people here always says that jmm dominated more round than pac that why he should be the better fighter and the winner in their second fight.. isnt knock downs part of the scoring?! there was only one round that i saw where jmm really dominated pac.. round 8 of 2nd fight, but pac 1st round domination in the first fight was classic..
thats why i think people saying to go round by round to see who was the better fighter in the 2 is stupid..
In other words if it was an amatuer fight it could have been stopped? I can't remember the last time I saw a pro fight with a 3 knockdown rule in effect.
The 3 knockdown rule is ****ing ridiculous anyway. If a man can continue on fighting he should be allowed to continue. Obviously using JMM - Pac I as an example, 3 knockdowns doesn't necessarily mean you're out.
pac is stained with blood in that round..he could not see JMM's punches coming that round could have been a 10-8 round
:rofl: @ thread . I have to agree though, the first round was classic. It perfectly set up the whole rivalry.
WTF you're talking about? Didn't you see that JMM was landing his punches to Pac's arms and gloves at will? Was that dominance enough to you?
JMM won more rounds, 7-5 in the first fight but the 1st rd hole was too much to overcome and he was lucky to escape with a draw aided by a scoring error. The 2nd fight was a 6-6 tie with Pac clinching the victory with a KD in the 3rd rd. It could had been a 7-5 in JMM's favor because he was winning the 3rd round before that fateful KD. Yeah, JMM won more rounds but on records, Pac has a win and a draw over JMM.