BoxRec

Glyn Leach wrote:Well played son, was just wondering what they looked like. Interesting, Trowbridge wasn't 'wrong' on a single round, by which I mean he wasn't out on a limb in any of them, there was always one judge in agreement with him. Scores for the first three rounds surprise me most, I only had Pac winning the first but the judges gave him all of them (Trowbridge) or two out of three (the others)

boxerbob wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:Well played son, was just wondering what they looked like. Interesting, Trowbridge wasn't 'wrong' on a single round, by which I mean he wasn't out on a limb in any of them, there was always one judge in agreement with him. Scores for the first three rounds surprise me most, I only had Pac winning the first but the judges gave him all of them (Trowbridge) or two out of three (the others)

glyn i watched the fight on an hbo stream and harold lederman had manny up 3-1 after 4 with only the 2nd going to marquez

Glyn Leach wrote:

boxerbob wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:Well played son, was just wondering what they looked like. Interesting, Trowbridge wasn't 'wrong' on a single round, by which I mean he wasn't out on a limb in any of them, there was always one judge in agreement with him. Scores for the first three rounds surprise me most, I only had Pac winning the first but the judges gave him all of them (Trowbridge) or two out of three (the others)

glyn i watched the fight on an hbo stream and harold lederman had manny up 3-1 after 4 with only the 2nd going to marquez

Then we go to Khan and Ricardo on Primetime, who had Manny 5-1 down after 6. Make what you will of it all but hard to find sense

boxerbob wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

boxerbob wrote:
glyn i watched the fight on an hbo stream and harold lederman had manny up 3-1 after 4 with only the 2nd going to marquez

Then we go to Khan and Ricardo on Primetime, who had Manny 5-1 down after 6. Make what you will of it all but hard to find sense

I had it 115-113 JMM but wouldn't have argued too much with a draw

going round the boxing sites i think about 60-70% thought that marquez won , the us press organisations are the ones who saw manny winning , i had it 6-6 but my stream wasnt the best , hopefully i will see the fight tonight when i finish work on a clear video

boxerbob wrote:taken from the current scene

Various boxing writer's scorecards:

Harold Lederman, HBO: 115-114 Pacquio
Dan Rafael, ESPN: 114-114
Michael Rosenthal, The Ring: 115-113 Pacquiao
Eric Raskin, HBO: 116-112 Marquez
Doug Fisher, The Ring: 114-114
Kevin Iole, Yahoo! Sports: 114-114
Jake Donovan, Boxing Scene.com: 115-113 Pacquiao
Steve Kim, Maxboxing.com: 115-113 Marquez

Glyn Leach wrote:

boxerbob wrote:taken from the current scene

Various boxing writer's scorecards:

Harold Lederman, HBO: 115-114 Pacquio
Dan Rafael, ESPN: 114-114
Michael Rosenthal, The Ring: 115-113 Pacquiao
Eric Raskin, HBO: 116-112 Marquez
Doug Fisher, The Ring: 114-114
Kevin Iole, Yahoo! Sports: 114-114
Jake Donovan, Boxing Scene.com: 115-113 Pacquiao
Steve Kim, Maxboxing.com: 115-113 Marquez

Mmm, very mixed then

MachoMan09 wrote:Manny versus Mayweather is all that matters. Practically everybody involved in boxing, in a professional capacity, wants/needs that fight. Therefore they needed Manny to win last night. As a result every close round, on official and unofficial cards, was more likely to inked down to the Filipino that the opponent. Way of the world.

veriton wrote:it was an obscene robbery.

Glyn Leach wrote:

veriton wrote:it was an obscene robbery.

Look at the scorecards, see how they work in relation to each other, and justify that statement. On the evidence of the cards you can call them incompetent if you like but not bent.

Lovely or not, good or bad, the judges clearly scored the second half of the fight subjectively, the figures don't lie. From eight onwards there wasn't one round in which they were all in agreement, and in one case, the drawn card official, a judge gave three rounds on the trot to JMM that his colleagues gave to Pac. They clearly were not acting together nor even towards the same end.

And once again I point out I had JMM winning by 115-113. I've got no agenda here, I'm just viewing it logically and examining how the fight was scored, rather than emotionally.

Glyn Leach wrote:

veriton wrote:it was an obscene robbery.

Look at the scorecards, see how they work in relation to each other, and justify that statement. On the evidence of the cards you can call them incompetent if you like but not bent.

Lovely or not, good or bad, the judges clearly scored the second half of the fight subjectively, the figures don't lie. From eight onwards there wasn't one round in which they were all in agreement, and in one case, the drawn card official, a judge gave three rounds on the trot to JMM that his colleagues gave to Pac. They clearly were not acting together nor even towards the same end.

And once again I point out I had JMM winning by 115-113. I've got no agenda here, I'm just viewing it logically and examining how the fight was scored, rather than emotionally.

veriton wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

veriton wrote:it was an obscene robbery.

Look at the scorecards, see how they work in relation to each other, and justify that statement. On the evidence of the cards you can call them incompetent if you like but not bent.

Lovely or not, good or bad, the judges clearly scored the second half of the fight subjectively, the figures don't lie. From eight onwards there wasn't one round in which they were all in agreement, and in one case, the drawn card official, a judge gave three rounds on the trot to JMM that his colleagues gave to Pac. They clearly were not acting together nor even towards the same end.

And once again I point out I had JMM winning by 115-113. I've got no agenda here, I'm just viewing it logically and examining how the fight was scored, rather than emotionally.

you are talking as though the only scenario possible is that the scorecards were actually decided as the fight progressed.