Terence Crawford: "Watched it again...biased commentary, JEFF HORN BEAT MANNY"

[just the facts]

NSB before Manny signed with PBC- Pac was robbed!

NSB after Manny signed with PBC- Horn won that shyte.

[Ritz Kola]

Manny loss. Every time he loses there’s an excuse. His fanboys are the original dread of Boxing.
Yet they go out their way to discredit Floyd’s victories which are outright wins. No questioning.

[Combat Talk Radio]

"At the end of the day", the robbery narrative was promoted by Teddy Atlas' ranting. Same guy that criticized Ruiz, criticized Wilder/Fury, etc.

When you ignore critical metrics like Ring Generalship, you see what you want to see. All Manny really had that night was punch counts. And as Paulie says, Compubox is not how you score fights.

I would have hoped that people would have learned that by now, since Thurman was up on Compubox but clearly lost a razor close decision to Manny; it's the same damn thing. I mean at what point does this simple concept click for people? COMPUBOX IS NOT HOW YOU SCORE FIGHTS.

Ah, that's your problem. It's not about punch count.


Effective Aggression – Being aggressive gives the impression of dominance, but unless the boxer is landing shots and not constantly getting countered, it’s not exactly “effective.” Judges look for effective aggression, where the aggressor consistently lands his punches and avoids those from his opponent.

Ring Generalship – The fighter who controls the action and enforces his will and style.

Defense – How well is a boxer slipping, parrying, and blocking punches? Good defense is important.

Hard and Clean Punches – To the untrained eye, it can appear as if a boxer is landing a lot of shots, when, in fact, most are being blocked or aren’t landing flush. A judge needs to look for hard shots that land clean.


Effective Aggression - Horn was more effective in 7 of the 12 rounds.

Ring Generalship - Horn in all but three rounds.

Defense - Horn was better at it in 7 of the 12 rounds.

HARD and CLEAN Punches - Manny's punches were only hard and clean in 5 of 12 rounds. Horn's punches were hard and clean in 6 of the 12 rounds. The other round didn't have punches worth noting.


It's not about how many you land, it's about what effect they had on the opponent. Even if you labeled Manny a straight up punch machine this fight, he still lost on the other three criteria especially Ring Generalship, because he was getting walked back and bullied all night long except Round 9.

[Combat Talk Radio]

No he didn't, Bradley said Horn made it close enough that he doesn't have a problem with him getting the nod

Translated: Horn wasn't robbed. That narrative came from Atlas' ranting and screaming and biased commentary over trophies.

[Unified18]

"At the end of the day", the robbery narrative was promoted by Teddy Atlas' ranting. Same guy that criticized Ruiz, criticized Wilder/Fury, etc.

When you ignore critical metrics like Ring Generalship, you see what you want to see. All Manny really had that night was punch counts. And as Paulie says, Compubox is not how you score fights.

I would have hoped that people would have learned that by now, since Thurman was up on Compubox but clearly lost a razor close decision to Manny; it's the same damn thing. I mean at what point does this simple concept click for people? COMPUBOX IS NOT HOW YOU SCORE FIGHTS.

Pac landed more punches, Pac landed more damaging punches and Pac landed the more cleaner punches. Horn was imposing his will largely by headlocking, headbutting and rabbit punching Pac, you don't award points on effective but illegal aggression. The times Horn did uses clean effective aggression (such as when he used his size to tie up Pac and lean his weigh on him) simply isn't enough, you try to rationalize Horn's win all you want but that doesn't change the fact that most though Pac won the fight including a large majority of boxing writers and fighters.

Compubox should always be taken into context sure as it doesn't measure the quality of punches, but in the case of Horn vs Pac, quality of punches still puts the fight in favour of Pac. As for Pac vs thurman, once again I feel Pac landed the cleaner and shots and lets be honest had Pac not landed that flash KD on Keith, that fight would have been seen as a draw, that 1 punch turned what looked like a 10-9 round for Keith to a 10-8 round for Pac, that KD was worth 3 points.

[BoomBapTrap]

Pac landed more punches, Pac landed more damaging punches and Pac landed the more cleaner punches. Horn was imposing his will largely by headlocking, headbutting and rabbit punching Pac, you don't award points on effective but illegal aggression. The times Horn did uses clean effective aggression (such as when he used his size to tie up Pac and lean his weigh on him) simply isn't enough, you try to rationalize Horn's win all you want but that doesn't change the fact that most though Pac won the fight including a large majority of boxing writers and fighters.

Compubox should always be taken into context sure as it doesn't measure the quality of punches, but in the case of Horn vs Pac, quality of punches still puts the fight in favour of Pac. As for Pac vs thurman, once again I feel Pac landed the cleaner and shots and lets be honest had Pac not landed that flash KD on Keith, that fight would have been seen as a draw, that 1 punch turned what looked like a 10-9 round for Keith to a 10-8 round for Pac, that KD was worth 3 points.

Good analyzation.
It’s always great to see logical posts. Instead of some hater or moron trying to completely fabricate and push a a narrative that is incorrect.

PAC beat Horn.
PAC beat Thurman.

End of story.

[Weebler I]

I've only watched it when it was happening, felt it was a close fight if you give Horn the early rounds.

But, taking Crawford's word as neutral & objective, give me a break.

[BoomBapTrap]

I've only watched it when it was happening, felt it was a close fight if you give Horn the early rounds.

But, taking Crawford's word as neutral & objective, give me a break.

Crawford is a well known pac hater. Don’t know what his reasoning is. But he always roots for black boxers also and never really keeps it 100 when talking about PAC.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Compubox should always be taken into context sure as it doesn't measure the quality of punches, but in the case of Horn vs Pac, quality of punches still puts the fight in favour of Pac. As for Pac vs thurman, once again I feel Pac landed the cleaner and shots and lets be honest had Pac not landed that flash KD on Keith, that fight would have been seen as a draw, that 1 punch turned what looked like a 10-9 round for Keith to a 10-8 round for Pac, that KD was worth 3 points.

So by your logic, Thurman should have won, since he was up on Compubox. Right?

[Unified18]

So by your logic, Thurman should have won, since he was up on Compubox. Right?

Do you lack reading comprehension? Read my posts again, I already said compubox has to be taken with a grain of salt as it does not measure quality of punch landed and th context of the fight. I simply mentioned the compubox once on my previos post and your selective reading came to the conclusion that my entire argument was based around that. Since paragraphs are hard for you I'll try to summarize everything in point form then;

- Pac landed the more cleaner and damaging punches against Horn
- You cant give Horn points for using illegal tactics and a large part of his "ring generalship" in the fight is thru the use of headlocks, headbutts, and rabbit punches in order to control Pac
- 55 boxing writers/fighters + Kobe viewed Pac as the winner while only 7 was for Horn; this doesn't include B Hop and virtually the entire Robert Garcia camp who though Pac was robbed
- Pac landed the cleaner shots against Keefe and this is a good example of how important context is, Keith had rd1 in the bag but that KD turned the round into a 8-10 round for him, essentially costing him 3 points, without that clutch KD that fight was essentially a draw, with a very slight edge to Keefe
- ignore the compubox stat that was such a minor part of my argument that I though I would throw in, why you focus on thatof all things is clear, you have no answers for the main argument I put forth.