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

Wasn't Pac-JMM I & II voted robbery of the year? That fight isn't considered clear because outside of rd 1 Manny did in fact lose almost every rd after that competitively but he lost. Officially the first fight was a draw so the judges agreed as well quite frankly because of the number of rds Pac needed to win after rd 1 to officially get the win, that's kind of embarrassing to get a draw and means exactly that after rd 1 he got whooped basically.

 

I have it 4-0 Márquez but can totally justify their 2nd bout as a win for Pac. Fights 1 and 3 were clear wins for JMM completely taking Pacquiao to school.

 

JMM pretty much shutout Pac in the 11st fight. Even being generous to Pac I can't find more than 3 rounds to give him.

 

The discussion centred around using compubox numbers, solely, to score a fight (already gave my opinion on why that is silly). You only have the figures and, as such, each punch has to count the same as does each miss. Nothing else can be gleaned from the figures.

And, even in a real life example, if the 5 punches are of equal quality for both guys, the guy who misses more should lose the round. The guy who lands when he tries to is more effective with his aggression, he has shown better defence, they are equal in terms of clean punching and it's impossible to know on ring generalship without seeing it unfold in front of your eyes, but it wouldn't matter at that point. That should be a narrow win in the round for the guy who only threw 5 punches.

As an aside, for me clean punching is the ultimate scoring criteria in boxing - you can almost create a formula for scoring rounds off it alone (I say almost because all punches are different), clean punches landed plus clean punches avoided less clean punches hit with less clean punches missed, that would really tell you just about every time who won a round if punches were all of equal value. The rest of the criteria all sort of feed off it.

 

Agree with you on compubox. Its a flawed system because it has no way of gauging the intensity or effectiveness of the punches thrown and landed.
Another thing about compubox that a lot of people don't realize is that its human beings that are assigned to count the punches. The people assigned to count the punches only do so for one of the fighters.
The problem here is that the group assigned to count punches for one fighter might be more conservative in counting the punches while the other group might be more liberal in assessing whats a connect.

Its a judgment call by human beings doing the counting and not an actual computer assessing and gauging what lands or doesn't land.

Never trusted the punchstats displayed in a fight, particularly that of HBO's who I'm certain can easily manipulate the system to have a more liberal group count punches for the fighter they have an interest in to win.
HBO has become as corrupt if not more so than the alphabet groups and state commissions themselves.

 

School means nothing if you are left on your ass 4 times

 

I'll agree manny got dicked by the judge who had round 1 10-7 and that made it a draw

That said Marquez should have saw 2 and 3 go his way

 

I (Pacquiao robbed due to poor math skills of one judge)
II (Pacquiao in a close, but CLEAR decision)
III (Pacquiao in a close decision against a chemically-enhanced Marquez)
IV (Pacquiao KTFO by a chemically-enhanced Marquez)

 

Untrue
JMM took Pac to school after rd 1.

 

One judge scored round 1 10/7 instead of 10/6 but I'm positive quite a few of the other 11 rounds were not scored how the round actually went.

After round 1 I can't remember pac winning a single additional clear round. Idk could had easily been caught up in the comeback.

But the judge did NOT screw up, he thought 10/7 was bad enough, if you score a 10/7 round and still after 12 are worrying about points, maybe you didn't really win the fight

 

That's also not true, yes Marquez won more rounds but hardly a schooling, everybody seems to have different opinion about this series, for what it's worth I have pac won 1 and 3, but lost 2 and 4.

 

No bias here, you carry such weight with your opinions... always excuses, judge, roids or maybe the correct answer is jmm is superior h2h, fact

 

Fair enough,
1 and 2 could go either way, so we'll give to the bigger "name" and bigger fighter
Jmm swept 3 and 4

 

Every ******* that complains about the one judge scoring round one 10-7 instead of 10-6, never gives a mention of the judge that unexplicably had Pacquiao winning 7 rounds in that same fight.
Pacquiao without a doubt took the first two rounds, but two then have the final 10 rounds scored 5 rounds a piece?????
How many *******s here can even begin to comprehend that scorecard???????
If you want to gripe about the judge who scored round one 10-7, you must also do the same about the judge who actually scored 7 rounds to Pacquiao, as according to that judge, Pacquiao is the winner even without the knockdowns in round one.

 

Hardest fight to score of the first 3 by far. It's actually one of the toughest fights I've ever tried to score.

I settle on 113-113 but I've scored it to both guys by 115-113. It's not a robbery by any means.