Smitty says Marquez defeated Pacquiao

[PEANUT BOSS]

You believe that, im pretty sure you do, otherwise jmm's face wouldnt be so battered, what a nutcase, you have no other logical answer LOL

i believe this is you taking it in the mouth----->:*******:

[Froidjr.]

It's called scar tissue. Marquez looked like a million bucks a couple of days after the fight. ...and let me leave you with this, why was Marquez's right eye completely shut when he fought Juan Diaz the second time, yet Marquez shut him out in that fight? So you're going to tell me that Juan Diaz really won? or that Juan diaz is a better fighter than Pacquiao because he inflicted more damage facially to Marquez than Pacquiao did compared to the 3rd fight?

*******s will be *******s. *******s just don't know where to look when judging a fight.

scar tissue my ass, They've fought 3 times already, in Pac and JMM 1, JMM battered and puffed up both of Pac's eyes and he was barely recognizable while JMM got away scotch free, I think the face was a good indication of who won the boxing contest If we we're to put knockdowns out of the equation

Now you're telling me Pac doesn't have scar tissues since he didnt get battered while JMM now does when in your mind and eyes JMM landed and Pac didnt LOL, what a moron, your facts exist in a bubble

[Panopticon]

Well-respected, retired judge Chuck Giampa paid a visit to Zute's Boxing Talk last week to give his opinion of the scoring controversy in the aftermath of Pacquiao vs Marquez III.

Chuck Giampa, once one of the top boxing judges in the world, had an illustrious career and participated in many memorable championship fights including Holyfield vs Bowe and Holyfield vs Tyson II. He has served as a judge for over 120 world championship fights in addition to many regional and international title fights in Europe, Asia and South America.

Giampa was adamant that Juan Manuel Marquez beat Manny Pacquiao comfortably. His score for Pacquiao vs Marquez III differed quite a bit from the three official scorecards handed in November 12 as well as some, if not most, of the press reporters at ringside. And according to Giampa, even the score of 114-114 is unacceptable because it indicates Pacquiao did enough to retain his title.
Giampa scored the fight in favor of Juan Manuel Marquez 116-112.


Those who felt the fight was close or could have gone either way often suggest most fans do not know how to score a professional prize fight but Giampa was a seasoned judge, having scored some of the biggest fights in the last thirty years.

So why did Chuck see a different fight than the judges?

Pacquiao's Footwork
Manny Pacquiao, as usual, displayed excellent footwork in this bout. His footwork is exemplary and Giampa believes its possible some judges can be mesmerized by it. Giampa asserted he never let a fighter's superior footwork influence his judging. "The footwork doesn't mean anything (with regards to scoring a bout)," stated Giampa.

Chuck further explained a boxer's superior footwork only means something if he is using it to better position himself to land effective shots, counter punch and cut off the ring. If a fighter doesn't do those things, his footwork may be aesthetically-pleasing but should have to effect on judging.

"This is not Dancing with the Stars, this is boxing," said Chuck.

Effective Aggression
"The main thing you look at is effective aggressiveness," said Giampa. And while Manny Pacquiao was pressing the fight and was far more aggressive, Giampa believes Marquez's counter-punching limited Pacquiao to simply that - an aggressor.

Points are not awarded for aggression - They are awarded for effective aggression. According to Giampa, an effective aggressor would have been able to mitigate Marquez's counter-punching and land more punches of his own.
"When Manny did land a good shot, Marquez would come back with one or two more and a few times he stopped Pacquiao in his tracks... that was not effective aggression."


Work-Rate
Those who believe Pacquiao won will also cite his superior work-rate. According to official fight statistics from CompuBox, a program that counts and categorizes punches in boxing matches, the more aggressive Manny Pacquiao threw and landed more punches than Marquez and even connected on more power-shots (or non jabs).

While CompuBox metrics serve as good information and are nice to show to viewers, judges don't see them during the fight and, as a result, don't take them into consideration in scoring. In addition, CompuBox metrics - even if accurate - can be misleading.

"(Compu Box) Punch stats do not take into consideration what (punch) is effective." Chuck felt Marquez's' punches where "clearly more effective."

Only in amateur boxing, where a clean jab is worth as much as a hard punch that generates a knockdown, does landing more punches justify a win.

Champion's Benefit of the Doubt in Scoring
Lastly, many who argue Pacquiao deserved a win or draw will assert that a champion must be more decisively beaten to have his title taken from him and that the champion must be given the benefit of the doubt in rounds that are very close. Although its not an official rule, it's a philosophical notion that's infiltrated the sport almost as long as its existence.

Giampa, himself, disputed the old-age notion saying, "Technically he is not the champ anymore when the bell rings. He literally gives his belt up - They are fighting for the belt."

According to the famed former judge, the notion of giving the champion the benefit of the doubt when assessing close rounds was dropped in the 1950's and that all judges should know that the champion is, literally, not the champion anymore when the fight starts. "We (were) taught that in Nevada for years."

Chuck is very passionate about how judges should approach their work and was puzzled by the scoring of Pacquiao vs Marquez III.

"I honestly don't know what these judges were watching.... I will be interviewing the judges."

http://www.fightsaga.com/news/item/1...d-Judge-s-Take


*******s can go suck a bag of shit covered ****s.

[Froidjr.]

i believe this is you taking it in the mouth----->:*******:

I did say it, But i am one of those who saw Pac's punches through slow motion hence that's logically why Jmm's face is battered and dont give me that BULL about scar tissue.. Pac had a beating in JMM/PAC 1 and he looked battered and worse than JMM did in PAC-Marquez 3 after they announce the draw... dont tell me hedidnt automatically grew leather skin nor did JMM lose his leather skin in JMM/PAC 1 and vice versaa ??? WAcko

You believe he was beaten by a friend alright, its only logical that's your ******ed conclusion... otherwise how did he get battered when pac didnt land his punches like ******* GTFO wacko says LOL

[Pactards GTFO]

scar tissue my ass, They've fought 3 times already, in Pac and JMM 1, JMM battered and puffed up both of Pac's eyes and he was barely recognizable while JMM got away scotch free, I think the face was a good indication of who won the boxing contest If we we're to put knockdowns out of the equation

Now you're telling me Pac doesn't have scar tissues since he didnt get battered while JMM now does when in your mind and eyes JMM landed and Pac didnt LOL, what a moron, your facts exist in a bubble

Scotch free eh? Rofl

[Doctor_Tenma]

Smitty is cool people, don't care how he scored the fight, just that he knows how to give a good interview.

[Hendrix]

scar tissue my ass, They've fought 3 times already, in Pac and JMM 1, JMM battered and puffed up both of Pac's eyes and he was barely recognizable while JMM got away scotch free, I think the face was a good indication of who won the boxing contest If we we're to put knockdowns out of the equation

Now you're telling me Pac doesn't have scar tissues since he didnt get battered while JMM now does when in your mind and eyes JMM landed and Pac didnt LOL, what a moron, your facts exist in a bubble

So Marquez never landed clean because Pacquiao's face wasn't puffed up?

WOW, you have just mind fu#ked me. We should just get rid of these judges and have one guy view the fighters faces after the fight and give it to the man that looks less worse off. I guess no one should be bit#hing about the Chavez vs Taylor 1 outcome since Taylor looked like he got beat by a bat even though he outboxed the sh#t out of Chavez. Thanks for the post, it has me looking at other past fights differently now.

Plus, don't be mad at me, I said I had Pacquiao winning after watching it in super slow motion.

[Froidjr.]

So Marquez never landed clean because Pacquiao's face wasn't puffed up?

WOW, you have just mind ****ed me. We should just get rid of these judges and have one guy view the fighters faces after the fight and give it to the man that looks worse off. I guess no one should be *****ing about the Chavez vs Taylor 1 outcome since Taylor looked like he got beat by a bat even though he outboxed the **** out of Chavez. Thanks for the post, it has me looking at other past fights differently now.

Plus, don't be mad at me, I said I had Pacquiao winning after watching it in super slow motion.

im pretty sure you mind ***ed urself with ur own bs logic, im just telling u how ur bull is contradicting yourself

DONT GET MAD AT ME... get mad at yourself

[Hendrix]

im pretty sure you mind ***ed urself with ur own bs logic, im just telling u how ur bull is contradicting yourself

DONT GET MAD AT ME... get mad at yourself

You would make a great boxing judge even though boxing for you started with Pacquiao, and will end with him.

[Panopticon]

Joshua Clottey schooled the **** out of Pacroid. Just look at their faces at the end of the fight.