What time is Murray entering the ring?

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

http://www.clarin.com/deportes/show-Mar ... 09353.html

Even the Argentine fans are saying the desicion was a bad one. If you can
read Spanish you will see what they think, if you don't then 'Que roba' means
what a robbery.

And many people who aren't Argentinian thought the decision was fair. It seems like almost every close high profile fight today is labelled a poor decision.

To those who consider it a poor decision, which rounds did Martinez unarguably lose?

Listen, if the Argentines are saying the Pirata got robbed then whatever you say doesn't mean
they are wrong. For them to say that. Murray got robbed.

Hey, I thought it was close myself, Murray gave away the first three rounds and the last two, the rest I gave to Murray and he scored two knockdowns with one obviously not getting counted as the Murray camp and the referee wouldn't have made it out of Liniers alive.

I am a big Martinez fan, knew him and saw him box in Buenos Aires when you didn't even know of his existence, if he had won that last night, I would say so. Why wouldn't I? Facts are most of the shots he landed hit gloves and arms - which of course don't count.

[matko]

http://www.clarin.com/deportes/show-Mar ... 09353.html

Even the Argentine fans are saying the desicion was a bad one. If you can
read Spanish you will see what they think, if you don't then 'Que roba' means
what a robbery.

And many people who aren't Argentinian thought the decision was fair. It seems like almost every close high profile fight today is labelled a poor decision.

To those who consider it a poor decision, which rounds did Martinez unarguably lose?

Listen, if the Argentines are saying the Pirata got robbed then whatever you say doesn't mean
they are wrong. For them to say that. Murray got robbed.


Murray had to be careful as we knowmartinez can hit sets traps great timing but martin did great nullifying his best assets and did us proud
Hey, I thought it was close myself, Murray gave away the first three rounds and the last two, the rest I gave to Murray and he scored two knockdowns with one obviously not getting counted as the Murray camp and the referee wouldn't have made it out of Liniers alive.

I am a big Martinez fan, knew him and saw him box in Buenos Aires when you didn't even know of his existence, if he had won that last night, I would say so. Why wouldn't I? Facts are most of the shots he landed hit gloves and arms - which of course don't count.

[matko]

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2013/murray ... enos-aires great write up

[crusader]

http://www.clarin.com/deportes/show-Mar ... 09353.html

Even the Argentine fans are saying the desicion was a bad one. If you can
read Spanish you will see what they think, if you don't then 'Que roba' means
what a robbery.

And many people who aren't Argentinian thought the decision was fair. It seems like almost every close high profile fight today is labelled a poor decision.

To those who consider it a poor decision, which rounds did Martinez unarguably lose?

Listen, if the Argentines are saying the Pirata got robbed then whatever you say doesn't mean
they are wrong. For them to say that. Murray got robbed.

Hey, I thought it was close myself, Murray gave away the first three rounds and the last two, the rest I gave to Murray and he scored two knockdowns with one obviously not getting counted as the Murray camp and the referee wouldn't have made it out of Liniers alive.

I am a big Martinez fan, knew him and saw him box in Buenos Aires when you didn't even know of his existence, if he had won that last night, I would say so. Why wouldn't I? Facts are most of the shots he landed hit gloves and arms - which of course don't count.

It doesn't mean they're wrong, but it doesn't mean they're right; their nationality has no bearing on whether it was or wasn't a poor decision. I'm still wondering, if you think it was a poor decision, which rounds did Martinez unarguably not win? There was also only one knockdown counted, so a second knockdown shouldn't factor into whether the judges' decision was fair; they score based on what is ruled rather than what should be ruled.

Martinez frequently landed on gloves, but there were several rounds in which Murray did little, and if he landed the best shots in those rounds it arguably wasn't enough to overcome his relative inactivity. I think a case can be made that in addition to winning rounds 1-3 and 11-12, Martinez won at least two others; his didn't win rounds as clearly, but a close and unclear 10-9 round is worth the same as a one-sided 10-9 round. Murray landed harder and cleaner punches overall, but fights are scored round by round and his highly effective work was concentrated in just a few rounds.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

http://www.clarin.com/deportes/show-Mar ... 09353.html

Even the Argentine fans are saying the desicion was a bad one. If you can
read Spanish you will see what they think, if you don't then 'Que roba' means
what a robbery.

And many people who aren't Argentinian thought the decision was fair. It seems like almost every close high profile fight today is labelled a poor decision.

To those who consider it a poor decision, which rounds did Martinez unarguably lose?

Listen, if the Argentines are saying the Pirata got robbed then whatever you say doesn't mean
they are wrong. For them to say that. Murray got robbed.

Hey, I thought it was close myself, Murray gave away the first three rounds and the last two, the rest I gave to Murray and he scored two knockdowns with one obviously not getting counted as the Murray camp and the referee wouldn't have made it out of Liniers alive.

I am a big Martinez fan, knew him and saw him box in Buenos Aires when you didn't even know of his existence, if he had won that last night, I would say so. Why wouldn't I? Facts are most of the shots he landed hit gloves and arms - which of course don't count.

It doesn't mean they're wrong, but it doesn't mean they're right; their nationality has no bearing on whether it was or wasn't a poor decision. I'm still wondering, if you think it was a poor decision, which rounds did Martinez unarguably not win? There was also only one knockdown counted, so a second knockdown shouldn't factor into whether the judges' decision was fair; they score based on what is ruled rather than what should be ruled.

Martinez frequently landed on gloves, but there were several rounds in which Murray did little, and if he landed the best shots in those rounds it arguably wasn't enough to overcome his relative inactivity. I think a case can be made that in addition to winning rounds 1-3 and 11-12, Martinez won at least two others; his didn't win rounds as clearly, but a close and unclear 10-9 round is worth the same as a one-sided 10-9 round. Murray landed harder and cleaner punches overall, but fights are scored round by round and his highly effective work was concentrated in just a few rounds.

If you are of the opinion that Martinez won that fight then that's fine. I am not going to argue with anyone who is of that opinion, it was a close fight. I thought Murray did enough, I have seen worse decisions out there, it certainly isn't the worst verdict that has gone against someone and previous to this fight I knew Murray would have had to knock him to win in Buenos Aires.

It just strikes me as telling that even when the Argentine fans think Murray won then there is something to that, they are the ones using the term 'que roba' which the literal translation is 'what a robbery' I think it was a bad but expected decision - if it had gone Murray's way - none of them would have been around to enjoy it for long.

I thought Murray had the tools to win inside the distance which he had to do to secure victory, as for the rounds you thought Martinez had won, what he did was finish strongly and he threw lots of punches but I didn't think he actually won those rounds due to the reasons explained.