Would Floyd worry about the judges

I'm sure we've all seen the first 2 Manny vs. Marquez fights and a lot of us have probably seen the third. If Floyd were to fight Manny would he have any need to worry about the judges, given he is the bigger name.

Given Marquez won the first fight with relative ease (after fight couple of rounds) only to be robbed. The second figt was closer but he was still the winner and the third, whilst not the biggest robbery at this level, was still a very poor decision. I feel bad for Marquez, he won 25/36 rounds and still does not have a victory to his name.

Does Arum have the unfluence to plunge the sport into greater trouble by robbing Floyd. I've no doubt Floyd would win with ease, but winning 10 rounds isnt enough to beat Manny.

Mayweather is also a cash cow though, so I don't think thats a problem. He would dominate manny anyway so the judges would have no choice.

no because floyd would beat him so decisively it would be impossible to argue

After that decision it's clear, to beat Pacquaio you will have to knock him out. (twice)

GerardMcL wrote:After that decision it's clear, to beat Pacquaio you will have to knock him out. (twice)

Bit over the top. I thought Marquez shaded it, but it wasn't exactly a Whitaker-Ramirez style robbery.

6oldenbhoy wrote:

GerardMcL wrote:After that decision it's clear, to beat Pacquaio you will have to knock him out. (twice)

Bit over the top. I thought Marquez shaded it, but it wasn't exactly a Whitaker-Ramirez style robbery.

I wasn't, but no way did Manny win more than 5 rounds. The rounds Marquez won were clear as day, they simply cannot be argued with.

6oldenbhoy wrote:

GerardMcL wrote:After that decision it's clear, to beat Pacquaio you will have to knock him out. (twice)

Bit over the top. I thought Marquez shaded it, but it wasn't exactly a Whitaker-Ramirez style robbery.

i know people are talking like its the biggest robbery ever - there was a couple of rounds in it.

AlexHuckerby wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

GerardMcL wrote:After that decision it's clear, to beat Pacquaio you will have to knock him out. (twice)

Bit over the top. I thought Marquez shaded it, but it wasn't exactly a Whitaker-Ramirez style robbery.

i know people are talking like its the biggest robbery ever - there was a couple of rounds in it.

People are, quite rightly, calling this a robbery. The rounds Marquez won were beyond question, and he had at least 7 of those. The 116-112 card is as corrupt as they come.

johnson2 wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

GerardMcL wrote:After that decision it's clear, to beat Pacquaio you will have to knock him out. (twice)

Bit over the top. I thought Marquez shaded it, but it wasn't exactly a Whitaker-Ramirez style robbery.

I wasn't, but no way did Manny win more than 5 rounds. The rounds Marquez won were clear as day, they simply cannot be argued with.

No, they can. It depends on how you score a fight, and rounds can look different from ringside than television. Then there's the whole argument that you have to wrestle the title from the Champ in his hometown (by hometown I mean a Top Rank show). I scored De La Hoya- Mayweather fight a draw first time I seen it. Watching it back though I scored it by 4 rounds to Mayweather. The judging is ultimately subjective. Ron Lewis from the Times scored it for Manny, John Deenan from Boxing News had Marquez. As I said I scored it for Marquez, but it's far from the worst decision I've seen.

its all opinion.
the americans had it as manny had it by a good few rounds.

i had it a draw but wouldnt argue with any decision a round either way.

towards the end marquez could have cemented his win, but he slowed and let manny back into it.

6oldenbhoy wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

GerardMcL wrote:After that decision it's clear, to beat Pacquaio you will have to knock him out. (twice)

Bit over the top. I thought Marquez shaded it, but it wasn't exactly a Whitaker-Ramirez style robbery.

I wasn't, but no way did Manny win more than 5 rounds. The rounds Marquez won were clear as day, they simply cannot be argued with.

No, they can. It depends on how you score a fight, and rounds can look different from ringside than television. Then there's the whole argument that you have to wrestle the title from the Champ in his hometown (by hometown I mean a Top Rank show). I scored De La Hoya- Mayweather fight a draw first time I seen it. Watching it back though I scored it by 4 rounds to Mayweather. The judging is ultimately subjective. Ron Lewis from the Times scored it for Manny, John Deenan from Boxing News had Marquez. As I said I scored it for Marquez, but it's far from the worst decision I've seen.

All this 'wrestle from the champ' stuff is nonsense and is not written in the rules. That said, he won 8 round which is enough for the W. These are professional judges who have obviously been spoken to, or are highly inept. Either way is leaves a very sour taste.

There is a reported $50 million in the Mayweather vs Pacman fight.

Marquez would have had to KO Pacman to get a decision last night.

johnson2 wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

GerardMcL wrote:After that decision it's clear, to beat Pacquaio you will have to knock him out. (twice)

Bit over the top. I thought Marquez shaded it, but it wasn't exactly a Whitaker-Ramirez style robbery.

I wasn't, but no way did Manny win more than 5 rounds. The rounds Marquez won were clear as day, they simply cannot be argued with.

No, they can. It depends on how you score a fight, and rounds can look different from ringside than television. Then there's the whole argument that you have to wrestle the title from the Champ in his hometown (by hometown I mean a Top Rank show). I scored De La Hoya- Mayweather fight a draw first time I seen it. Watching it back though I scored it by 4 rounds to Mayweather. The judging is ultimately subjective. Ron Lewis from the Times scored it for Manny, John Deenan from Boxing News had Marquez. As I said I scored it for Marquez, but it's far from the worst decision I've seen.

All this 'wrestle from the champ' stuff is nonsense and is not written in the rules. That said, he won 8 round which is enough for the W. These are professional judges who have obviously been spoken to, or are highly inept. Either way is leaves a very sour taste.

I know it is not written in the rules, but how often in close fights, which this was, do you see the Champ or hometown fighter come away with the decision? As I said, I thought Marquez won it. I am surprised Manny got the decision? Not massively.

6oldenbhoy wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

GerardMcL wrote:After that decision it's clear, to beat Pacquaio you will have to knock him out. (twice)

Bit over the top. I thought Marquez shaded it, but it wasn't exactly a Whitaker-Ramirez style robbery.

I wasn't, but no way did Manny win more than 5 rounds. The rounds Marquez won were clear as day, they simply cannot be argued with.

No, they can. It depends on how you score a fight, and rounds can look different from ringside than television. Then there's the whole argument that you have to wrestle the title from the Champ in his hometown (by hometown I mean a Top Rank show). I scored De La Hoya- Mayweather fight a draw first time I seen it. Watching it back though I scored it by 4 rounds to Mayweather. The judging is ultimately subjective. Ron Lewis from the Times scored it for Manny, John Deenan from Boxing News had Marquez. As I said I scored it for Marquez, but it's far from the worst decision I've seen.

All this 'wrestle from the champ' stuff is nonsense and is not written in the rules. That said, he won 8 round which is enough for the W. These are professional judges who have obviously been spoken to, or are highly inept. Either way is leaves a very sour taste.

I know it is not written in the rules, but how often in close fights, which this was, do you see the Champ or hometown fighter come away with the decision? As I said, I thought Marquez won it. I am surprised Manny got the decision? Not massively.

Fights are scored on a round by round basis. At the end of a fight judges cannot decide 'well he didnt wrestle it away' and go back and change the cards. It is rubbish, and you know it is.

No it's not. If a round is perceived as close, many judges will give the benefit of the doubt to the hometown fighter or Champ. A couple of recent examples are McCloskey-Prescott or Jesse Vargas' recent bout. I don't agree with the practice of it, but I can acknowledge that occurs, so please don't put words in my mouth.

johnson2 wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

GerardMcL wrote:After that decision it's clear, to beat Pacquaio you will have to knock him out. (twice)

Bit over the top. I thought Marquez shaded it, but it wasn't exactly a Whitaker-Ramirez style robbery.

I wasn't, but no way did Manny win more than 5 rounds. The rounds Marquez won were clear as day, they simply cannot be argued with.

No, they can. It depends on how you score a fight, and rounds can look different from ringside than television. Then there's the whole argument that you have to wrestle the title from the Champ in his hometown (by hometown I mean a Top Rank show). I scored De La Hoya- Mayweather fight a draw first time I seen it. Watching it back though I scored it by 4 rounds to Mayweather. The judging is ultimately subjective. Ron Lewis from the Times scored it for Manny, John Deenan from Boxing News had Marquez. As I said I scored it for Marquez, but it's far from the worst decision I've seen.

All this 'wrestle from the champ' stuff is nonsense and is not written in the rules. That said, he won 8 round which is enough for the W. These are professional judges who have obviously been spoken to, or are highly inept. Either way is leaves a very sour taste.

I know it is not written in the rules, but how often in close fights, which this was, do you see the Champ or hometown fighter come away with the decision? As I said, I thought Marquez won it. I am surprised Manny got the decision? Not massively.

Fights are scored on a round by round basis. At the end of a fight judges cannot decide 'well he didnt wrestle it away' and go back and change the cards. It is rubbish, and you know it is.

close rounds usually go to the champ or aggressor.

sweet_pea wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

GerardMcL wrote:After that decision it's clear, to beat Pacquaio you will have to knock him out. (twice)

Bit over the top. I thought Marquez shaded it, but it wasn't exactly a Whitaker-Ramirez style robbery.

I wasn't, but no way did Manny win more than 5 rounds. The rounds Marquez won were clear as day, they simply cannot be argued with.

No, they can. It depends on how you score a fight, and rounds can look different from ringside than television. Then there's the whole argument that you have to wrestle the title from the Champ in his hometown (by hometown I mean a Top Rank show). I scored De La Hoya- Mayweather fight a draw first time I seen it. Watching it back though I scored it by 4 rounds to Mayweather. The judging is ultimately subjective. Ron Lewis from the Times scored it for Manny, John Deenan from Boxing News had Marquez. As I said I scored it for Marquez, but it's far from the worst decision I've seen.

All this 'wrestle from the champ' stuff is nonsense and is not written in the rules. That said, he won 8 round which is enough for the W. These are professional judges who have obviously been spoken to, or are highly inept. Either way is leaves a very sour taste.

I know it is not written in the rules, but how often in close fights, which this was, do you see the Champ or hometown fighter come away with the decision? As I said, I thought Marquez won it. I am surprised Manny got the decision? Not massively.

Fights are scored on a round by round basis. At the end of a fight judges cannot decide 'well he didnt wrestle it away' and go back and change the cards. It is rubbish, and you know it is.

close rounds usually go to the champ or aggressor.

Nope, they dont. Aggression means nothing unless it is effective. Being the champ also has no effect. These disgraceful decisions happen because of inept judging (the obviously score fights the way some of you do) or corruption.

johnson2 wrote:

sweet_pea wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

GerardMcL wrote:After that decision it's clear, to beat Pacquaio you will have to knock him out. (twice)

Bit over the top. I thought Marquez shaded it, but it wasn't exactly a Whitaker-Ramirez style robbery.

I wasn't, but no way did Manny win more than 5 rounds. The rounds Marquez won were clear as day, they simply cannot be argued with.

No, they can. It depends on how you score a fight, and rounds can look different from ringside than television. Then there's the whole argument that you have to wrestle the title from the Champ in his hometown (by hometown I mean a Top Rank show). I scored De La Hoya- Mayweather fight a draw first time I seen it. Watching it back though I scored it by 4 rounds to Mayweather. The judging is ultimately subjective. Ron Lewis from the Times scored it for Manny, John Deenan from Boxing News had Marquez. As I said I scored it for Marquez, but it's far from the worst decision I've seen.

All this 'wrestle from the champ' stuff is nonsense and is not written in the rules. That said, he won 8 round which is enough for the W. These are professional judges who have obviously been spoken to, or are highly inept. Either way is leaves a very sour taste.

I know it is not written in the rules, but how often in close fights, which this was, do you see the Champ or hometown fighter come away with the decision? As I said, I thought Marquez won it. I am surprised Manny got the decision? Not massively.

Fights are scored on a round by round basis. At the end of a fight judges cannot decide 'well he didnt wrestle it away' and go back and change the cards. It is rubbish, and you know it is.

close rounds usually go to the champ or aggressor.

Nope, they dont. Aggression means nothing unless it is effective. Being the champ also has no effect. These disgraceful decisions happen because of inept judging (the obviously score fights the way some of you do) or corruption.

On a lot of occasions they do. I've posted two recent examples above. There's no need to become petulant, people have different opinions, that's what stimulates a debate on the Forum.

froch dirrell springs to mind.
i scored it 1 to marquez, thought there wasnt much in it. people who gave it to marquez by 5 rounds............ no idea how!

also pacquiao outlanded and out worked marquez... il post the stats wen i can find them.

I'm merely pointing out that is is against the rules, and those that score a fight this way do not understand boxing.

sweet_pea wrote:also pacquiao outlanded and out worked marquez... il post the stats wen i can find them.

You can prove anything with stats.

6oldenbhoy wrote:

GerardMcL wrote:After that decision it's clear, to beat Pacquaio you will have to knock him out. (twice)

Bit over the top. I thought Marquez shaded it, but it wasn't exactly a Whitaker-Ramirez style robbery.

It was for me.

Scottrf wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

GerardMcL wrote:After that decision it's clear, to beat Pacquaio you will have to knock him out. (twice)

Bit over the top. I thought Marquez shaded it, but it wasn't exactly a Whitaker-Ramirez style robbery.

It was for me.

Seriously? I think Marquez won it by a couple, but it was a close fight.

6oldenbhoy wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

GerardMcL wrote:After that decision it's clear, to beat Pacquaio you will have to knock him out. (twice)

Bit over the top. I thought Marquez shaded it, but it wasn't exactly a Whitaker-Ramirez style robbery.

It was for me.

Seriously? I think Marquez won it by a couple, but it was a close fight.

Seriously. Using the scoring criteria Marquez had a case in every single round.

Scottrf wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

GerardMcL wrote:After that decision it's clear, to beat Pacquaio you will have to knock him out. (twice)

Bit over the top. I thought Marquez shaded it, but it wasn't exactly a Whitaker-Ramirez style robbery.

It was for me.

Seriously? I think Marquez won it by a couple, but it was a close fight.

Seriously. Using the scoring criteria Marquez had a case in every single round.

I'll need to re-watch it over the next few days. It did seem close and I thought Manny picked up quite a few late rounds. But I'd had a few drinks, so it may have clouded my judgement.

What I will say is that there were a lot of close rounds. I just can't see what there was in the fight to make anyone side with Pacquiao in them.

What did you score it Scott? As I said, I didn't score too close as I'd had a few, but it would have been about 115-113 Marquez.

I had it 116-112 to Marquez. One of the rounds which were close went to Manny, but should probably have given to Marquez giving a 117-111.

118-111 and I wasn't even sure about the rounds I gave Pac.

The cards: http://lockerz.com/s/155770349

I had it 116-112 to Marquez, and that was perhaps being kind to Manny. I didn't give Pacquiao anything in the first five, to be honest - at best, I could maybe make the opener at 10-10 round, but that's it. Seriously, it seems to me that people are giving Pacquiao rounds simply because he was the one walking forward. This continual dumbing down of boxing is getting right on my Bristol Cities.

I actually despair that some people can't see that the better BOXING was coming from Marquez last night.

88Chris05 wrote:I had it 116-112 to Marquez, and that was perhaps being kind to Manny. I didn't give Pacquiao anything in the first five, to be honest - at best, I could maybe make the opener at 10-10 round, but that's it. Seriously, it seems to me that people are giving Pacquiao rounds simply because he was the one walking forward. This continual dumbing down of boxing is getting right on my Bristol Cities.

I actually despair that some people can't see that the better BOXING was coming from Marquez last night.

Chris, i agree i thought the opener was a shared round and then the next four were Marquez for me too. I don't know how people (judges included) could give rounds to Manny for landing a couple of single shots and walking forward (in straight lines).

Yeah I thought the opener was even too.

88Chris05 wrote:I had it 116-112 to Marquez, and that was perhaps being kind to Manny. I didn't give Pacquiao anything in the first five, to be honest - at best, I could maybe make the opener at 10-10 round, but that's it. Seriously, it seems to me that people are giving Pacquiao rounds simply because he was the one walking forward. This continual dumbing down of boxing is getting right on my Bristol Cities.

I actually despair that some people can't see that the better BOXING was coming from Marquez last night.

I dont wish to generalise, but this is mainly for two reasons.

1 - They are not boxing fans, they are Manny fans and cannot be objective. This covers most of them
2 - They (the judges mainly) could well stand to make Bob Arum many, many millions and will be paid accordingly. I have no doubt that corruption is rife in boxing. How a judge can award Manny a 116-112 verdict is beyond me. The same with HBO, the casual fan will lap up the expert scoring and will generate massive PPV buys should Floyd and Manny ever fight.

i gave the first to manny, just, but gave rounds 2,3 and 4 to JMM. Had it 116-112 at the end. Manny can't get points for hitting thin air. It wasn't effective aggression as he couldn't get close enough to him and wasn't trapping him on the ropes. Effective aggression to me is backing your opponent up, landing power shots when there on the ropes and forcing your opponent to tie up or throw punches just to keep you off. Marquez was never caught on the ropes, was never really caught cleanly or hurt and could keep the distance between them with ease.

I don't think he will worry about the judges....His legend is set and Manny has gained a reputation for receiving GIFTS....

So I think another gift may hurt Manny more than Floyd..

However it's what happens at the negotiation table he should worry about and the Arum demands...

Scottrf wrote:118-111 and I wasn't even sure about the rounds I gave Pac.

you'd never work again after such a shocking judgement.
for you, i suggest you get a job in azerbaijan.

OasisBFC wrote:

Scottrf wrote:118-111 and I wasn't even sure about the rounds I gave Pac.

you'd never work again after such a shocking judgement.
for you, i suggest you get a job in azerbaijan.

Luckily I'd expect the more knowledgeable guys to side with me.

More shocking than 116-112 Manny ???? I'm sure that guy will work again......

Maybe even on the next Top rank show..

Scottrf wrote:

OasisBFC wrote:

Scottrf wrote:118-111 and I wasn't even sure about the rounds I gave Pac.

you'd never work again after such a shocking judgement.
for you, i suggest you get a job in azerbaijan.

Luckily I'd expect the more knowledgeable guys to side with me.

seriously, azerbaijan. ive heard its nice this time of year.
think it over.

By the end I felt it should've been about 116-112/113. Not too big a gap, but big enough to be undeniable. Stupidly, I even held out hope after the first card was announced. More concise, crisp and controlling work was from Marquez. Pacquiao looked clueless for large stretches. He should hang his head in shame but instead he came out with 'I clearly won the fight'. Disgusting, even more so knowing that no matter how vocal the outcry there will never be any kind of investigation or action taking. This sport has to be one of the most corrupt there is. Pacquiao lost last night, and his team know that.

88Chris05 wrote:I had it 116-112 to Marquez, and that was perhaps being kind to Manny. I didn't give Pacquiao anything in the first five, to be honest - at best, I could maybe make the opener at 10-10 round, but that's it. Seriously, it seems to me that people are giving Pacquiao rounds simply because he was the one walking forward. This continual dumbing down of boxing is getting right on my Bristol Cities.

I actually despair that some people can't see that the better BOXING was coming from Marquez last night.

Agree Chris, posted earlier today that I thought the result was shocking but am always a bit wary of posting straight after the event when your blood is up but having had time to watch the fight a second time and reflect a little rathwer than finding myself mellowing and seeing ways you could score for Manny have to say neither of these things are happening. Simply cannot see a way anyone can score for Manny, as you say it does appear simply marching forward, irrespective of what you do whilst doing this is the assett valued over all others in the sport now. Poor, poor decision, heartbroken for JMM, the guy must wonder what he has to do, because unlike the other two this one was not even close.

118-111.....That's 9-2-1 .......pretty close to another set of numbers close to my heart..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:More shocking than 116-112 Manny ???? I'm sure that guy will work again......

Maybe even on the next Top rank show..

i agree with that, shocking. to give it to manny by such a wide margin is a joke.
as i said, i had it a draw.

i honestly think the fact you lot watched it on british tv had something to do with the 'robbery' claims. the pro manny HBO was too far the other way however, they had manny winning by a few rounds.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:118-111.....That's 9-2-1 .......pretty close to another set of numbers close to my heart..

I can see a case for that margin at one end of the scale, but even allowing for leniency towards Pacquio I never had him winning.

OasisBFC wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:More shocking than 116-112 Manny ???? I'm sure that guy will work again......

Maybe even on the next Top rank show..

i agree with that, shocking. to give it to manny by such a wide margin is a joke.
as i said, i had it a draw.

i honestly think the fact you lot watched it on british tv had something to do with the 'robbery' claims. the pro manny HBO was too far the other way however, they had manny winning by a few rounds.

You can't have heard Khan and his godawful commentary.

OasisBFC wrote:i honestly think the fact you lot watched it on british tv had something to do with the 'robbery' claims. the pro manny HBO was too far the other way however, they had manny winning by a few rounds.

I watched it with the sound off, so can safely make a 'not guilty' plea on that one. Simply a rubbish decision, no more, no less.

OasisBFC wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

OasisBFC wrote:

Scottrf wrote:118-111 and I wasn't even sure about the rounds I gave Pac.

you'd never work again after such a shocking judgement.
for you, i suggest you get a job in azerbaijan.

Luckily I'd expect the more knowledgeable guys to side with me.

seriously, azerbaijan. ive heard its nice this time of year.
think it over.

Maybe a round too many to Marquez for my liking, but 117-111 is a reasonable card for Marquez. Reasonable card from Scott.

Calling it a draw is way off, maybe you should head off to Afghanistan

Well Money has had favourable judging in the past also, Castillo1 was a far worse decision than this imo.

Don't think it will have an effect on if the fight happens, which probably will happen now, but for it to happen off the back of this fight by manny, it has extinguished its magnitude imo.