The Goldberg Effect.

[The Old LefHook]

Herb Goldberg may have coined the term after the Leonard/Hagler fight.

[Willie Pep 229]

Herb Goldberg may have coined the term after the Leonard/Hagler fight.

He named what after himself?

Himself! Who does that? That is so Trump like in its ***********

[The Old LefHook]

He named what after himself?

Himself! Who does that? That is so Trump like in its ***********

Well, you are right about that. Good catch!

How quickly they forget--with a little help, of course. When I now Google The Goldberg Effect, the first thing I get back is this ****** thread itself. The term is passing away into the mists of time, it appears. Was it even Herb? I think so, but everything is now dubious. Calling all those who identify as researchers.

[billeau2]

How about the Marquez fight where Manny destroyed him in the first round? Was it the third meeting? Many people felt like because of Marquez' insane show of heart that his performance was exxagerated and he did not really draw with Pacman that fight.

[QueensburyRules]

- - One of the myriad of Goldberg effects:




\/

Rube+Goldberg+Cartoon.jpg

[Blond Beast]

How about the Marquez fight where Manny destroyed him in the first round? Was it the third meeting? Many people felt like because of Marquez' insane show of heart that his performance was exxagerated and he did not really draw with Pacman that fight.

That’s the thing though, Marquez ( their first fight ) wasent “destroyed” by Manny in the first round, cause he survived and managed to outperform over the rest of the fight. ( according to most ) That’s why we have to be careful with our adjectives in boxing or it leaves us with nowhere to go. I do agree that an underdog who say fights to an equal round with a big favourite gets quantified as having a “great” round while it’s a “bad” round for the favourite. Though I don’t think that bias should come into the scoring.

[billeau2]

That’s the thing though, Marquez ( their first fight ) wasent “destroyed” by Manny in the first round, cause he survived and managed to outperform over the rest of the fight. ( according to most ) That’s why we have to be careful with our adjectives in boxing or it leaves us with nowhere to go. I do agree that an underdog who say fights to an equal round with a big favourite gets quantified as having a “great” round while it’s a “bad” round for the favourite. Though I don’t think that bias should come into the scoring.

Do you think there was bias for the rest of the fight? I am on the fence... I might watch that fight tonight again lol... I mean it would be truly epic if Marquez managed to actually beat Pac enough to overcome that first round... and the fight seemed close to me... meaning Marquez winning enough rounds would he fairly incredible.

[QueensburyRules]

That’s the thing though, Marquez ( their first fight ) wasent “destroyed” by Manny in the first round, cause he survived and managed to outperform over the rest of the fight. ( according to most ) That’s why we have to be careful with our adjectives in boxing or it leaves us with nowhere to go. I do agree that an underdog who say fights to an equal round with a big favourite gets quantified as having a “great” round while it’s a “bad” round for the favourite. Though I don’t think that bias should come into the scoring.

- - Obviously Marquez disagrees as he was brutalized through the first fight such that he turned down the career purse immediate rematch for a series if peanut purses, ultimately ending up in Indonesia being schooled by Chris John for a $25K purse.

Just pitiful enough that he had a personal reckoning now needing Manny streaking across the boxing landscape like a comet to make him into a fighter once again.

[The Old LefHook]

How about the Marquez fight where Manny destroyed him in the first round? Was it the third meeting? Many people felt like because of Marquez' insane show of heart that his performance was exaggerated and he did not really draw with Pacman that fight.

A good example.

The Goldberg Effect feeds only off expectations. And since we all have 'em for any fight, it can always get in the picture. I have even seen the Effect last only a round or two. I can't give you the example because I did not write down which fight it was in, but I think I saw it.

[Blond Beast]

Do you think there was bias for the rest of the fight? I am on the fence... I might watch that fight tonight again lol... I mean it would be truly epic if Marquez managed to actually beat Pac enough to overcome that first round... and the fight seemed close to me... meaning Marquez winning enough rounds would he fairly incredible.

I showed up with the food for everyone and when I got there everyone was on their feet and freaking out in front of a 70” screen. ( big for the time ) Someone turned to me and said “Marquez has been down twice already!!!” I saw Marquez go down for the third time. The feeling in the room was definitely that anything good that Marquez did after that was a huge achievement. Manny not being able to take him out each round after was like a slight against him. An even round would be like a win for Marquez. I haven’t rewatched it in ages. I do remember feeling like that first round was almost a detriment to Manny as it caused a Rocky ideal. Still nobody would want to be the guy that got dropped three times and be proud of a draw. So yes some bias id think. You let me know if you rewatch.
I think maybe it’s match three I thought JMM should have won. He does so well but always finds himself on his duff at some point. Even in match four he dropped Manny only to be put down himself after. Yeah he landed the “tecate counter” to put Manny to sleep but I think a lot of that had to do with Manny just pushing too hard like he wanted to go home.
My favourite fighter is Eric Morales. Still I know his only motivation to beat Manny was cause that’s how he could get one on MAB.