Why is Pacquiao Marquez I not considered a clear win for Pacquiao?

What are you talking about? The first fight was fought at featherweight...

 

I scored the 4th one for him too.

 

so basically in your mind fighters who don't have a lot of power get no credit in a fight....holy shyt!

 

Because Floyd paid off the judges, he owns Nevada ... LOL

 

Maybe I worded it wrong. I meant in 2010 or 2011 when Mayweather was refusing to fight Pacquiao and everyone was giving him ****, Mayweather said on Brian Kenney show that Pacquiao lost twice to Marquez and this was before Pac-Marquez III. So Mayweather fanboys of course jumped on that and started saying it too because FLoyd did.

 

That's pretty much what he's saying, and he means it too. But then again, tinham has to be the biggest Pacturd on the forum, so I can't say I'm surprised by his logic.

 

Compubox is complete BS as a means of scoring a fight anyway, but since you're basing your post off it - let's look at the numbers.

Pacquaio only landed more power punches in 3 rounds in total. Marquez also had a higher connect percentage in 7 of the 12 rounds, two of them close to even and the previously mentioned rounds that go to Pac going to Pac.

3 rounds Pac, 9 rounds Marquez less 3 knockdowns - 114-111 Marquez (just using the method of scoring you are using against yourself). Even if you want to score the rounds which have the same connect percentage as even, you still get a win for Marquez basing it on this scoring method - 114-113.

 

First 2 fights could have went either way for me, the third was a clear as day Marquez fight for me, I dont know how any one could score it otherwise.

 

A lot of people thought Marquez won that 3rd fight. I think the boxing world was evenly split or close to it on who they thought won. I thought it was a clear win for JMM! Karma got Pacquiao on the Bradley fight. I would have rather seen JMM win though because he's slightly better than Pacquiao H2H.

 

Are you slow? If two fighters both land shots, one man is clearly shaken, the other is not, then the man who was not shaken has CLEARLY scored. Is that really hard to comprehend, these are the ****ing rules. You can't just make up new criteria because of this new phenomenon of judges awarding negative fighters just trying to TOUCH their opponent.

So 100% yes if 2 fighters land equal shots, one a harder puncher does more damage, he is clearly ahead.

 

I'm confused. Are you saying we shouldn't compare punches based on their effect on the other person? The power generated by someones punches is certainly a factor so long as the land.