Still not getting over Pac-JMM III

what a ******ed statement

 

Really ?
There are four things to account for when judging a fight.
1) Clean punching
2) Effective Aggressiveness
3)Ring Generalship
4) Defense

You don't judge a fight by who landed more punches. It is not like in the amateurs. Have you heard Jim Lampley talk about judging blood ? Some jusges might do it and that means they are not doing their job right.
It takes only one punch to close your eye or make your face swell up.
One round is enough to beat someones face up. That doesnt mean you won a close fight because your opponents face is busted up.
Clean punching is not about facial damage.


Read this (not written by me).

Clean Punching

A clean punch is one that lands on a scoring area (face or side of head, not including the back of the head; the front and sides of the torso) with the knuckle portion of the glove. In amateur boxing, the scoring portion of the glove is white. Though a professional glove lacks such markings, the scoring portion of the glove is basically the same.
Clean punches will land flush, not glancing or partially blocked by one's opponent. "Slapping" or "backhanding" is not allowed.


Effective Aggressiveness

Effective aggression is demonstrated when a fighter presses forward, and in doing so, scores more clean punches, or more damaging blows, than his opponent. If a boxer is a particularly hard puncher, even blows that are not landed particularly clean, but obviously affect his opponent, are given scoring weight.
Ring Generalship

The ability to control the pace and style of a fight is ring generalship. For instance, a high volume-punching brawler will attempt to force a "stick and move" boxer into a slugfest. Conversely, the pure boxer will attempt to slow the pace of the fight by keeping his opponent at the end of his jab and use angles and feints in order to set up his heavier punches.
It is imperative that professional judges comprehend each fighter's respective style in order to understand who is controlling the action and demonstrating superior ring generalship.
Defense

Probably the most ignored, if not maligned, of the four judging criteria is defense. There have been boxers who were such defensive wizards, such as Willie Pep, or Pernell Whitaker, that it was virtually impossible for judges not to recognize their skill. It is said that Pep once won a round against Jackie Graves in 1946 without landing a single punch. In truth, the featherweight Pep landed a few jabs during that round, but such a story is remarkable only because it is so rare, as defense is so poorly appreciated.
Defense is the ability to avoid punishment. A boxer with greater reach than his opponent may stay on the outside and use his footwork to avoid punches--a style often frowned on by judges. One might stay inside and slip punches. Another option is to block an opponent's punches with one's gloves, arms and shoulders, or the highly skilled fighter may choose to use a combination of defensive techniques, depending on the situation.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I don't need smart words or know my way with words to expose your stupidity.

 

Oh i understand you. You contradict yourself. You choose to ignore facts. And best of all you are a bias fanboy that doesn't know much about the sport.

 

I hate these threads. They go on with the same copy and pasted arguments for pages on and on with the same assholes. Then you'll hear **** about footstomping and slow mo. :tired
It's usually not just the *******s, but the ******* trolls who are in here who joined the forum just so they can talk **** to mayweather fans or suck Pac's balls (like sunn)

 

Read this whole page again.

 

These little ****** *******s can argue and cry all they want about a supposed pacquiao win in these forums... but they will never change the fact that Marquez truly won that fight añd was robbed at the highest level of boxing in which everyone was a witness of this corrupted sport... at least everyone acknowledges the Marquez victory and robbery and the only ones who defend this disgraceful robbery are ddie hard pac dick riders... fighters fans and media the majority had Marquez winning and that will never change ...

Pacs 2nd and 3rd fight will always have an asterisk and they do...

Marquez is the true WW champ and exposed that little midget he will never be superior to a counter puncher..

 

close, controversial fights have asterisks, that's normal. Norton had 3 controversial fights with Ali, yet noone in their right mind thinks Norton was a better fighter than Ali or that Ali was exposed by Norton.

 

Norton Ali is a seperate era, circumstances and fighters...

we are talking JMM PAC...who did in fact expose the Prime WW PAC who is "unstoppable"


JMM is better then Pacquiao and will always have PACs number and that is a fact! the pilipino boogeyman has these little *******s crying since part 2....