I am rewatching all of Marquez' losses....

People get so emotional, it's really annoying, if someone is calling Bradley or Norwood a robbery it's pure emotion, I like all 3 fighters and Marquez didn't do enough to call robbery. he got pretty jobbed in the norwood fight, the referee also screwed him out of a knock down. tim bradley's fight was a lot closer, and he (tim) got the victory due to his style...im not a fan of that style but it got the job done.

Marquez was robbed in the first 3 Pac fights and the John fight. Bradley was close but had Bradley winning by 2 points. are you kidding? Marquez was also robbed againts Bradley. you forgot to mention Norwood and Mayweather. JMM should have won those too. Marquez is the only undefeated fighter with 7 losses :)

The choice for media people wasn't A(JMM winning) or B(Manny winning) it was A or B or C(draw).we agree a, b and c are mutually exclusive. you are making the choices A (JMM winning) or B(JMM not winning). when you combine b and c in one group you make c a function of B-which you stated it is not, you said c is mutually exclusive. thats why I question your equation and logic. do you understand that? b and c both belong in the same category of JMM not winning, right? in fact (b and c) = not a, in a strict logical sense, right? So we're back to 87 > 57 You're boring me again with your backtracking on your imprecision. OK, you would have been right if you'd said, "most had it for JMM or draw", but that wouldn't be so hard hitting, and a shill always goes for effect over the facts is this really what you two argue about? Semantics? I think we all know Dunn meant: There were more people that scored it for Jmm than for Pac. The draws are inconsequential because they are not for Jmm OR Pac. Either that, or a draw is for them both. In which case, the former statement still holds true. Unless you are super nitpicky and looking to ignore what someone is trying to say in favor of a semantics showdown. This was painful, and yet I read through it all with some sort of morbid fascination. ah, what a man will do to pass the time during baby duty in the middle of the night. Lord have mercy.

Yeah, I've noticed that too, you prove him wrong, over and over, he ignores it and posts his same opinion in a different thread hoping we won't notice. Arguing with Big Dunn is like playing chess with a pigeon. You could be the greatest player in the world, but the pigeon will still knock over all the pieces, crap on the board and strut around triumphantly. :yeah:

Marquez beat Norwood fair and square I thought. Marquez lost the first and second Pacquiao fights, but the third I think he probably may have won and it was closer on my scorecard than the other two. I thought, as did almost everyone else, that Marquez was owned by Mayweather and he lost a close but undisputed decision to Chris John. Marquez also didn't do enough to beat Bradley, despite what he says.

I rewatched Marquez vs Chris John last night and I scored it for Marquez 7 rounds to 4 with 1 round even. When the referee realised that Marquez was hurting John with bodyshots in the 2nd half of the fight, he deducted 2 points from Marquez for "lowblows" which were normal bodyshots. So even with those 2 stolen points, I have Marquez winning it.

Dude you're cheapening the word "robbery". It's not a robbery if it's scored 50/50 by ringside experts. Cause robberies need near consensus, by definition. So much crying about bogus robberies, when a real robbery happens nobody will care, like the boy that cried wolf. This is my opinion not the other 50. The problem with people like you is you have no clue in how to judge a fight. You judge a fight by listening to Larry Merchant and Jim Lampley 2 dudes who have no clue about boxing

Having either (B) Pac winning or (C) a draw means you didn't have (A) JMM winning. Conversely, if you had (a) JMM winning, you didn't have (b)Pac winning or (c) a draw. Other than to make this look as good as possible for manny, why do you continue to group b and c together after saying they were mutually exclusive? you are violating the parameters you yourself set up. Making them mutually exclusive, as you say they are; then its Having A you don't have B or C Having b you don't have a or C Having c you don't have a or b Put it like this in the bolded above, lets say I scored the fight A draw. I have niether pac nor JMM winning. You equate it above to not having only 1 of them not winning. The draw is never about only one of the fighters, its about both, thats why your argument is incorrect. :pat: Because I'm going by the dictionary: Not having JMM winning means having it for Pac, or draw. There's 87 of these vs 57 who had Marquez winning. It doesn't get any fcuking simpler. It's 2 short sentences, what confuses you? I'm giving you simple, common sense arguments that a child can understand, look at the gibberish I get back.

...and there is only one fight left that I have to rewatch and score (Chris John fight). Here are the 3 losses I disagree with: Freddie Norwood fight: in the whole fight not a lot happened, few punches were thrown and even fewer connected. But the bottom line is Marquez clearly won that fight because Norwood did nothing the whole fight. I scored it 8 rounds to 2 for Marquez with 2 rounds even. Norwood dropped Marquez once, Marquez dropped Norwood twice but only one knockdown was called by the ref. 3rd Pacquiao fight: clear win for Marquez in my opinion. The first 2 Pacquiao fights I did score for Pacquiao though. Timothy Bradley fight: I had Marquez winning that fight very close. I have no problem with Bradley winning it closely either. But on my scorecard Marquez won the fight. If Bradley would have stayed active, he could have scored a wide decision, but he gave away the last 4 rounds on my scorecard. _________________________________________________ So - I have to rewatch the Chris John fight this week and then I can tell you if Marquez should have either only 3 or only 4 losses on his record (instead of 7). Right now I think Marquez got robbed quite a few times because he was the B side in almost all of those fights, furthermore he is a counterpuncher who very often lets the opponent lead. But the bottom line is he shouldn't have those 7 losses on his record, at least according to my opinion. My immediate question would be.."Why". Then you answer it. It seems that Marquez never lost a fight. therefore you can join hs club which woul make a total membership of 3. That includes Beristain. I don't know about his wife. Before you "Judge" the John fight I can tell you that there were 2 American reporters there in different parts of the arena, and they both scored it 116-111 for John. One was Scott Mallon the RING reporter. Also that in the post-fight interview Marquez himself accepted that he'd lost, and said that "Ithought it was a close fight" and "Chris is an excellent boxer". Enjoy yourself. don't forget to send in your subscription to the "I love Marquez Club". They accept beer bottle caps. 2 Corona........

Norwood fight was super boring, could have gone either way same thing with the chris john fight manny should have won 1st fight, and i thought won the 2nd fight 114-113 with the kd being the difference in the fight jmm i thought clearly beat manny the 3rd time 115-113 floyd won 120-107 bradley fight i scored it a draw with jmm winning 1,3,9,10,11,12 but bradley winning is not a robbery,, i couldnt say that jmm won, because bradley clearly won the middle rounds with the jab

57+51+36=144 media scores when you say most of media scores, you have to have at a minimum 73. sure jmm had an edge in media scorers favoring him over pac, but it's not MOST of all media scorers. this aint no ****in robbery castillo-mayweather1 was more of a robbery.

Yeah of course. Having either Pac winning or a draw means you didn't have JMM winning. Conversely, if you had JMM winning, you didn't have Pac winning or a draw. Jeeze man, I can't believe you can't process this. I know you're not this dense, I don't think anybody on NSB is, and that's saying something Having either (B) Pac winning or (C) a draw means you didn't have (A) JMM winning. Conversely, if you had (a) JMM winning, you didn't have (b)Pac winning or (c) a draw. Other than to make this look as good as possible for manny, why do you continue to group b and c together after saying they were mutually exclusive? you are violating the parameters you yourself set up. Making them mutually exclusive, as you say they are; then its Having A you don't have B or C Having b you don't have a or C Having c you don't have a or b Put it like this in the bolded above, lets say I scored the fight A draw. I have niether pac nor JMM winning. You equate it above to not having only 1 of them not winning. The draw is never about only one of the fighters, its about both, thats why your argument is incorrect.

I was actually scoring the 3rd fight for JMM but like I said, once Nacho started telling him he was winning he stopped doing his thing. I don't think anything annoys me more than people saying Marquez was robbed in that fight. Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android Peps act like Marquez won that fight easily. Marquez was winning the fight and the tide was going his way going into the 9th but suddenly in the championship rounds he just stopped pressing the action and let PAC back into the fight.

When you say a draw implies JMM didn't win, does that meet the criteria you posted above? Yeah of course. Having either Pac winning or a draw means you didn't have JMM winning. Conversely, if you had JMM winning, you didn't have Pac winning or a draw. Jeeze man, I can't believe you can't process this. I know you're not this dense, I don't think anybody on NSB is, and that's saying something

Anyone that scored the Marquez-Bradley fight to Marquez should get a 6 month ban from this site. Marquez loaded up with all his punches, missed then got countered all night long against Bradley.

I'm grouping them cause these are mutually exclusive. You claim A, B is what's true, B if true if and only if A is false. This is logic 101 A draw certainly implies JMM didn't win on your card. You should step away when you're forced to argue otherwise. This is sigworthy stuff, you understand? When you say a draw implies JMM didn't win, does that meet the criteria you posted above?

If 57 had JMM and 51 had Pacquiao winning how the fk is it a robbery? We should poll the media and see what they would say about Mayweather-Castillo 1. Ohohoho flowmos would not like that at all. Haha Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android I don't know how it is. I never said anything regarding a robbery. I don't know who said JMM got robbed. I thought manny won the fight.

A draw certainly implies JMM didn't win on your card. You should step away when you're forced to argue otherwise. This is sigworthy stuff, you understand? A draw doesn't imply anything. It is a specific result that means there was no winner in the fight.

If 57 had JMM and 51 had Pacquiao winning how the fk is it a robbery? We should poll the media and see what they would say about Mayweather-Castillo 1. Ohohoho flowmos would not like that at all. Haha Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android

NO-you already agreed a, b, and c are mutually exclsuive. Now you are saying b and c are part of the same group. they are not. They never will be because in a professional fight there are not 2 outcomes there are 3 outcomes. A draw does not equal JMM didn't win. A draw does not equal Manny didn't win. A draw is a unique outcome all its own and therefore can't be combined with, nor is it a subset of, the other outcomes. A draw certainly implies JMM didn't win on your card. You should step away when you're forced to argue otherwise. This is sigworthy stuff, you understand?