Adarq.org

Damn in the post where I posted the score cards I forgot to add this link, where paulie and others tweets.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianmazique/2017/07/02/manny-pacquiao-vs-jeff-horn-these-10-credible-people-dont-think-pac-man-was-robbed

Bu that buster douglas fight, I watched recently when I read virgil hunter's comments of andre berto beating floyd mayweather i think or maybe khan vs mayweather and he referred to this fight in terms of how they could win, as they had no same ring iq as floyd so they would just have to try hard and just beat him.

yeah you can't straight up box Floyd, because his boxing is superb.. your best chance is to do what Maidana did: box + make it ugly. Boxing PLUS making it ugly, is a good formula.. but you need to be in incredible condition to pull something like that off. By the 8th round most people are going to be severely diminished; making it ugly with aggressive clinching & holding while chasing Floyd, takes alot out of a fighter.

it was def a big upset. They should have had a rematch and I think maybe tyson would have won it if that loss humbled him,

nah that loss destroyed Tyson IMHO... Tyson is someone who can't handle defeat. He's got lots of characteristics of a "bully". Plus that loss showed other fights that he's not as tough as he looks. Once other fighters lose that fear, you're no longer as powerful.

I remember people were telling me he was going to kill Holyfield, .. Everyone laughed at me when I said holyfield was going to put on a clinic and KO him. People get caught up in the brutality of offense. Skills can always overcome power, in boxing.

Mayweather choses his top 5 boxers and yes he put himself in no.1 lol.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9-HzMSJ-lU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9-HzMSJ-lU</a>

Nice vid.

It shows how he rates boxers, not by their abilities but by their records.

I didn't get that at all, from that video..

His ratings, IMHO, had more to do with dominating at multiple weight classes and beating world champions. Dominating, by default, means you'll have an impressive record.

Abilities are important but, if you lose to someone you shouldn't, or just lose several times in general, doesn't that say something about the consistency (or true level) of your abilities - unless you were robbed? I mean you could be the most impressive boxer on the planet, but if you lose some big fights, it drops you down automatically on a list of "the best ever".

Personally, every time Floyd has stepped into the ring, I expect him to win. I expect this because I haven't seen a fighter out there, who is capable of figuring him out. So to me, I understand why someone would put him at #1 in a p4p "best ever" list. He's like an encryption cipher that no one has ever been able to crack. That consistency and mastery, is on another level.

So, the "sweet science" is more than just power, offense, defense, technique, skill, flashiness, etc.. To *me*, it's consistently being able to defeat your opinion, no matter who they are, no matter how bad they want it. The "sweet science" has always been "the art of hit but not get hit", which is at the core of the "mastery" of boxing. It's obvious I gravitate towards defensive boxers, it's mostly because of that idea about "hit and not get hit".



Also like Floyd said, Ali to me is all about what he stood for. His abilities were undeniable, and he changed heavyweight boxing forever. But his refusal to fight in Vietnam & the way he went about it, while being heavyweight champion of the world, will never be forgotten. That is eternal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/opinion/muhammad-ali-vietnam-war.html

"Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights?"

"Man, I ain't got no quarrel with them Viet Cong. No Viet Cong ever called me nigger."

"I'm not going 10,000 miles from home to help murder and burn another poor nation simply to continue the domination of white slave masters of the darker people the world over."

That's on another level.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vMUyssTbnY" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vMUyssTbnY</a>

^ to me, this is the greatest boxing upset of all time:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8z0xoMze8U" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8z0xoMze8U</a>

Germany is so damn beast.

Germany vs Chile was a fun match to watch.. Chile had some golden opportunities but couldn't convert. Pretty heated match. I was absolutely shocked that the Muai Thai elbow from the Chilean player on the Germany player, wasn't a red card. Disgrace.

Also one thing people aren't talking about.. Pacquiao's opponents rarely throw more punches than him.. Just something to think about. We just saw Pacquiao on the receiving end of some relentless aggression, which is usually Pacquiao's edge. Horn is sloppy & a spaz but he smothered Pacquiao with aggression. Had he tried to box with Pacquiao, he'd have been KO'd. Horn basically just executed the same game plan Maidana executed against Floyd in the first fight.. Just non-stop attack against someone who clearly outclasses you.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Floyd_Mayweather_Jr._vs._Marcos_Maidana

There's an instance of a boxer being clearly outpunched but winning the decision. Massive edge in efficiency for Mayweather.

Lots of people (especially Pacquiao fans and Floyd "haters") were saying Maidana won that first fight... It definitely wouldn't have been a robbery if Maidana had won it. It was very close. Very similar to this fight between Pac/Horn, but Floyd was much sharper against Maidana than Pac was against Horn.

Quote from: adarqui on July 02, 2017, 10:02:07 pm

Dudes. Just saw the fight.

Horn winning that is not at all controversial IMHO. That was nowhere near a robbery like people are saying. That was a brutal, dirty fight. Honestly I had Horn winning 7-5 or a draw 6-6. If you were a judge LIVE at that fight, the aggression of Horn could have easily caused you to give him more rounds than Pacquiao.

Everyone all over the net, including boxing analysts, need to realize Pacquiao barely jabbed and NEVER went to the body. Pacquiao lost that fight himself. You don't box a bull by just throwing straights and hooks.

Pacquiao is an elite fighter & he didn't show it one bit. He showed heart, but not smarts. No jab, no body attack, absolutely horrible strategy by Pacquiao who probably thought there's no way he wouldn't be able to KO Horn.. and it came back to bite him bad.

Quote from: seifullaah73 on July 02, 2017, 07:32:34 pm

why pacquiao why??  I was eager to watch him fight then I see this and I start to dislike pacquiao as the rounds progress.
I just do not understand.

mass brainwash into thinking it was controversial decision sprouting from espn. who ever watch espn would think pacquiao won cos of the biased commentary (cough hbo and us broadcasters) I was boxnation so I think it was neutral but then again they may have been biased towards horn, which I didn't sense alot of.

3 judges, 2 from us and 1 from argentina. I would agree with 115-113 to horn.

Completely agree with the "announcers" swaying people. That was a very close fight. One of the announcers (I forget who it was) was keeping it real, he said it was very close.

Pacquiao had a chance to get Horn out of there in the 9th & subsequent rounds, but Horn somehow came right back & stayed in it.. I mean the ref came up to him in the corner and told him he was going to stop it. Horn comes right out and makes it a fight again.

I don't like Horn's style at all.. He's a spaz & he's dirty as fuck. But he has HEART that's for sure. This dude dug deep and keep pushing Pacquiao to his limits.



Hardly controversial IMHO. Calling this a robbery, is an injustice to *REAL* boxing robberies. 

True man, you guys are bigger boxing fans than I so definitely expanding my horizons. I just thought that you shouldn't reward an overly aggressive and wild boxer like that when he didn't have the quality to go with it. If he could have done without all the clinching (and not even to defend himself but to throw dirty blows) I would've been much more okay with the decision. Of course Pacquiao isn't at the top of the game anymore but I thought he still was the better boxer and won the fight.

Definitely. The guy who throws more punches shouldn't by default win the fight, but there's lots of different factors that go in to judging each round. Here are the general criteria:
- Effective Aggression
- Ring Generalship
- Defense
- Hard / Clean punches

I wouldn't give either fighter an advantage in 'defense', they both were sloppy.

Overall, i'd give the "ring generalship" to Horn, he pushed Pacquiao for most of the fight. Horn made it ugly & turned it into a war.

Hard/Clean punches go mostly to Pacquiao, but Horn had his fair share of clean shots.. especially the uppercuts.

Effective Aggression is what becomes debatable: Pacquiao was more efficient with his punches, but Horn threw more punches & pushed the pace. It wasn't like Pacquiao was "beautifully countering Horn all night", ie a Matador, like some of the ESPN announcers said he was... He wasn't. Had he been doing so, he would have gotten Horn out of there.

The holding/clinching & butting is definitely a problem.. But, you can't hold it against Horn if you're a judge. The ref never deducted any points from Horn or gave him any hard warnings. Plus, the judges understand head butts happen more frequently when you have Orthodox vs Southpaw fighters. So you can't actually deduct/penalize Horn for any of that if the ref isn't penalizing Horn for it. In fact, Horn's holding on the inside could be seen in the "defense category".. Horn tying Pacquiao up on the inside to prevent Pac from working on the inside.

The thing about the "quality" behind Horn's aggressiveness, is Pacquiao wasn't able to really punish Horn for his lack of quality. A prime Pacquiao, or a Pacquiao with a better game plan, would have been able to do it. Pacquiao should have unleashed a relentless body attack on Horn, when Horn came in sloppy. He should have always "froze" Horn with the jab. So Horn's lack of quality was met with a nearly equal lack of a quality response from Pacquiao. To me, it seemed like Pacquiao was head hunting/KO hunting, fully confident that he would be able to get Horn out of there as Horn wore down or just catch him with something big, but he was in a war & Horn smothered most of Pacquiao's shots by being so relentless/sloppy/bouncing around like a nut case.

So yea, people have different opinions on it.. I'm just giving you mine (which seems to echo seifullaah's).

Quote from: seifullaah73 on July 02, 2017, 07:32:34 pm

why pacquiao why??  I was eager to watch him fight then I see this and I start to dislike pacquiao as the rounds progress.
I just do not understand.

mass brainwash into thinking it was controversial decision sprouting from espn. who ever watch espn would think pacquiao won cos of the biased commentary (cough hbo and us broadcasters) I was boxnation so I think it was neutral but then again they may have been biased towards horn, which I didn't sense alot of.

3 judges, 2 from us and 1 from argentina. I would agree with 115-113 to horn.

I don't know that seems absurd to me. I thought it was clearly Pacquiao with Horn winning only 4 rounds, 5 tops, and a dominating 9th round would have given Pacquiao a 10-8 round. Even though  Horn was aggressive, he landed few clean shots(some good) and was tactically trying to gain an advantage by clinching Pacquiao and throwing shots as the referee was breaking them up. I thought he should've been cautioned for that but it went on the entire fight and it wasn't until the middle rounds that Pacuaio started doing the same and going for his right eye.

The idea of a 10-8 though, is just an idea. Horn didn't go down. It's more likely that judges would score that 10-9 than 10-8. Analysts etc scoring that round 10-8 don't have the burden of having to live up to that score at the end of the fight, like the real judges.

The 117-111 score is WAY off.

If you had Horn MAYBE winning 5 rounds, then that's 115-113 like the other two judges gave to Horn instead of Pac.

I think that's why the idea of "robbery" is annoying in this instance.. It was a *close* fight. Pac losing if he had completely dominated Horn, would make it a robbery. Pac losing in a close fight, makes it a normal fight in which judges can see a few rounds differently ringside, than people on tv.

These comments are from boxing and mma fighters and they for the most part seem to agree https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2017/7/2/15910258/they-said-what-fighters-react-to-controversial-manny-pacquiao-vs-jeff-horn-decision-boxing.

Interested to hear why you think differently. I guess we're learning that the commentary on a given network really does change your perspective.