Why did JEFF HORN do such a good job against Pacquiao?

[786]

It was the Hatton effect. In Manchester, Hatton could do what he wanted: maul, wrestle, low blow, use his head, forearms, refs would give him time to recover if he ever got hurt.....not saying he wouldn't have won those fights elsewhere but he had that 'special' home advantage that only few fighters can get away with. Horn had all those advantages that night with Pac, the whole package down to being saved from a stoppage loss. I honestly think Horn should've been disqualified that night, if not stopped, if not lose on points but he "somehow" got the nod.

[Century Tuna]

One successful defence and earned a couple of million?

Wow, that's something to be proud of, since we all know how tough Gary Corcoran is, right?

[djtmal]

manny was ill prepared

standing along the ropes with a high guard tanking whatever Horn threw at him

if manny was good inside fighter he would have got the decision

say what this guy was a stylistic nightmare; had height/reach on a past prime manny plus manny fought him in his backyard.

when has your boy floyd gave up that much

[GrandpaBernard]

say what this guy was a stylistic nightmare; had height/reach on a past prime manny plus manny fought him in his backyard.

when has your boy floyd gave up that much

Lol did a paqturd just call a face first pressure fighter a stylistic nightmare for manny

you don’t even know your own fighter

[-Kev-]

Getting beat to a pulp and having the ref come to your corner and threaten to stop the fight is not a very good job. Horn was outlanded by Pacquiao in 11 of 12 rounds. Pacquiao landed the better shots, the telling shots in almost every round.

****** fans see an L on boxrec and go by that. Someone even called that W for Horn the blueprint to beating Pacquiao. This guy literally is a bigger Ricky Hatton with a good chin so his wrestling tactics were successful. But if you look at the fight, Pacquiao was catching that dude with some brutal shots.

Wrestling is absolutely not the right tactic to beat Pacquiao. Not even close. Pacquiao clearly brutalized both wrestlers he fought, Hatton and Horn. It was an awful performance by Horn and a robbery for sure. I feel bad for Pacquiao for having that L there against someone he beat the fck out of.

[NachoMan]

Despite what people say about a robbery, it was a very close fight. I had it a draw and I am an elite scorer of fights. The decision of Horn winning close was fine. The ref wasn't great, but a great boxer has to be able to adapt to what the referee allows and what he doesn't.

If Jeff Horn was Mike Tyson, people would be saying that this was the final fight of prime Jeff Horn, and when he lost to Crawford, and further losses, he was past prime, living the wrong life, wrong trainer, ****ing Asians, but because it's just Jeff Horn from Australia, he's just rubbish. Nash out - BoxingScene Hall of Fame - First Ballot.

Completely agree. Manny Pacquiao has never been the victim of a robbery. Could/Should he have gotten the nod in a couple of his losses? Maybe. Like most fighters he won some of the close ones and he lost some. This is primarily because judges and fans refuse to score even rounds.

[IronDanHamza]

Only 2 other robberies were more blatant

Tito's ''W'' over DLH and Bradley's ''W'' over Pac 1.

Who would have thought the darling of boxing would get robbed in such easy fights to score ?!?!?

There are numerous robberies that are extensively worse than Pacquaio-Horn.

Tito-DLH too.

I wouldn’t even call either of those two robberies in general to be honest.

To claim they’re two of top three robberies in the history of boxing is just a totally asinine statement.

[Nash out]

Completely agree. Manny Pacquiao has never been the victim of a robbery. Could/Should he have gotten the nod in a couple of his losses? Maybe. Like most fighters he won some of the close ones and he lost some. This is primarily because judges and fans refuse to score even rounds.

Wise words, Nacho Man. It's such a tricky thing the scoring even rounds, I only do on dead rounds where literally nothing happens, like in Round 1 quite often, when nobody does anything, but by there being no drawn rounds, a fighter is winning 10-9 by a hair, and maybe winning many rounds by the same amount, so often, a close fight can be widely scored one way.

But the alternative of adding a lot of drawn rounds would gather criticism as well, as I have recently been looking through some old scored cards, And I have seen a ton of cards like this 120-120 (every round a draw!) 120-119. 119-118, 118-118,118-117 as well, and these cards would not go down well today.

I used to think maybe adding 10-9.5 rounds for rounds when there is very little in it, rather than clear 10-9 rounds, but I don't know how that would work either, whether it would be better or not. Nash out.

[Amir Imam]

Every fight Pacquiao loses it’s always an excuse. He could lose 10 fights in a row and people would still swear he’s a goat. His performance vs Bradley and Horn weren’t dominant enough for you all to call it a robbery. You all love his personality which is why many of you have a hard time facing reality.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Every fight Pacquiao loses it’s always an excuse. He could lose 10 fights in a row and people would still swear he’s a goat. His performance vs Bradley and Horn weren’t dominant enough for you all to call it a robbery. You all love his personality which is why many of you have a hard time facing reality.

This is the correct answer.

It's why:

- when Manny lost to Floyd, they said that Compubox (who had Mayweather clearly outlanding) was flawed and wrong.
- when Manny lost to Horn, they said that Compubox was evidence that he won.
- when Manny beat Keef by a thin margin, they said Compubox (who had Keef clearly outlanding) was flawed and wrong.

They're transparent. Easy work exposing the hypocrisy. That's why I said, Spence won't get credit no matter what the outcome is. He could pitch a 12-0 shutout and they'll claim it was a PBC conspiracy.