:twisted: The fight was damn close, but I feel the knock down won it for Pacquiao. I had Pacquiao and Marquez winning 6 rounds each with the KD being the deciding factor. I had gave each benefit of the doubt on the close rounds. Most people would agree the fight was close, but I think you would have to have giving Marquez the benefit of the doubt on all the close rounds to have giving him the fight. He didn't win 8 out of the 12 imho. Just like the judge in the first fight scored the first round wrong and everyone said "deal with it, it's a draw no matter what you say". Well the judges decided and Pacquiao won, deal with it, and it will never be changed. No Robbery, great fight by both. :happy
Giving "each benefit of the doubt in the close rounds" doesn't make sense. Fair point about the draw in the first fight/close decision in the second, though.
why is everyone debating the word robbery. if the wrong guy was given the win then it is a robbery no matter how close the contest was. and stop telling people to deal with it like it is some case of denial or something. everyone knows pac was given the win, what we are debating is whether it was deserved and that is what we are dealing with.
Something tells me all those whinning about "stop the robbery talk" were doing a bit of this :| :| after the verdict in the first fight! Fuc#ing Hypocritesatsch
I was just trying to be as unbias as possible. So I tried to split the differences so to speak. And thanks for the compliment, I thought it was a good point myself. :hey :good
A robbery implies, to a normal person, that the fight was a blowout win for the guy who didn't get the decision. This was clearly not the case. To call this fight a robbery is an insult to the hundreds of boxing matching that ending in robberies... Foreman-Morrison, Foreman-Schulz, Ali-(insert boxers name here) to name a few. :good
That would have been more effective with one of these: :roll: There are some here he can't read without the aid of emoticons!
I didn't call it a robbery in their first fight cause the fight was close, Marquez deserved if he didn't get KD 3 times in the first fight, but he did. Pacquaio fans were upset in the first fight cause a judge made a error in scoring, that he admitted was an error. Simple as that.
no. a robbery is an undeserved loss regardless of how tight the contest is. it is that way in every sport including boxing. what we are debating is whether it was indeed an undeserved loss or if pac did in fact out point marquez. that is the factor that determines if a fighter was robbed or not. did he deserve that loss? in my opinion, no, so to me it was a robbery even if i am not yelling it from every hill top. it has little to do with the margin of error and there is no scale of robbery levels. either you deserved the loss or not. i am not saying i am right in saying jmm won this fight, that is debateable. i am saying that if i feel jmm rightfully deserved the win then to me and to those that feel the same way, this was a robbery.
JMM should of retained his title. After the 12th Marquez celebrated while PAC was recovering from his beating. When the verdict came about, Manny Pacquaio was SHOCKED! I was shocked with PAC bcuz I thought he lost too!!!!
those people who are calling this a robbery are idiots!!!!!! because there are enough close rounds where the fight could logically go either way!!!!
