What I'm saying is that its a fine line with some observers. Many members of the press had Whitaker over Chavez by a couple of points. I had Whitaker winning the fight handily, no question about it. However, you can't argue the fact that 2 or 3 or the first half a dozen rounds were close. Some people who had the fight 115-113 for Whitaker don't see it as a robbery. Simply because they only see a couple of rounds in it in their eyes. Whitaker won his rounds bigger with more authortive work.
Marquez never pounded Pacquiao all over the ring with every single blow he threw, but the round wasn't close. You seem see it as close, new crtieria for scoring? Marquez backed up Pacquiao, threw more punches, landed more punches. I read a post from someone which stated "Pacquiao never even looked like he trying to win the round" Thats a perfect statement to sum up what transpired throughout the 12th round.
There were certain close rounds in the Whitaker-Chavez fight. I think those that scored it 115-113 for Whitaker were giving Chavez the benefit of the doubt in those close rounds. But I didn't hear ANYONE say off of that that it could have gone either way. That's like saying the guys that had Pacquiao by a point or two in this fight thought that Pac could have won by 3 or 4 points. No. What they are saying is that we favoured Pac in the close rounds, if we had favoured Marquez in those rounds it could have gone the other way. The 'other way' in the Chavez-Whitaker fight was to score it 9 rounds to 3 for Whitaker. Not 7 rounds to 5 Chavez.
HE LIVES!:happy I had Pac up by a point, 114-113. Could give the first to JMM and it would be 114-113 JMM. Indeed, this was hardly a robbery.
Has it crossed anyone`s mind that this Duane Ford fella may be on the take? The reason I ask is because I remember in the first Hopkins/Taylor fight he scored the last round for Taylor, a round which clearly belonged to Hopkins. Had he scored it for Hop the fight would have been a draw and he would have kept his titles. HBO would not have been pleased with that as they wanted their young stud Taylor to be champ as soon as possible and milk it for all it was worth. Now this past weekend he scores the final round for Pacquiao, a round which most people would agree JMM won clearly, yet he gives it to Pacquiao for whatever reason. Pacquiao is the younger, more exciting fighter as well as the more marketable and lucrative commodity, and I don`t believe it is a stretch to suggest that this Duane Ford fella was approached beforehand and influenced in some way or another. Pacman is the money man here after all, not a 34 year old Marquez who is on the way out. It wouldn`t be the first time he has done this kind of thing were he scored a round for fighter A when fighter B clearly won said round, has anyone else noticed this? I have heard stories from reliable sources of officials being bribed with whores showing up at their hotel rooms the night before a big fight or rewarded with free accomodations among other things, and it got me wondering about wether such a thing may have happened in this case. Just a little food for thought....
Christ Scientist, a judge has to try to do his best to award a round to one fighter or the other. Usually they find something in the round to seperate the two and give one fighter the round and not score it even. When they just can make up there mind, yeah its scored even. .....but in this first round, as one poster already mentioned on the thread, Marquez scored with the only telling blows of the round. A terrific right hand, smack flush to Pac's face, and an uppercut type shot to Pac's midsection to end the round. I mentioned in the general forum that had it not been for those two shots by JMM, I would have had the round even myself. .....but those two shots clearly seperated JMM from Pac in the round..... Why on earth would you call that an even round?atsch The 7th and 9th were closer rounds when you compare them to other rounds that JMM clearly won hands down.....but a close look at them clearly finds JMM landing with the harder more telling blows. I dont know what it is with Scientist, he likes skilled fighters......but for some reason, he does'nt like skilled fighters who can also put mustard on their shots. JMM deficiency was that he got hit by Pac say's Scientist...... .....had JMM armpunched his way through the round, I guarantee you he'd have gotten hit alot less. ....but unlike some fighters, Marquez was in the fight to win. When you go up against a name like Pacquiao, smart fighters figure out real quick that arm puncing his way through a name of that magnitude is not going to sit well with judges..... ....it turned out that the judges had their minds made up beforehand anyway! Scientist, the 1st, 7th and 9th were the closer rounds in the fight, and you gave none to JMM! You once critiqued me heavily for giving every close round to JC Chavez over Pernell Whitaker....my response was that Whitaker was out and out running backwards in those rounds, and JC Chavez was out and out running foward in those rounds..... You went as far as to say that what you do is divide the close rounds between them, (which should'nt be done as a round is scored independent from other rounds) .....but if you do that, why did'nt you do it in this fight? So in essence Scientist, you admit that 1,7, and 9 were the closest rounds of the fight. The clear rounds for Pac being 3,4, and 10 The clear rounds for JMM being 2,5,6,8,11, and 12! 6 clear rounds to JMM and 3 clear rounds for Pac, and yet you're happy with the way you came up with a draw?:huh :-( :nut
Ford's a joke. He had Holmes just two points ahead of Cooney AFTER Gerry had three deducted. He also had Moorer just one point ahead of Big George. The man's a joke. There's rumours going around that Mickey Mouse wears a Duane Ford wristwatch. :good
When I get some time later tonight I will respond to this. NO WAY am I letting this fly under the radar :good
I scored the fight for Marquez 114-113, or 7 rounds to 5. Interestingly enough, I saw the fight with two more guys. One had it 114-113 Pacquio or 6 rounds apiece. The other guy had it 114-114 or 6-5-1 for Marquez. The three of us would have scored the bout a draw. Seemed like a fight that could have went either way.
If a round is even it's even. I don't care if I have to score all 12 rounds even. If they are even I call them that way. Because Pac himself was hitting JMM with numerous straight lefts to the midsection. Juan landed "the" punch of the round, but Pac landed a few more scoring shots. I disagree. I thought Pac landed the more telling shots those rounds. Though they were close rounds, I admit. You are insinuating that unlike Whitaker in the Chavez fight, Marquez was willing to risk harm to inflict harm and win the decision. That's a pissweak excuse for Juan having a leaky defense. Ask anyone that has seen Whitaker-Chavez who landed the harder blows of the fight and let's see if anyone says Chavez. And no I'm not just talking about the 2 rounds that Whitaker clocked him. Throughout most rounds of the fight he was hitting Chavez with the harder, cleaner shots. So he moved around whilst doing it and didn't get hit in return, so what? As great as you want to make Marquez out to be, you have to admit that he is flawed. His defense isn't that great. Simple as. Yeah and the 12th round was close and I gave it to Marquez. And the 3rd round was arguably a 10-7 round (something you are keen to evade talking about in all the Marquez-Pac threads that I've been reading) and I didn't score it that way. Don't try and make out that I went all out and gave Pac EVERY benefit of the doubt. I didn't. If you think a certain fighter won all the close rounds that's fair enough you should score them for him. I've never said any different. In the Chavez-Whitaker fight I didn't just choose to divide the close rounds between them. There were subtle differences that I picked up on between the rounds that made me think Chavez won some and Whitaker won some. I think your bias towards Chavez made you give all questionable rounds to Chavez and that's what I find disagreeable. BTW Vlade, you are fond of saying to the Pac fans that if they scored the fight a draw or a narrow win for Pac that that's an admission that JMM won the fight. Should I take that to mean that you scoring Whitaker-Chavez a draw is an admission that Chavez got worked? Like I said above, I don't think round 12 was clear for Juan and I also think round 3 could possibly be scored 10-7. And yes, I'm very happy with my card.
This is the only statement I will comment on Scientist, as your rebuttal to my post is weak......in fact its your worst effort as far as responses in debates we've had over the years considering you took a couple of days to respond and dished out something that was weak........ Unlike those who are on Pac's side of the scoring argument who have'nt been able to explain anything but that Pac deserved the decision becuase JMM kissed canvas (as we know a fight is'nt decided in one round)....in my arguments that Chavez recieved a draw, I made it quite clear that I felt that Whitaker had the only dominant rounds of the contest. Whitaker had two rounds where he dominated Chavez....and I made that clear in my argument. .....I also went on to say that Whitaker did'nt even try to win some of the rounds that were contested, he gave them up by default by not even trying to put together meaningful punches and instead backpedalling around the ring throwing arm punches that would'nt hurt my grandmother. That clearly was'nt the case with JMM who was throwing thunder himself through 12 rounds Scientist, not just 2! The close rounds in the Chavez-Whitaker fight I gave mostly to Chavez, because he was the clear running foward aggressor, now you might say that Chavez was'nt effective being the come foward running aggressor, and to that I say that Whitaker was'nt effective being the backpedaling running boxer throwing nothing but crap that woul'dnt even squash a fly if it were to be caught between Whitaker's landed shots and Chavez himself. I'm not about to get into a Chavez-Whitaker debate with you as we've already done it to nauseum on more than a few occasions. You know where I stand on that issue. .....and lets not forget Scientist, that when debating Chavez Whitaker, my beef with those I've debated was not that they had Whitaker winning, my beef has always been the margin on the scorecards that posters like yourself had in seeing Whitaker win. The perception that many have that Chavez-Whitaker was the worst robbery in boxing history is what gets my juices flowing to debate otherwise with them. I've never disagreed or called anyone dishonest, biased, or what have you, because they had Whitaker edging Chavez by a reasonable margin....not the 9-3 domination that you would like to believe. Usually when a hardcore group of non-boxing fanatics, but Pac fanatics say that it could have gone either way, thats a pretty strong indicator that there fighter got worked Scientist. Most of these Pac fanatics have very little knowleadge about anybody but Pac....so when they say, it could have gone either way, that they would'nt have cried or gotten upset if JMM had gotten the decision, you know that its all a bunch of hogwash Scientist, they know who won the fight, as do quite a few boxing writers from the Phillipines from what I'm hearing. Consider the source is what I'm saying. You can call me whatever you want Scientist, a Chavez nuthugger or whatever.....as I can call you a Whitaker nutswinger and the whole classic forum would likely agree with me.......but my record on this forum in posting in a variety of subjects about boxing, points strongly that I'm alot more credible in terms of debating boxing than 99% of these Pac hardcores that are littering the general forum with nonsense. .....btw, I dont disapprove that they are here littering the general forum. They have just as much right as anyone, my point is being made to you Scientist, you should know better to differentiate between the class of posters! ....and also btw, look who the classic section has winning on the poll as to who won between JMM and Pac.... as of now JMM is ahead on the poll at almost a 70/30 clip......even the general forum poll with is loitered with Pac hardcores in not far off from this poll!