JMM-Pac who won?

Well, rest assured it didn't take me two days to think about it. I was just too busy to reply at any length. In any case, I'm happy for you to leave the rest of my post as simply too 'weak' to reply to. :good

If it was Julio putting the beats on Sweet Pea in those two rounds, you would have scored them 10-8 rounds, just like you did in scoring the 8th round of Marquez-Pac II 10-8. :yep

I disagree that Whitaker was throwing in nothing but weak punches in some rounds. As would 95% of the intelligent people who scored that fight.

Yeah they had nothing on Chavez's shots which were putting a beat down on the oxygen in the Alamodome :yep

Fair enough, but there were plenty of 9-3 cards dished out for the Chavez-Whitaker fight. I'm yet to see a 6 point margin for Marquez like the little doozy you brought up. Oh and I'm also yet to see a credible card (forget that, ANY CARD) from a scribe that thought Chavez-Whitaker was a draw, OR could have gone either way.

Really? I could have sworn you were running the argument that because I had Whitaker-Rivera I scored a draw that I was all but admitting that Whitaker lost subconsciously. Hmm, I guess I'm just one of those non-boxing fanatics, who somehow manage to dwell in the classic forum. As they do.

Here's some sources to consider:

press row scores for pac-jmm 2:

Doug Fischer, Maxboxing.com - 114-114 Draw
Brad Cooney, Cooney Entertainment - Draw
Harold Lederman, HBO - 115-112 for Pacquiao
Dan Rafael, Espn.com – 114-113 for Marquez
Steve Kim, Maxboxing.com – 115-112 for Pacquiao
The Arizona Republic – 114-113 for Marquez
Jeff Haney, Las Vegas Sun - 114-113 for Pacquiao
Ricardo Lois, boxingconfidential.com – 115-112 for Marquez
Michael Marley, boxingconfidential.com – 114-113 for Pacquiao
SC, badlefthook.com – 114-113 for Marquez
Ace Freeman, fightfan.com – 115-112 for Pacquiao
Victor Perea, fightnews.com - 115-113 for Marquez
‘Undisputed’, doghouseboxing.com – 115-114 for Pacquiao
Bart Barry, 15rounds.com – 115-113 for Marquez
Ben Thompson of fighthype.com – 114-113 for Pacquiao
Tim Starks, Mvn - 114-113 for Marquez
Aaron Jones, fightbeat.com – 115-112 for Pacquiao


Man, look at all those Pac nuthuggers :yep


And now, let's consider some other sources:

Juan Carlos Gutierrez, Excelsior: 115-114 Whitaker
Bill Lyon, Philadelphia Inquirer: 117-115 Whitaker
Michael Wilbon, The Washington Post: 115-113 Whitaker
Richard Martinez, San Antonio Express-Light: 115-113 Whitaker
Tim Kawakami, Los Angeles Times: 115-113 Whitaker
Carlos Hernandez, La Journada: 116-114 Whitaker
Bernard Fernandez, Philadelphia Daily News: 116-112 Whitaker
Jon Saraceno, USA Today: 116-112 Whitaker
Carlos Rivero, Uno Mas Uno: 116-113 Whitaker
Joe Gergen, Newsday: 116-112 Whitaker
Ed Shyuler, The Associated Press: 116-112 Whitaker
Bert Sugar, Boxing Illustrated: 116-112 Whitaker
Bob Sheridan: 118-113 Whitaker
Bill Nack, Sports Illustrated: 117-111 Whitaker
Steve Farhood, The Ring: 117-111 Whitaker
Gerald Eskenazi, New York Times, 117-111 Whitaker
Al Bernstein, ESPN: 118-110 Whitaker


British Boxing News, Boxing Monthly, ITV, KO Magazine and World Boxing also had Whitaker ahead.


My oh my the Pea nuthuggers are out in force :yep

You are a better poster than all the Pac hardcores, Can't deny that at all.

Put up a draw option and you'll have about 40% thinking Marquez didn't win the fight. You can't claim robbery when that's the case, I'm sorry.

 

That's funny, because if you actually read the articles that accompanied many of those scores you put up (a few having it inaccurately by the way - Doug Fischer had it a draw, not 115-112 for Pac and Fightnews had it 115-113, not 115-112 etc.) you'd see that nearly everyone there said the fight could have gone either way.

So are we to write off all the scribes that hold that opinion, which was an overwhelming majority of them? They certainly weren't towing the line that you could score it close if you were giving Pac the benefit of all the close rounds.

I just watched the 8th rounds of Chavez-Whitaker and Marquez-Pac and both Pac and Chavez got beat up. Whitaker beat up Chavez worse, but Marguez won his round more one sidedly. Neither was a 10-8 round though. Hence no one scoring it 10-8 that I've seen other than you.

Yep, more 'weak' arguments on my behalf not worth responding to.

One thing I MUST get you to respond to though is Maquez holding onto the rope in the third round. Do you think that round could be scored 10-7?

It's on topic, so don't duck it. I'm genuinely interested in what you think about it.

Cheers :good

 

Yeah, well between you and RB i am convinced he's either on the take, or fukked in the head

 

Rivalries - gotta love em

 

It's a pity this has descened into a Whitaker-Chavez debate. Whitaker was clearly the better man that night. If you didn't score it thus, then it's your problem. :huh

 

Fair enough. Like I said I think Marquez deserved the nod. 7-5 I had it. But it's not a case of people saying: "well, you theoretically could have had it 6-6". I couldn't. 7-5's the best I can offer Pac.

 

I don't think I would have called it a knockdown if I was the ref. The reason for that is because I'm not sure if he was going to fall down or not. Maybe he would have, maybe he wouldn't have. I'm not sure. If I thought he was going to fall over, I would have scored it 10-7, irrespective of whether the ref called it a knockdown or not.

Just as an aside, I gave Vasquez an extra point in the 12th round of his fight with Rafa Marquez, becuase I thought Marquez would have went down if it hadn't been for the ropes. Even if the ref didn't call it a knockdown, I would have. With the pummelling Vasquez gave Marquez that round, you could probably call that round a legitimate 10-7 round actually.

 

Welllll i'm not fully convinced SS was the one who brought Whitaker - Chavez into things

:hey

 

I'll just add though, that I don't think it's unreasonable to call the 3rd round 10-7. I think an argument can be made that Marquez would have fallen over had it not been for the ropes. If a ref did call it a knockdown, I would not have been up in arms about it, though I would consider it controversial.