So who won? Pac or JMM?

Funny to see guys known for ripping punchstats numbers now using them as evidence that their fighter won or using images of swollen faces to compare who won when any rational mind will tell you that some fighters can bruise from one punch and certain fights but not from others while some others can take 497 bombs and look clean. That is subjective and irrelevant as an argument.

Simply put if you saw the fight and you can't see that Marquez landed the clearer, better punches throughout the fight, it's because you don't want to see it.

 

It's actually because counters tend to be more eye catching than any other punch, as Double L has also picked up on.

Marquez landed only counters.

Like I've said before, I'm by no means saying it was clear for Pacquiao, at all. It was a VERY close fight that honestly I could see going Marquez's way.

But when I scored it round by round, I came to 7 - 5 Pacquiao, and kind of felt like he deserved to win before the scores were announced.

I scored it for him because I think he simply landed more punches in 7 of the rounds.

You can say what you want, but their faces do tell the story of who did more damage, or landed "better" punches - aside from bodyshots.

Pacquiao's face isn't immune to marking up either, he looked pretty bashed up after both their previous fights, especially the second one, yet look at his face after this one, barely a mark on it.

 

it is a robbery because corruption took place with trowbridge's scorecard. giving 8 of the first 11 rounds to pacquiao was fishy enough, before he gave the last round to marquez.

 

OK I'll give you that, there was corruption, but it's kind of irrelevant to who really won the fight, or deserved to win etc. If he hadn't been paid off, Trowbridge might have scored it for Manny anyway.

 

well i think marquez won the fight clearly. the outcome was predetermined on at least one of three judges scorecards. that is enough for me to consider the bout a robbery.

 

That's because you're very biased. There was nothing clear about the fight, one way or the other.

 

http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/pu...nJ6FNjJdG9iQTX5fv7Ssk2A_DFIFhWUpWODCC1Sa1qGhd

 

Who's talking is the guy who says it could have gone either way, you're the one who thinks Marquez won "clearly", which reeks of bias.

 

I agree.

 

I agree with this too.

 

seems as though i share the majority opinion at this point

 

48% think Marquez won. 52% think it's a draw or Pacquiao win.

There's nothing conclusive or clear about that, it's the definition of a fight that "could have gone either way".

 

Haven't watch the fight...not interested enough to look for it online, but if i happen to fall into a link to the fight i will watch...*wink..wink...

But going by most articles on the fight...it was another close fight, but most giving Marquez the advantage...from family, friends, co-workers who saw the fight...Marquez beat Pacquiao convincingly by 2-3 points..but can't really trust them since they are a bunch of Mexican, Puerto Ricans, DR's who are sick and tired of watching Pacquiao beat on our people....or Black who are Floyd fans...

 

why are the votes for Pacquiao winning and a Draw bunch in together? The poll seem to be a bit bias.....misleading...

If 48% think Marquez won....and 35% think it was a DRAW...and only 17% think Pacquiao won....it pretty conclusive and clear...

 

I've argue the first two fights in favor of JMM for years.

but this third one I had Manny by a point. But some rounds could have been even so you can easly swap a round or two and have either guy win the fight.

I was surprised by all the Philipinos who also think it was a robbery.

The most shocking thing to me was Pacquiao's power seem to be gone. compared to the Mosley fight where he scared the shit out of him with one knockdown.

JMM took everything like it was nothing.

 

They're not, 48% Marquez won, 36% think Pacquiao, and the rest think it was a draw.

The point is, only 48% think Marquez won, that's not a robbery, it's a fight that could have gone either way, and divides opinion.

A robbery would have been 75%+ thinking Marquez won.

Watch the fight and you'll see, it truly is a fight that could have gone either way, personally I think there is more of an argument for Pacquiao because he simply landed more.

Like Hut Hut said, part of it is probably that Marquez did WAY better than anyone expected.

Latin - gotta admit I was pretty amazed that Marquez ate everything Manny threw it him, that's what I thought the deciding factor would be, that Marquez simply wouldn't be able to take Manny's power at this weight. He even buzzed Clottey and Plasterito, and knocked down Mosley, yet couldn't even hurt Marquez.

I don't think he ever caught him truly FLUSH, but he did catch him clean enough.

 

The majority voting is that Marquez was robbed.

Thats because he was.

 

I would never reference punch-stats as evidence a fighter won a fight. But I would argue against the notion that number of punches thrown is a meaningless statistic. And if a decision is a robbery, I'd also expect punch-stats to at least hint at this possibility.

It's fine if people want to debate who won between Pacquiao and JMM. And it's perfectly understandable why some feel that JMM won.

But what I object to is the claim that it's a robbery - that the outcome of the fight isn't debatable.

 

24 people think Marquez won
only 5 fewer (19) think Pac won

this is not a robbery

 

It wasn't a robbery, but it wasn't a fair decision either.

 

one judge was atrocious

the others were PERFECTLY reasonable

The point is that since there is in NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM a clear consensus that Marquez won the fight, it can not be a ROBBERY

 

so there was obvious corruption but no robbery.

 

the two are not mutually exclusive


Example... who do you think won Whitaker/DLH?

Regardless of who you think won, most people were aghast at the scoring

The problem is that, at BEST, maybe half of the people scored it for WHitaker... every bit as many scored it for Hoya, so it can;t be classed as a robbery

THink of it, let's say Trowbridge had scored 115-113 Pacquiao, you are saying then that you're okay with it? It's no longer a big deal?

well, thats a problem... the general idea with a robbery is that a guy officially deemed the "loser" is seen by the VAST majority of observers as the WINNER, regardless of whether the judges score it 115-114 or 120-107

 

yes, that is what Im saying. if 3 judges score a fight fairly (as they see it, not with a predetermined card) i can live with that. no longer a big deal.

 

ok, I dig that, and that is corrupt for sure... but I think its different than a robbery

Whitaker/Hoya was corrupt as hell, but I can't call it a robbery when there are 1000s of guys with "Hoya 115-113" scorecards, you know?

 

Poor analogy, CDogg. The minute Neil sees Oscars name, youve lost him in a sea of blinding rage.

 

there was clearly corruption involved in delahoyas fights with whitaker, quartey and sturm. that is not debatable.

 

Way to circumvent CDoggs point, Neil.

There was clearly corruption in the Trinidad and Mosley rematch, as well.

 

You remind me of one of the members of the band on the titanic

 

46 % of media had marquez winning

12% had pacquiao winning

64% of fans had marquez winning

29% of fans had pacquiao winning