if the vegas judges were rewarding manny's aggression - explain this

of the 12 rounds scored - the judges were unanimous on 6 occasions

they all scored in manny's favour in rounds 1, 3 and 6
they all scored in juanma's favour in rounds 4,5 and 7

in 4,5,7 according to compubox, manny outthrew juanma 149 : 108 and outlanded 49 : 36
in 1,3,6 according to compubox, manny outthrew juanma 137 : 99 and outlanded 36 : 27

in the other 6 rounds - there wasnt a single round scored majority for juanma - all were scored majority for manny

the 12th was scored by glenn trowbridge for Juanma and he scored the most rounds for manny yet it was one of manny's best rounds based on punches landed (18 was his joint highest total other than the 7th (unanimously scored in favour of Juanma) when he landed 21) and accuracy 49% (which was by 11 points his best round for effectiveness)

my conclusion....the judges scorecards are a litany of inaccuracies and inconsistencies and suggest (to me) a collusion to favour pacquiao no matter what the reality of what was happening in the ring.

You can't explain it vauxhall, like I said must've looked a different fight in the arena.

Bad decision it's not the first won't be the last unfortunately.

not all about stats... there are a lot of other things to consider

all well and good....but to simplify my point:

its been suggested (as a defense to the judges scoring) that manny got the nod because he was the busier in terms of shots thrown and landed yet the judges scored in favour of marquez in rounds where manny was no less dominant on the punch stats and the judge who favoured manny the most scored against him in what was one of his best rounds.

i get the fact that decisions made in the heat of the moment may take other factors into consideration - what I'm saying is that the leading case for justification of the scoring holds no water. it'd be easier if people just said - the judges scored for manny because they liked the look of what he was doing instead of saying that it was his output/workrate that was the turning point

vxrandall wrote:all well and good....but to simplify my point:

its been suggested (as a defense to the judges scoring) that manny got the nod because he was the busier in terms of shots thrown and landed yet the judges scored in favour of marquez in rounds where manny was no less dominant on the punch stats and the judge who favoured manny the most scored against him in what was one of his best rounds.

i get the fact that decisions made in the heat of the moment may take other factors into consideration - what I'm saying is that the leading case for justification of the scoring holds no water. it'd be easier if people just said - the judges scored for manny because they liked the look of what he was doing instead of saying that it was his output/workrate that was the turning point

Interesting bit of analysis.

marquez landed the cleaner more classy shots,he won the fight.
manny who is a very popular boxer would not have been boo'd if he'd won that fight.the crowd saw he didnt win,and most of the ppl watching the fight on tv saw,this is the reason why so many ppl were/are not happy with the outcome.marquez should have won on points.so ppl need to stop clutching at straws trying to convince ppl manny deserved to win.