first.

Will you knock this guy out or will he get a decision over you?