I originally started this thread on the history section, mostly down to the fact that whenever i've mentioned Pacquiao on NSB in the past it always resulted in a bum rush of objectionable comments.
Though it appears the general consensus on that section is, the topic isn't relevant to boxing history, so it's been moved to NSB.. Am pleasantly surprised however, to see the majority of comments thus far, are varied and mostly pretty sensible., Used up all my green on the best one's. And yes, it was just as obvious to me, who actually won the fight.
Why people dont credit Horn for winning that fight is ridiculous. I think it could of gone either way but one side had to win and props to Jeff he took the fight to Pac in the only way he could of beaten him. Full marks to Glenn for knowing how to get the W on that hot australian day.
Talking about a good close fight that Horn won by ud, that the judges got completely right.
Jeff and his team fully realised they couldn't have got Manny at a better time
Credit to Glenn Rushton for creating a plan, and credit to Horn for exacting it on the day.
Manny broke through & had a humbdinger in the 9th, but other than that spent much of the fight eating right hands.
Accidental head clashes in the middle rounds wasn't either man trying to fight dirty, more a case of what often happens when opposing stances are equally as competitive coming forward.
Neither man complained about getting cut, so although not at all easy to score, it was an honourable performance from both with a fair result at the end.
I had it 115-113 Horn myself it could’ve went either way though, I thought the whole “controversy” and “robbery” narrative was pathetic.
Only ones seeing the hornet won are the ****ing **** haters! Lol at you helpless people. You hate pac yet you always jump when pac goes into a 5punch combo.
Got his arse kicked fair & square
Anyone disagree?Nope and here's why as in Teddy Atlas' exact words: "Horn was missing a lot and you don’t get points for missing. You don’t win fights for trying hard. You win for being efficient and effective."
The whole thing was BS from the beginning. Shouldn't have been Horn in with Manny it should've been Crawford.
Once it went to the cards in Australia you had to know Horn would get the favorable scores, especially in a close, ugly nasty fight like this.
Crawford will beat the daylights out of Horn. Then Arum should do the right thing and put Crawford in with Manny.
Judges got it wrong.
Those head clashes didn't look so accidental. Horn is a dirty fighter and got a gift in a very ugly performance. A lot of head butts, rabbit punches, clinching. It will be fun to watch Crawford bust him apart and send him back to the land of obscurity where he belongs.
Why is this even in the history section?
I had Horn winning.
Razor close but yeah I had Horn.
Can't understand the robbery claims but then again that is normal, every close fight is called a robbery.
Horn losing or Horn winning, which are you talking about?
Talking about a good close fight that Horn won by ud, that the judges got completely right.
Jeff and his team fully realised they couldn't have got Manny at a better time
Credit to Glenn Rushton for creating a plan, and credit to Horn for exacting it on the day.
Manny broke through & had a humbdinger in the 9th, but other than that spent much of the fight eating right hands.
Accidental head clashes in the middle rounds wasn't either man trying to fight dirty, more a case of what often happens when opposing stances are equally as competitive coming forward.
Neither man complained about getting cut, so although not at all easy to score, it was an honourable performance from both with a fair result at the end.