Who smells rat in the Pac-Clottey decision?

expect some long undercards and a short main event. round 6 or 7

 

Since the beginning of pro boxing... if you are a challenger and want to win by decision you will need to beat the champion convincingly - a 10-8 round or two will help. Close 10-9 rounds will NOT do it.

This has been true since the beginning of time. As they say
"You have to take it from the champion."

 

Why would it be hillarious?

Anytime a likeable name fighter like Pac fights a fighter thats unknown to the casual fan, the propensity for a bad decision increases.

I think anyone in this forum with a brain already knows that all Pac has to do is be semi-competitive and he's got the fight in the bag.


Do you think that Clottey has any chance at a fair decision with the possibility of Mayweather or Mosley next on the Pacroid ledger?????

I dont think so.
If Clottey finds himself easily outboxing Pacroid, he'll need to step it up and go for the KO!

 

Well, if Pacquiao wins a decision he shouldn't get, then you will see it in his eyes in the post-fight interview. If you watch his interview after the second JMM fight, you could see it in his eyes that he knew he should have lost.

 

Clottey will need to beat the hell out of Pacquiao to get the decision. Pacquiao will definately get the benefit of the doubt in close rounds. That's nothing new in boxing though. The big named fighter always gets a little help from the judges.

 

You know, if that protocol of taking from the champ were to be followed everytime, and the judges would'nt be selective on when they want to judge that way......I would'nt have that much of a problem with it.

The problem lies in that the judges are very selective when they use that "you have to take it from the champion' criteria.

 

I don't disagree. You are right but that is the reality of boxing. This unwritten rule has been in effect as far as I can remember.

 

its Texas judges..you could be right.

 

Thats just my point....its not an unwritten rule if the judges are selective on when they implement such criteria.

......when you're selective on the criteria, its seizes to be a rule and becomes a bias.

.......and more times than not, I'd say it goes well beyond a bias to outright corruptness and dishonesty.

 

the draw will be very suspicious

 

Well, there was a reason that Pacquiao HAD to knock out Barrera at all costs back in 2003 in Texas...

Same with Marquez/Diaz last year.

 

I hate to keep bringing up the Marquez fights, but those are the fights that Pacroid got a gift in......

.....you look at both those fights, and I'm seeing Pacquiao getting rounds that Marquez clear as day won.......
.....imo the criteria for that fight went from Pacquiao getting the benefit of close rounds to Pacquiao getting the round when Marquez did not completely dominate it.


This fight here with Clottey with alot riding on a possible Mayweather fight later in the year, is likely to be judged similarly to the Marquez fights.....

My dream scenario would actually have the fight be razor close to where it can go either way, but have Clottey score an early flash knockdown or two in it....

I'd just love to see how the *******s would defend that decision if it should go Pac's way!

 

Ninja turtle Master will be in the house for sure!

 

I don' t think you fully understand what it means to be an unwritten rule. Not only it is not 'on the books' but often it is subjective in its implementation.

Bottom line is, if anyone thinks a close fight will benefit Clottey then you are taking a huge risk based in the history of this sport.