the biggest robbery in recent history was......

[skullduggery]

A 115-110 for Marquez would be impossible, but so would a 115-110 Manny. Pacman, at most, won 5 rounds, which would've given him a 113/112 victory. I had Pacman winning 4 rounds, my scorecard read 113/112 Marquez. If someone had scored a draw round somewhere in the middle, I could easily see a 112/112, or like I said, scored a 5th round for Pacman. Certainly no robbery there at all.
Their second fight, I had Marquez clearly winning (by 2).

did you read my post? the math is there. it makes sense, you're just blinded by doubt that manny was robbed

[Stickman]

the fight could have easily been scored 7 rounds to 5 for pacquiao. no robbery in that. but for it to be scored anything over 7 to 5 for marquez, is rediculous. which brings me believe tat pacman was robbed.

There's no way it could be scored 7 rounds to 5, Pacman. I can see 5 rounds going to Pacman, giving him the win by a point, but 7? That would take serious bias. I gave him rounds 1, 2, the 8th, I think, and I think I scored the 11th (or 12th, been awhile since I watched it) for him too. Marquez had him figured out by the 3rd, was slipping the lead left by then, and was countering him easily. Actually had him hurt a couple of times mid-rounds. I'll watch the fight again tonight and redo my score card and post it here again.

There were a couple of close rounds and again...I can see a 9/9 round in the middle, or another round for Pacman, but anything close to a 110/115 card for Pacman is horse****, plain and simple.

[skullduggery]

it's wierd to see someone from the mafia defend pacquiao...

i love boxing and i always call it how i see it

[skullduggery]

There's no way it could be scored 7 rounds to 5, Pacman. I can see 5 rounds going to Pacman, giving him the win by a point, but 7? That would take serious bias. I gave him rounds 1, 2, the 8th, I think, and I think I scored the 11th (or 12th, been awhile since I watched it) for him too. Marquez had him figured out by the 3rd, was slipping the lead left by then, and was countering him easily. Actually had him hurt a couple of times mid-rounds. I'll watch the fight again tonight and redo my score card and post it here again.

There were a couple of close rounds and again...I can see a 9/9 round in the middle, or another round for Pacman, but anything close to a 110/115 card for Pacman is horse****, plain and simple.

i gave manny the first 3, marquez the next 3, manny the 7th, 9-9 in the 8th, marquez the 9th, manny the 10th, marquez the 11th, and manny the 12th. that equals 6 to 5, one even. manny wins by 4 points. is that unreasonable? that sounds about right. see, its close if there is no knockdowns involved. but since one fighter got kd'd 3 times, that fight obviously goes to manny

[Stickman]

did you read my post? the math is there. it makes sense, you're just blinded by doubt that manny was robbed

Kid, the point people are trying to make to you is that, while Pacman could've been given the nod on the cards by many people, it's nowhere near a robbery. Robbery is when you have a fighter who should've been way ahead on the cards, but the judges find in favor of the other fighter. There was nothing resembling a robbery here. If it were a robbery, there'd be little or no debate as to who should've won. Instead, we'd all be crusifying the judges, rather than arguing who won what rounds, and whether it should've been a 1 point or 2 point win. You see what we're saying? I have no problem with you thinking Manny won...hell, about 50% of the people who watched the fight think the same. But it was sure as hell no robbery, just a perfect example of how scorecards can look crazy, but still give a decision most people can live with.

[Mugwump]

pac-marquez wasnt near a robbery? whenever you knock somebody down 3 times in a close fight, and dont win, it has to be a robbery. especially when one judge has it 15-110 for the fighter who sat down 3 times. thats a crock of **** imo

Knock someone down three times in one round and it's a 10-7 ROUND. Those knockdowns affect the scoring for the other 11 rounds in NO WAY WHATSOEVER. It's like saying a fighter who knocks a guy down three times in round one is entitled to win a fight in which he lost the other eleven comprehensively without being knocked down. ******.

[Stickman]

Knock someone down three times in one round and it's a 10-7 ROUND. Those knockdowns affect the scoring for the other 11 rounds in NO WAY WHATSOEVER. It's like saying a fighter who knocks a guy down three times in round one is entitled to win a fight in which he lost the other eleven comprehensively without being knocked down. ******.

That's something else, too...3 KD's in a round should give a guy a 10-6 round, but many judges are hesitant to give a 10/6, (many feel it makes it too difficult to come back and want to keep the scorecards competetive) so they'll only give a 10/7. It's entirely up to the judges how they score the round. By the same token, many judges are also hesitant to score a 9/9 round. After all, it's a 10 point must system, right. So, if you figure a 10/7 round in the 1st, and most of the close rounds going to Marquez, you could end up with a scorecard that reads 3, or even 4 points in favor of Marquez.

[skullduggery]

Kid, the point people are trying to make to you is that, while Pacman could've been given the nod on the cards by many people, it's nowhere near a robbery. Robbery is when you have a fighter who should've been way ahead on the cards, but the judges find in favor of the other fighter. There was nothing resembling a robbery here. If it were a robbery, there'd be little or no debate as to who should've won. Instead, we'd all be crusifying the judges, rather than arguing who won what rounds, and whether it should've been a 1 point or 2 point win. You see what we're saying? I have no problem with you thinking Manny won...hell, about 50% of the people who watched the fight think the same. But it was sure as hell no robbery, just a perfect example of how scorecards can look crazy, but still give a decision most people can live with.

i know what ppl are trying to get across, but here is the thing.... visually, the fight was close. close as hell. about even if you ask me. but technically, there is no way that fight was a draw. I call it a robbery because manny fought just as hard, and gave just as much effort as marquez. the fight was virtually even give or take a round or two. but marquez went down 3 times.

I feel like ppl say marquez won because he fought hard, and showed heart, so they think he deserved it. however, that isnt how fights are scored. i have no doubt that without the kds, it would have been a draw or went either way. but when a fighter goes down 3 times, he has to win 8 rounds to even det a draw. there is no way that that fight was as one sided as bernard hopkins vs. winky wright (2 judges had hopkins up 8 rounds to 4)

do you see y i say manny was robbed?

[skullduggery]

Knock someone down three times in one round and it's a 10-7 ROUND. Those knockdowns affect the scoring for the other 11 rounds in NO WAY WHATSOEVER. It's like saying a fighter who knocks a guy down three times in round one is entitled to win a fight in which he lost the other eleven comprehensively without being knocked down. ******.

its a 10-6 round, do you not know the rules? im ******, but you are the one trying to defend a decision, without knowing the ****ing rules of the scoring system. now you look dumber than ever. but all that aside, in the post that you replied to, i mentioned that the fight was close in terms of rounds won. thats when the knockdowns come into play, idiot. plz dont insult me again unless you know for certain that you are correct. ull just look dumber than you do now

[boxasmash]

"biggest robbery"

pacuiao vs. marquez I.... there is no way that was a draw. in my eyes, manny clearly won the fight.

"manny number 4 p4p? LOL"

floyd would beat manny. manny is num 4 on my list, but floyd is num 2. gotta ride with philthy rich main

"Mayweather is much better than Whitaker"

after watching the espn classic fight featuring pernell, i came to the conclusion that his defense was flawed, and his offense was no where near on the level of floyd. He was dropped twice due to being off balance, and his opponent was not world class. This tells me one thing, floyd would destroy pernell prime for prime!

"because height wins fights"

they look the same height.... there is no excuses

"whitaker vs chavez really was a draw"

schooled him all the way to a draw..... ****** mutha****a

"yup, that sure did happen"

ive said it once, ill say it again. Taylor by ko via right hand in rounds 6-10..... Not willing to bet on these exact terms, but i am willing to bet on a taylor win.....

"who punches harder, trinidad or mosley?"

$

i vote mosley...... i dont think trinidad would've ko'd margarito. and wasnt trinidad a cheater?

"quintana is a b class fighter, margarito is ****"

quintana is a b class fighter and you know it.... and what do you mean "at least he fought him"? hes a **** fighter...... cotto get no kudos for losing to a **** fighter dude..... wake up

"prime odlh couldnt beat mayweather when a past prime odlh came really close to, back in the day refers to the 1990's btw"

yes!!!!!!!!!!!! ppl really shouldnt pay too much respect to "back in the day" fighters. Prime de la hoya couldnt beat floyd and u all know it...... that goes for trinidad as well..... floyd is better than pernell was

"james kirkland destroys williams, it's obvious right?"

kirkland destroys williams man.... dingo is somethin special, and williams is just tall....

and the dumbest poster of the year award goes to...