Originally posted by RJJ-94-02=GOAT
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
GREAT read
Collapse
-
Originally posted by StudentOfDaGameI watched the fights the other day. Breadman isn't being dishonest. Marquez got closure with no.4 but the fights prior were so tight but I had Manny winning.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Redd Foxx View PostBreadman's one of the few analysts I'll heave huge praise on. He takes a truly honest and intelligent approach to breaking things down. He doesn't justify his opinion like most do. He looks for the truth, then explains the components that form that truth.
It's an interesting thing because on first watch, I leaned toward Marquez in the 1st and 3rd fights. But, when my boxing eye got more educated and I learned to look past body language and see what's actually connecting and what's not, I'm ok with Pac winning those.
It's really odd to me that some people are SO emotional about Marquez getting "robbed". People who use "robbed" to describe close fights are just showing their inability to cope with sports outcomes they don't like.
All the fights were very tight so "robbery" does get overused.
Without having any bias toward either guy, Marquez won 7-5 the first fight but still lost by 1 point due to the 3 knockdowns in the first, second fight was 6-6 but Marquez lost since he got knocked down, 3rd fight Marquez once again lost 7-5, and of course got the big k.o in the 4th. All great fights.
Comment
-
Bread is a decent analyst. I have no problem with anything he said regarding this fight. All 3 fights were close. All 3 fights had experts disagreeing on who won and lost.
The problem is this site has too many extremists. If the guy they like loses a fight, certain posters immediately go to "robbery" as the explanation. They can't discuss a fight outside of casual fan cliches.
Thinking either JMM or Manny won either of the 1st 3 fights is completely understandable.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Big Dunn View PostBread is a decent analyst. I have no problem with anything he said regarding this fight. All 3 fights were close. All 3 fights had experts disagreeing on who won and lost.
The problem is this site has too many extremists. If the guy they like loses a fight, certain posters immediately go to "robbery" as the explanation. They can't discuss a fight outside of casual fan cliches.
Thinking either JMM or Manny won either of the 1st 3 fights is completely understandable.
i was trying to locate it but couldn't find it but it was another piece that breadman wrote that I liked. He said the way he saw the 3rd fight was the rounds Marquez won, were clear and no argument. the rounds Pacquiao won were very close.
He said while Marquez's rounds were clearly his, and Pacquiao's were close, the fight is still judged on who won the most rounds and he said Pacquiao won 7 close ones to Marquez's 5 clear ones.
He used an analogy that was nice too. he said if 2 guys raced 12 times, and guy one wins 5 races by 1 foot, but guy two wins 7 races by an inch, then guy two would take the victory, I thought that was pretty cool
Comment
-
I like Bread and respect his opinion. Interesting to read his thoughts on this fight.
Interesting how he said fight would be good for Floyd's mental and he might make the fight after seeing it (aka Floyd was ducking prime Pacquiao which we all know)
I personally thought Marquez edged it. Imo this was the least entertaining of their 4 fights.
Side note, I watched the UK broadcast where Amir Khan was commentating. Amir showed what huge respect he had for Manny and while Khan almost thought Manny lost, as his friend/training partner/fan he was over the moon when Pacquiao got the nod. It was kind of cute to hear Amir commenting on the fight. Round by round Amir had it for JMM.
I felt bad for Marquez after this fight and I could tell Manny was disappointed with his performance (head shake/twitch at the final bell). Marquez did end up getting his vindication though and long sought win over Pacquiao in that 4th fight though.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gigantes View Postthanks for the response.
i was trying to locate it but couldn't find it but it was another piece that breadman wrote that I liked. He said the way he saw the 3rd fight was the rounds Marquez won, were clear and no argument. the rounds Pacquiao won were very close.
He said while Marquez's rounds were clearly his, and Pacquiao's were close, the fight is still judged on who won the most rounds and he said Pacquiao won 7 close ones to Marquez's 5 clear ones.
He used an analogy that was nice too. he said if 2 guys raced 12 times, and guy one wins 5 races by 1 foot, but guy two wins 7 races by an inch, then guy two would take the victory, I thought that was pretty cool
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gigantes View Postthanks for the response.
i was trying to locate it but couldn't find it but it was another piece that breadman wrote that I liked. He said the way he saw the 3rd fight was the rounds Marquez won, were clear and no argument. the rounds Pacquiao won were very close.
He said while Marquez's rounds were clearly his, and Pacquiao's were close, the fight is still judged on who won the most rounds and he said Pacquiao won 7 close ones to Marquez's 5 clear ones.
He used an analogy that was nice too. he said if 2 guys raced 12 times, and guy one wins 5 races by 1 foot, but guy two wins 7 races by an inch, then guy two would take the victory, I thought that was pretty cool
GGG won the event - he was coming forward - Canelo moved a bit too much for people's liking, it doesn't mean he didn't edge 6 rounds in the fight.
Its about winning rounds, not winning a story that sounds good. I often see it with pundits also to be honest, they score to their analysis and with how they 'perceive' the momentum is going, rather than scoring each round objectively on its own merit.
An example of this that comes to mind is the 3rd round of the first Kovalev-Ward fight. I gave that round to Ward - I thought he stemmed the flow and neutralised Kovalev. Most of everyone on here gave that round to Kovalev because he had the knockdown and a big round 2. You could say the same thing about round 10, where a lot of people scored it for Ward because he had the momentum, but it was a Kovalev round.
Comment
-
Originally posted by sunny31 View PostThis is the single biggest problem with fan scoring. They just can't handle this type of scenario, especially if the guy they like didn't get it. A good recent example is the Canelo-GGG scoring. I had the fight a draw - probably in the minority, but there were literally 9 close rounds in the fight and 3 GGG clearly won.
GGG won the event - he was coming forward - Canelo moved a bit too much for people's liking, it doesn't mean he didn't edge 6 rounds in the fight.
Its about winning rounds, not winning a story that sounds good. I often see it with pundits also to be honest, they score to their analysis and with how they 'perceive' the momentum is going, rather than scoring each round objectively on its own merit.
An example of this that comes to mind is the 3rd round of the first Kovalev-Ward fight. I gave that round to Ward - I thought he stemmed the flow and neutralised Kovalev. Most of everyone on here gave that round to Kovalev because he had the knockdown and a big round 2. You could say the same thing about round 10, where a lot of people scored it for Ward because he had the momentum, but it was a Kovalev round.
Comment
-
I attended the 2nd, 3rd and 4th fights and obviously the 4th doesn't need scoring. At the fights it seemed the majority at both fight II and III had Marquez up. The second was more of a Pacquaio crowd, the third was more of a Marquez crowd. Marquez is my favorite fighter of all-time and his style is my favorite. I really love that clean punching, combinations, counter punching, aggressive but calculated style of Boxing. That said I have a natural inclination to appreciate that style more than Pacquaio's which I enjoy to a degree and respect but clearly don't like as much.
I felt fight II was 115-112 and the closest I've scored it on TV is 114-113 Marquez. I just can't see six rounds for Pacquaio but it was a close tit for tat fight and IMO the best of the series in terms of overall quality. I think that's both closest to their primes and best weight class. Fight III IMO was a clear win for Marquez because he landed all the punches that actually seemed to land clean and do stuff and it's not like he got outworked in more than perhaps a round or two. He got into a rhythm from around the 5th round to the 11th where he just boxed beautifully IMO and I always say that's the best I've seen of him from a strategic standpoint and he threw some really nice punches that landed clean. I always have scored it 116-112 (as I did live), but can see a round closer perhaps but a draw or even worse a Pacquaio win? No way in fight III IMO. It felt like NOBODY at that fight felt Pacquaio won including his fans but I don't know how they scored it on TV.
Fight I I feel was probably the biggest gap between the two not counting the first round. Pacquaio really improved from fight I to fight II so much. He looked so one dimensional and predictable in that one and Marquez IMO probably deserved enough to eek it out by a point even with a 10-6 round.
Great series and IMO the best of the last 20 years given how different the styles where and the fact we got them in mid 2004 when Marquez was a new champion and Pacquaio was a wild fighter who'd just came on the big scene and then in early 2008 when both were seasoned champions in there prime and fight III in late 2011 when both were already legends and there was a clear favorite and large underdog but didn't go to script and then fight IV in late 2012 for closure and unbelievable drama and for those like myself that felt Marquez didn't get justice, vindication.Last edited by chrisJS; 01-31-2018, 11:41 AM.
Comment
Comment