The difference is the knockdown. One judge favored Marquez, the other judge favored Pacquiao, but the third judge resolved the difference by scoring Pacquiao one point ahead due to the knockdown. In boxing the mandatory score per round is 10-9 10-8, with one knockdown 10-7, with two knockdowns 10-6, with three knockdowns Knockdowns are very clear and are declared by the referee and therefore score higher. But without knockdowns each round is subject to the preference of the judges, who may favor defensive style or aggressive style-- or even favor the last 10s of the round-- and regardless of the intensity of the fight give only a score of 10-9. A fighter wins per round and accumulates points as the judges see them. But judges are people and therefore subjective. That's why knockdowns and knockouts are the clearest way to see who wins a fight, without them it's all subjective. Fans will always give the winning scores for their chosen fighter and will always be subjective.
Pacquiao defeated the great Mexican fighters Barrera, Morales, and Marquez but it is no wonder that each time Pacquiao defeats a boxing great the fans of the fallen sees defeat as the inevitable consequence of being a shot fighter. Pacquiao defeats quality opposition with utter devastation that many could not believe just how good this guy is. The Pacman was the heavy underdog against dela Hoyas because everyone recognized that Oscar was simply too big for the "little Filipino" (as Arum would refer to him). But after a one-sided victory, dela Hoya was simply dismissed as shot and dehydrated. Hatton was erased with a single punch and is also considered "not the same" when he fought Pacquiao. And now, what about the true welterweight Cotto, who is currently pitted the underdog against the Pacman?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Enter comment here