Pacquiao vs. Marquez a robbery? On What Basis did Juan Marquez "WIN"???

The 3 judges that night have decades of experience and aren't involved in any previous controversy. Apparently, not til Pac-Marquez 3. atsch

 

On reflection, and watching the fight again, it showed that the decision was better than a lot of people thought. A lot of marquez's 'cleaner hitting' didn't even touch Pac. Pac outlanded JMM, busted him up more, controlled the pace and showed agression - given that JMM did end up outlanded and more busted up, this could be judged as effective aggression.

A draw would have been an okay result, or a close decision either way. Pac got a very close decision - which is about right.

I don't think it helps the argument that there are two very vocal groups all wishing for Pac to look bad on this one; *****s and the latin fans. But despite all the noise they made, the result was still fine.

 

On the basis that, on a round by round scoring system, he landed the more effective punches, and the only way to off-set that would be for the opponent to be a wizard of aggression, ring generalship, and defense while only landing slightly fewer "effective punches". Every round is different, but these were the premises of all twelve.

And "a wizard of aggression, ring generalship, and defense" Pacquiao clearly was not.

 

Ummmm, can you please read your post, then read the below link. Try to tell me that you don't admit you're an idiot or at the very least, completely uninformed and unaware of the critical and fan reaction.

http://ringtv.craveonline.com/blog/170145-experts

 

Clean punching, ring generalship, defense.

/thread

 

are you ******ed... he did win the rounds, he lost because of knockdowns..

 

You're clever.

 

I can't believe this is being talked about. Like what I've been saying, Pac, to a lot of people, lost because he had a tough fight against Marquez. That is a modest way of saying that a lot of boxing fans expect too much from Pac.

 

Well Marquez WOULD have won those first two fights like compubox supported, if not for the 4 knockdowns, right genious? atsch

 

Not suprising, alot of people actually do think that its a computer who senses and counts the punches. They have no clue that its actually human beings determining what is and is'nt a punch and pushing buttons so that then the computer calculates the buttons that were pushed.


If anyone's watched boxing during the Olympics. The punch stats are actually put on the screen as they happen, and you can see how inaccurate they are.
In many instances you can see a fighter throw a clean 3 punch combination of which every punch landed, but somehow the punchstats does'nt pick it up and the fighter landing that combination does'nt get any credit for it.
The same with punches that are blocked or miss the mark. A punch blocked or slipped I've seen numerous times count as a connect on the TV screen.

Olympic boxing was once a prime sport during the Olympics in the US.
TV networks in the US during the last several Olympics have not even shown Olympic boxing because of the embarrassment of the inaccurate punchstats on the screen that determine the actual winner between combatants.
People have just been turned off by it that people dont even want to watch it anymore.


Punchstats are biased human beings counting punches. Especially in big fight scenarious with so much on the line if a fighter wins or loses.
The final stats should be taken with a grain of salt.



Btw, what a terrible article that link was from the thread starter.
The merits of which that writer gives to Pacquiao would side with the abolishment of judges alltogether and just have a proffesional boxing match be determined the Olympic way, by punchstats.
We can even add a second criteria to the punchstat and give a fighter extra points if the opponent bruises up more than he did.

 

What are you smoking? Read what I said, this time sound out the words aloud and then think about them. What they mean, not what you automatically assume they mean.

Did I say it was only *****s or latin fans who thought JMM won? No, I just said that they don't help. I would add that they are the most histrionic, screaming robbery when that word really doesn't apply.

Try to tell me now that you have reading comprehension issues. Don't bother, I already worked that one out.

 

Stick to rock music dumb azz!!!

 

Completely avoiding the point, you ****en ******. I'm out.

 

I Agree:yep

I actually flew over for the fight & had a $1200 ticket with a great view but on the night i thought JMM just about deserved it, but when i got back to the UK & watched it on DVD (Volume down low) i was shocked by how many JMM punches i thought landed actually missed by a street. I had to turn the volume down as the UK commentary was truly shocking, a company called "PRIMETIME" had the rights & had this american parrot screetchin Marquez this & marquez that, ****in clueless he was, better suited to MMA or WWE. Twice i've watched it & had manny the winner by 2 points.

I'am a big fan of both of them & never bought into this Pac power will blow JMM away crap, it was always going to be rounds 25/36 for me & a pick-em at the end due to the style clash, you'd get this if they fought a 100 times.

Commentary & Crowd atmosphere all play a part in how we view a fight. It's an influence thats hard to block out no matter what we think. But on reflection after watching it on DVD i feel JMM just let it slip away in the final 3rd. he was always going to make Pac look awkward & clumsy at times as he's a superb counter puncher & brilliant boxer. But the fact for me is that the UK commentary was truly shite of the 1st order & i'd recommend folk watching it with the volume low, not easy, but give it a go & you'll see a totally different fight with regards to scoring it. A draw or a point either way i've no problems with but a ROBBERY IT WAS NOT!!!!