606 Scorecards: Pacquaio vs. Marquez.

by School Project Mon 14 Nov 2011, 2:50 pm

First topic message reminder :

This is my last Pacquaio vs. Marquez thread of the day, but I thought it'd be nice to evaluate all of the scorecards ON THE NIGHT of (in my opinion) the worst example of judging since Holyfield vs. Lewis.

Here's scorecards of some of the most respected Boxing Journalists:

Spoiler:

As for us, what were your scorecards?

School Project: 117 - 112 Marquez.

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 8:44 pm

oxring wrote:
azania wrote:Even better win for Junior Jones.

Doubtless Hamed would have had no credit for beating Barrera either then...

Styles make fights. Naz wasn't the same after the left Ingle. But dont try and big up MAB. He was there for the taking and his pair of losses to JJ means he was no great shakes. Good and exciting fighter by all means. Too many wars also. Pac is good. But not on Floyd's level. Too many asterix, weight drained fighters etc in his resume.

The ideas that fighter A shouldn't have taken the fight is a silly argument. Fighters go where the money is. Pac brought dollars to the table and fighters would starve themselves for the money.

Oscar was an idiot though.

by The genius of PBF Fri 18 Nov 2011, 8:45 pm

azania wrote:
oxring wrote:
azania wrote:Even better win for Junior Jones.

Doubtless Hamed would have had no credit for beating Barrera either then...

Styles make fights. Naz wasn't the same after the left Ingle. But dont try and big up MAB. He was there for the taking and his pair of losses to JJ means he was no great shakes. Good and exciting fighter by all means. Too many wars also. Pac is good. But not on Floyd's level. Too many asterix, weight drained fighters etc in his resume.

The ideas that fighter A shouldn't have taken the fight is a silly argument. Fighters go where the money is. Pac brought dollars to the table and fighters would starve themselves for the money.

Oscar was an idiot though.

Im guessing oxring scored the fight to Pacquiao?

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 8:46 pm

The genius of PBF wrote:
azania wrote:
oxring wrote:
azania wrote:Even better win for Junior Jones.

Doubtless Hamed would have had no credit for beating Barrera either then...

Styles make fights. Naz wasn't the same after the left Ingle. But dont try and big up MAB. He was there for the taking and his pair of losses to JJ means he was no great shakes. Good and exciting fighter by all means. Too many wars also. Pac is good. But not on Floyd's level. Too many asterix, weight drained fighters etc in his resume.

The ideas that fighter A shouldn't have taken the fight is a silly argument. Fighters go where the money is. Pac brought dollars to the table and fighters would starve themselves for the money.

Oscar was an idiot though.

I haven't seen the last fight, but their first 2 I scored for JMM.

Im guessing oxring scored the fight to Pacquiao?

by **Fists of Fury** Fri 18 Nov 2011, 8:48 pm

Azania, Barrera had recently beaten Hamed and was in the absolute prime of his life. That was one of the best wins of the decade, and trumps anything Floyd has done by a country mile.

Jones beat him twice, so what? Norton had Ali's number...Turpin beat Robinson before Robbo went on to get some more cracking wins..what is your point?

Your dislike of Pacquiao/love of Floyd is blinding you big style here my friend, can you not just sit back and look at it objectively?

by The Galveston Giant Fri 18 Nov 2011, 8:50 pm

Would be better, you could also look at it like floyd could have grown a pair and not invented a test.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri 18 Nov 2011, 8:52 pm

Some things never change then Oxy

On the whole you can't fault Pacquiaos choice of opponets other than at lightweight where Diaz brough absolutely nothing to the table other than an easy world title, Guzman is a name that comes up more than any other because he's someone i'd tip to have caused Pacquiao problems circa 2004-2006. Was in no shape or form ducking though.

Marco Antonio Barrera no great shakes? Honestly Az not even in trying to discredit Pacquiao does that make sense, his resume reads a who's who of bantamweight and featherweight boxing of recent times, a great in anyones eyes.

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 8:52 pm

Fists of Fury wrote:Azania, Barrera had recently beaten Hamed and was in the absolute prime of his life. That was one of the best wins of the decade, and trumps anything Floyd has done by a country mile.

Jones beat him twice, so what? Norton had Ali's number...Turpin beat Robinson before Robbo went on to get some more cracking wins..what is your point?

Your dislike of Pacquiao/love of Floyd is blinding you big style here my friend, can you not just sit back and look at it objectively?

I have no dislike for Pac whatsoever or great love for Floyd. I dont buy into the hype of Pac. I have said many times that a good jab would keep him away. When he fought Clottey, the few times Clottey opened up he landed. If you cover up and defend against Pac, he will win and look good doing it.

MAB is good. Very over-rated though. I liked the bloke and wanted him to beat Erik. His win against Naz was more a case of Naz being out of sorts than anything else. Naz fell out of love with boxing.

by **Fists of Fury** Fri 18 Nov 2011, 8:54 pm

Thanks for adding some additional sense to this debate, Ghosty, I was beginning to lose my faculties.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri 18 Nov 2011, 8:55 pm

How many excuses can people come up for, for losses, Barrera beat Hamed fair and square, if he isn't a modern great then i'm unsure what a fighter has to do to become great?

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 8:57 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Some things never change then Oxy

On the whole you can't fault Pacquiaos choice of opponets other than at lightweight where Diaz brough absolutely nothing to the table other than an easy world title, Guzman is a name that comes up more than any other because he's someone i'd tip to have caused Pacquiao problems circa 2004-2006. Was in no shape or form ducking though.

Marco Antonio Barrera no great shakes? Honestly Az not even in trying to discredit Pacquiao does that make sense, his resume reads a who's who of bantamweight and featherweight boxing of recent times, a great in anyones eyes.

Ghosty, I'm a big MAB fan. I love his style and also because he has dedicated and helped Johnny Tapia. But he is a tier short of being a very good boxer.

by **Fists of Fury** Fri 18 Nov 2011, 8:58 pm

Sorry az but I totally and utterly disagree with you there.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri 18 Nov 2011, 9:00 pm

Beating very good fighters like Tapia, Ayala, Hamed, Peden, Fana and the great Morales on such a regular basis is enough for me to consider Barrera great, that probably isn't even half the world level fights he won. If Barrera isn't great in your mind then who on Mayweathers resume is?

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 9:03 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Beating very good fighters like Tapia, Ayala, Hamed, Peden, Fana and the great Morales on such a regular basis is enough for me to consider Barrera great, that probably isn't even half the world level fights he won. If Barrera isn't great in your mind then who on Mayweathers resume is?

Everyone put infront of him.

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 9:04 pm

Fists of Fury wrote:Sorry az but I totally and utterly disagree with you there.

Ha. Now there's a surprise. Join the list!

by **oxring** Fri 18 Nov 2011, 9:09 pm

Barrera isn't great? I think I just wandered through the twilight zone.

And as for scoring the fight? Scored it close. I wouldn't have argued at all had it gone to Marquez, but could see the logic for scoring it by a nose to Pacquiao. Furthermore - from the 3 fights - I think that Marquez is insanely unlucky not to own a share of the trilogy.

by **oxring** Fri 18 Nov 2011, 9:09 pm

azania wrote:Everyone put infront of him.

Good, so we agree then. Rocky Marciano was the greatest.

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 9:11 pm

oxring wrote:
azania wrote:Everyone put infront of him.

Good, so we agree then. Rocky Marciano was the greatest.

I said everyone meaning living human beings. Not anything!

by Imperial Ghosty Fri 18 Nov 2011, 9:15 pm

Joan Guzman for instance has never lost does that make him great? No it doesn't because the names on his record aren't of a high enough quality, completely level to Mayweather of course but at the same time think it's silly to discredit someone as good as Barrera in order to tar Pacquiao.

Very much on the side of Mayweather as is common knowledge but that doesn't for one second mean that Pacquiao isn't a great fighter either.

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 9:20 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Joan Guzman for instance has never lost does that make him great? No it doesn't because the names on his record aren't of a high enough quality, completely level to Mayweather of course but at the same time think it's silly to discredit someone as good as Barrera in order to tar Pacquiao.

Very much on the side of Mayweather as is common knowledge but that doesn't for one second mean that Pacquiao isn't a great fighter either.

I am not trying to discredit Pac. Justy my opinion. MAB was a very good fighter. No doubt. So is Pac. But neither of them are great. Over the past 15 years only 2 fighters can be called great who could be champions in any era. RJJ and Floyd. No way would floyd be a champ in the era of SRL or Hearns at Welter. But at Lightweight he would be.

Others would be contenders.

by **Fists of Fury** Fri 18 Nov 2011, 9:21 pm

Pac is great, accept it.

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 9:25 pm

Fists of Fury wrote:Pac is great, accept it.

Not in my opinion. Good at FW and SFW. Average above that. Not a fan of weight stips. Never have and never will be. To be great you have to beat the best without added advantages.

by Lance Fri 18 Nov 2011, 9:25 pm

117 - 111 marquez

by Imperial Ghosty Fri 18 Nov 2011, 9:25 pm

That is pure lunacy, both Barrera and Pacquiao are great fighters, they would more than hold there own in the bantamweight and featherweight divisions.

by Scottrf Fri 18 Nov 2011, 9:26 pm

Just an average three weight champ P4P#1 above SFW.

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 9:32 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:That is pure lunacy, both Barrera and Pacquiao are great fighters, they would more than hold there own in the bantamweight and featherweight divisions.

They are very good fighters. A tad short of being called great. PAc higher than MAB.

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 9:33 pm

Scottrf wrote:Just an average three weight champ P4P#1 above SFW.

Duke McKenzie was also a 3 weight champ. Being P4P #1 means little. Don Curry was P4p #1 also. Good but not great fighter.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri 18 Nov 2011, 9:34 pm

So being a record breaking 8 weight world champion means you're not great, if we're not counting Barrera as a great win then what great win does Mayweather hold seeing as he's probably the best fighter either has fought.

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 9:37 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So being a record breaking 8 weight world champion means you're not great, if we're not counting Barrera as a great win then what great win does Mayweather hold seeing as he's probably the best fighter either has fought.

Its a wonderful achievement. Only an idoiot would say otherwise. SRL is probably a top 5 ATG. But I dont refer to him as a LHW champion.

by **Fists of Fury** Fri 18 Nov 2011, 9:38 pm

azania wrote:
Fists of Fury wrote:Pac is great, accept it.

Not in my opinion. Good at FW and SFW. Average above that. Not a fan of weight stips. Never have and never will be. To be great you have to beat the best without added advantages.

Ray Leonard isn't great, then?

by Steffan Fri 18 Nov 2011, 9:40 pm

Fists?

by Imperial Ghosty Fri 18 Nov 2011, 9:43 pm

Sugar Ray Leonard was the last fighter you wanted to bring up really Az.

by Scottrf Fri 18 Nov 2011, 10:04 pm

azania wrote:
Scottrf wrote:Just an average three weight champ P4P#1 above SFW.
Duke McKenzie was also a 3 weight champ. Being P4P #1 means little. Don Curry was P4p #1 also. Good but not great fighter.

Duke McKenzie wasn't average either.

by **oxring** Fri 18 Nov 2011, 10:29 pm

Lads - with my mod hat on - can I just say well done for keeping this debate civil and not letting things become personal

For the record - Ghosty has hit the nail firmly on the head for me. If MAB isn't great, how is Floyd - given that MAB is better than anyone either has fought.

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 10:34 pm

Fists of Fury wrote:
azania wrote:
Fists of Fury wrote:Pac is great, accept it.

Not in my opinion. Good at FW and SFW. Average above that. Not a fan of weight stips. Never have and never will be. To be great you have to beat the best without added advantages.

Ray Leonard isn't great, then?

Read my response to Ghosty above. It answers that question.

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 10:35 pm

Scottrf wrote:
azania wrote:
Scottrf wrote:Just an average three weight champ P4P#1 above SFW.
Duke McKenzie was also a 3 weight champ. Being P4P #1 means little. Don Curry was P4p #1 also. Good but not great fighter.
Duke McKenzie wasn't average either.

Are you being serious? Shocked

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 10:36 pm

oxring wrote:Lads - with my mod hat on - can I just say well done for keeping this debate civil and not letting things become personal

For the record - Ghosty has hit the nail firmly on the head for me. If MAB isn't great, how is Floyd - given that MAB is better than anyone either has fought.

How are you defining 'great'?

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 10:37 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Sugar Ray Leonard was the last fighter you wanted to bring up really Az.

Why?

by John Bloody Wayne Fri 18 Nov 2011, 10:43 pm

azania wrote:
Imperial Ghosty wrote:Sugar Ray Leonard was the last fighter you wanted to bring up really Az.

Why?

If making stipulations stops a guy from being great then surely Leonard and his 50 foot ring for his 12 round title fight are well out of the running.

by **oxring** Fri 18 Nov 2011, 10:45 pm

John Bloody Wayne wrote:
azania wrote:
Imperial Ghosty wrote:Sugar Ray Leonard was the last fighter you wanted to bring up really Az.

Why?

If making stipulations stops a guy from being great then surely Leonard and his 50 foot ring for his 12 round title fight are well out of the running.

*like

And Floyd for his gloves stipulations

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 10:47 pm

John Bloody Wayne wrote:
azania wrote:
Imperial Ghosty wrote:Sugar Ray Leonard was the last fighter you wanted to bring up really Az.

Why?

If making stipulations stops a guy from being great then surely Leonard and his 50 foot ring for his 12 round title fight are well out of the running.

I said weight stips. He fought (and lost imo) against Hagler at the MW limit. He didn't ask Hagler to come in at anything other than the weight Hagler felt comfortable with. The ring size and distance are irrlevant. Hagler was not physically weakened by that.

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 10:48 pm

oxring wrote:
John Bloody Wayne wrote:
azania wrote:
Imperial Ghosty wrote:Sugar Ray Leonard was the last fighter you wanted to bring up really Az.

Why?

If making stipulations stops a guy from being great then surely Leonard and his 50 foot ring for his 12 round title fight are well out of the running.

*like

And Floyd for his gloves stipulations

Oxy, I love you like cooked food. Boy you love to argue with me. Very Happy

I dont think gloves weight drains a boxer. I could be wrong though.

by John Bloody Wayne Fri 18 Nov 2011, 10:51 pm

azania wrote:
To be great you have to beat the best without added advantages.

by **oxring** Fri 18 Nov 2011, 10:52 pm

azania wrote:
John Bloody Wayne wrote:
azania wrote:
Imperial Ghosty wrote:Sugar Ray Leonard was the last fighter you wanted to bring up really Az.

Why?

If making stipulations stops a guy from being great then surely Leonard and his 50 foot ring for his 12 round title fight are well out of the running.

I said weight stips. He fought (and lost imo) against Hagler at the MW limit. He didn't ask Hagler to come in at anything other than the weight Hagler felt comfortable with. The ring size and distance are irrlevant. Hagler was not physically weakened by that.

Kid Lavine-Joe Walcott
Joe Gans-Battling Nelson
Lewis-Summers
Armstrong-Garcia
Leonard-Lalonde
Oscar-B-hop
Taylor Pavlik II
Floyd Marquez

Hardly as though catchweights were invented by Manny. Do all those fights "not count"?

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 10:57 pm

oxring wrote:
azania wrote:
John Bloody Wayne wrote:
azania wrote:
Imperial Ghosty wrote:Sugar Ray Leonard was the last fighter you wanted to bring up really Az.

Why?

If making stipulations stops a guy from being great then surely Leonard and his 50 foot ring for his 12 round title fight are well out of the running.

I said weight stips. He fought (and lost imo) against Hagler at the MW limit. He didn't ask Hagler to come in at anything other than the weight Hagler felt comfortable with. The ring size and distance are irrlevant. Hagler was not physically weakened by that.

Kid Lavine-Joe Walcott
Joe Gans-Battling Nelson
Lewis-Summers
Armstrong-Garcia
Leonard-Lalonde
Oscar-B-hop
Taylor Pavlik II
Floyd Marquez

Hardly as though catchweights were invented by Manny. Do all those fights "not count"?

Come on mate. Give me credit. Above I stated that I discounted SRL's claim to be a LHW champ. He won that title from LaLonde in a catchweight contest at the SMW limit. A farce. They are good as a fight. But to claim it as a world title is stretching the credibility of being a world champ. Its a farce. Not for me.

I haven't once said they were invented by Manny. It just makes me wonder why he added weight stips against Cotto, but not for Clottey. For Marg but not for SSM. It seems the bigger the challenge, the weight stips come into play.

Its not manny, but his team. The boxer is just the pawn.

by John Bloody Wayne Fri 18 Nov 2011, 11:00 pm

You said to be great you have to beat the best without added advantages. How can SRL be great if this is the case? His biggest and most famous W came in a fight that largely took place in negotiations.

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 11:02 pm

John Bloody Wayne wrote:
azania wrote:
To be great you have to beat the best without added advantages.

Both fighters have to fight. Wear gloves and gumshields. A skilled boxer will win whatever the size of the ring. I didn;t see Duran asking to fight in a 10ft ring. Asking for the other guy to come below weight is plain wrong and gives an unfair advantage. The boxer will not be physically as strong as he would be at his natural weight.

by Scottrf Fri 18 Nov 2011, 11:03 pm

azania wrote:
John Bloody Wayne wrote:
azania wrote:
To be great you have to beat the best without added advantages.

Both fighters have to fight. Wear gloves and gumshields. A skilled boxer will win whatever the size of the ring. I didn;t see Duran asking to fight in a 10ft ring. Asking for the other guy to come below weight is plain wrong and gives an unfair advantage. The boxer will not be physically as strong as he would be at his natural weight.

I think people are referencing the Hagler fight.

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 11:05 pm

John Bloody Wayne wrote:You said to be great you have to beat the best without added advantages. How can SRL be great if this is the case? His biggest and most famous W came in a fight that largely took place in negotiations.

How so? He fought a skilled fight and got the decision (unfairly imo).

by azania Fri 18 Nov 2011, 11:05 pm

Scottrf wrote:
azania wrote:
John Bloody Wayne wrote:
azania wrote:
To be great you have to beat the best without added advantages.

Both fighters have to fight. Wear gloves and gumshields. A skilled boxer will win whatever the size of the ring. I didn;t see Duran asking to fight in a 10ft ring. Asking for the other guy to come below weight is plain wrong and gives an unfair advantage. The boxer will not be physically as strong as he would be at his natural weight.

I think people are referencing the Hagler fight.

I know.

by John Bloody Wayne Fri 18 Nov 2011, 11:09 pm

Didn't fight at championship distance. Got a ring size that suited his style. Used gloves that wouldn't allow a guy to get thumbed in close etc.

All this from the challenger, all things that gave Leonard an advantage. You said yourself greats don't get added avantages. How come it's ok for Leonard (by the way, top 5 ATG!?) but not for Pacquiao?

by Sponsored content

Who won the fight?