I thought the Pac-Man v marques fight should have gone the other way.
I assumed the thread starter meant unfair to the loser. You're right, it was ridiculous that the decision in that fight was even split. Hopkins didn't do nearly enough to win.
I had Pacman Marquez II as 114-113 Pac. Leaderman had it spot on apart form the last round in which he was looking the other way, Marquez clearly won that round. I believe it was fair that Pacman won by split decision, which reflected that it was a very close fight. If (when!) they fight again I think Manny better watch Marquez's counters, he gets caught too often by them and if it wasn't for his decent chin and reflexes he'd definitely have lost the last two fights. The attributes that have so far saved Manny are going to become slightly worse as he gets older while Marquez's solid counter rights/hooks/upcuts will stay strong so I can see him winning the third in the trilogy.
Nothing AT ALL unfair about the Calzaghe-Hopkins fight. Joe won fair and square, it's just that quite a few people (Calzaghe haters) are too bitter to admit it. The fight wasn't even very close. 9-3 to Joe, or 8-4 at best.
Nothing AT ALL unfair about the Calzaghe-Hopkins fight. Joe won fair and square, it's just that quite a few people (Calzaghe haters) are too bitter to admit it. The fight wasn't even very close. 9-3 to Joe, or 8-4 at best.
I dont think you get it, let me explaim:
Calzaghe v Hopkins was never a SD because Calzaghe dominate the fight, ok you following............ good.
Marques v Pac-Man was not a bad SD, the wrong guy won it was a bad dec not a bad SD.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND OR SHALL I WRITE IN BIGGER LETTERS FOR YOU?
Comment