Battle Of Brisbane: Manny Pacquiao vs. Jeff Horn Scorecard by mike25

scorecard by MIKE25



Manny Pacquiao

Jeff Horn

We do need help growing, please share:


Champion97's picture

I can't believe all you guys have Manny Pacquiao winning by 4, 6 points, Steve Bunce just hit the nail on the head, we got it right, what an upset!

I might have to watch it again. As of now I think he got robbed by the judges, but that could change. What I do know is Pacquiao needs to retire.

Champion97's picture

Well, I'm telling you now, man to man, he did not! And I'm furious that Horn has to take that bullshit from 'experts', I like most of the pundits in the US, I love you guys overseas, but man, a lot of you need to stop being biased, because amongst commentators, journalists in America, they are very biased.

Who are you referring to as being biased? Folks like Teddy Atlas and Stephen A. Smith or someone like me that happened to score it 116-112 in favor of Pacquiao? I am not as quick to call it a robbery -- the 117-111 card in favor of Horn was suspect. Horn was the much busier fighter, and it paid dividends with the judges. I just happened to believe that Pacquiao was more effective. Based on my scored card, I think I could have seen it 115-113 for Pacquiao.

I agree it's not the place of folks like Atlas to embarrass him for scorecards he had nothing to do with. I think Bradley saw it closer and kept noting Horn's effectiveness throughout.

Champion97's picture

People who said Pacquiao clearly won the fight, people who had it 9-3, 10-2, they are biased, no doubt, or stupid, who knows?

I thought you had indicated that 4 points in favor of Pacquiao was a problem. I think ESPN is being unkind in they way they presented it. Stephen A. Smith is doing the sport (any sport?) any favors when comparing it to the UFC, but I am pretty sure they too have had far worse decisions than this one.

I'm never biased while scoring fights, but I thought that Manny won the fight. I saw many other boxers saying he won. On twitter I saw Errol Spence, Lennox Lewis, Thomas Williams, Tim Bradley and so on say he won. Maybe it's just a first reaction to say robbery, maybe it will change if I watch it again.

Champion97's picture

I know you are not, but I think younare influenced by people who are, and hey, in all fairness, I might be too, you listen to your commentators, I listen to mine, maybe the guys over here screwed up, I might watch it again, one thing is for sure, Jeff Horn did himself proud tonight.

I think you could be right on that. I definitely am re watching this fight. I will say whether or not we think Jeff Horn actually won we can both agree that he did way better than any of us predicted he would do. What do you think is next for Horn?

Champion97's picture

Thanks man, sorry about that other comment, I'm just very upset about all this disagreement, I've just never seen an impossible situation like this, the great pundits in America, like you just said all those fighters, saying Pacquiao won decisively, but the best pundits in the UK said Horn won, they can't both be right, I'm annoyed with them if you guys are right which you might be, I was rooting for Jeff Horn a lot to be fair, I think he is an inspiration to bullying victims, and I hate Pacquiao, but I scored the fight the same way as Barry Jones, Steve Bunce, Steve Lilis, these are the British experts, I really didn't expect all this, sorry again my good friend! I know you are as fair as they come when you score fights.

You are obviously passionate about this fighter and the outcome. I think there are certain styles that some judges prefer and maybe even some countrywide-biases we may all hold. I often think European boxing features rougher infighting that doesn't always sit well in the US.

Australia features some busy-with-stamina-for-days fighters like Jeff Fenech*, Jeff Harding, and Jeff Horn. Maybe it's an Australian "Jeff" thing?

*The "robbery" I was most upset with was Fenech not getting the win over Azumah Nelson in the first fight. Nelson thoroughly dominated the rematch that it might get forgotten.

Champion97's picture

I didn't read tha whole comment, but you made a couple of great points there, I woudl consider my oan bias, but the British experts said Horn won. I just don't like it when I don't know who tomrely on fkr the correct answer, had it looked to me like Horn won, but these experts had sais no, I would accept it.

Hey, it's all good. It really is a tough situation when one group is saying one thing and another is saying another. This could be a fight people are split on. I know you said British pundits said Horn won, but the U.S. pundits said that Pacquiao won, so it might just be something people are split on.

Champion97's picture

That would make sense, but, Barry Jones, Steve Bunce, who believe me, are the best analysts in the UK, they say Horn won, but it could have gone either way, but all the analysts in America say it was a robbery, they have it 8-4, 9-3.

I have made my mind up on my belief of the fight, I might watch the fight again, but I'm confident that my scorecard won't change, I believe the people who think Pacquiao clearly won, are biased, with you, I think it might have had something to do with the commentators ratyer you actually being biased and not giving the other guy a fair shake, that is what I meant earlier, and I'm saying that honestly, but at the end of the day, you have your own mind, look at the evidnece, rewatch it if you want to, and see what your reformed opinion is. Two things I want to point out, are one, Manny Pacquiao didn't seem surprised or like he had been wronged after the decision, and more tellingly, read these two articles,

I see where your'e coming from on that. I feel like from what I've seen on twitter and talk of the fight that in the U.K. it was viewed as a close but fair decision for Horn, but could've gone to Pacquiao, in the U.S. people think that Pacman was robbed. I also think that the 117-111 card was ridiculous.

I think I will watch this fight again, but with no commentary. I think that way I get a fair view of the fight and see if any bias came into play here. I don't think I'm biased but can be swayed at times by commentary. For some reason I wasn't for Ward vs Kovalev, everyone on twitter and some of the HBO crew thought Kovalev won, and I didn't see it honestly. I thought Ward won a fair decision in the first fight.

Champion97's picture

Yes for sure, the correct answer, is that it was not a robbery, it could have gone two points either way, Jeff Horn got a fair decision, Pacquiao was beaten by the better man on the night, case closed, but, like you said, it was just that, a very close fight, 117-111 was ridiculous. You want to know what my evidnece is?, well, I never really believed Barry Jones and Steve Bunce screwed up, I've never seen it in six years of watching them cover fights, but Paulie Malignaggi, the best analyst on the planet, Bob Arum, Pacquiao's promoter who is not hesitant to express an opinion, understood that the decision was fair, and Freddie Roach said it was a close fight, I'm sure all the real analysts agree, I mean, if you want to stand by your score, I'll respect you no matter what, that's your right, but you have to understand exectly where I'm coming from here, you say it was a bad decision, and Pacquiao won 8-4, then the best pundits in the UK, all three of them on the same night, will have to be wrong, and also, at the same time, think about this, Paulie Malignaggi, the best analyst on the planet, is also wrong, and so is Pacquiao's promoter, that is the deal, for any of you who say what you say about being a bad decision, you have to either accept the truth (and I know you have no trouble accepting the truth!!), or they can try to argue that possibly all the best analysts in the world, who are wrong probably literally 0.1% of the time, were all wrong on the same night.

I'm furious with Teddy Atlas and Stephen A Smith.

TalesFromTheCrypt's picture

Fair statememt, but you also have to take into consideration that Paulie has a personal grudge against Pac. Paulie will take shots at Pac at every chance he gets. Me personally, I think Paulie is a trash analyst who always let's his bias come through in interviews.

Champion97's picture

I have taken that into consideration, and yes, but there is no bias in Paulie's scoring, I don't think, I guess you might have a point, but let's put the ball in your court, why did Bob Arum say it could have gone either way if it was 8-4, 9-3 Pacquiao 'robbery'?, why did Roach say it was a close fight, Top Rank had it razor tight, they got it right, and like I said, the best pundits in Britain, who I stand by 100%, they scored the fight 7-5 Horn but said it could go the other way. Ultimately, it will become more and more clear as time goes on, that these wide scores for Pacquiao are incorrect, that is down to bias and misguidance, and it will become more clear that Jeff Horn is a warrior who just beat Manny Pacquiao fair and square, close?, yes!, but who won?, Horn.

Don't think that about him, because apart from Pacquiao, and his personal trash talking situation with Broner, when has he ever been biased or unprofessional?, never, and I agree with him 100% on Pacquiao, I think he's been using performance enhancing drugs for years, and the stuff he said last year, so don't think badly of Paulie just because he was the only one who has always seen through Pacquiao's BS.

That is probably the case. We never really talked about this but how do you think it is that Pacquiao lost. Do you think it was age catching up to him, or do you think that Horn was better than most thought, or do you think it was both? That is a good point you brought up about pundits almost never being wrong. I think it's different for fighters because some of these fighters are friends with other fighters and will say they got robbed because they are friends. For me, I don't know who I think is the best on the planet, but I think that Malinaggi is up there, I also like Al Bernstein as well. For right now, I am standing by my score, but it can always change. I remember telling you I thought Badou Jack was robbed against Degale, and in the second view I thought it was closer than it really was and even had Degale winning the second time around.

I think Smith is a little biased because he's good friends with Manny. I give Atlas somewhat of a pass since he's known to be critical of Pacquiao.

Champion97's picture

It is. Both, definitely, Horn is far better than any of us thought, no question, his strength, stamina, skill, he's underrated, but at the same time, I said before the fight that Pacquiao is not the fighter he once was, I think a still pretty much prime Pacquiao beat Algieri, and thought "right, I'm 36, I've been a pro for 20 years, I think I've got two more bug fights in me, I'll agree to those random drug tests, Mayweather looked slow and hittable against Maidana, I'll fight him, beat him, and then beat him again, I'll then retire", but after he got schooled, that plan fell apart, I think against Bradley, we saw the best Pacquiao we have seen since, well, maybe Cotto, definitely since before Marquez III, then against Vargas, he looked older, and now, yes, I think he is only declining. I think a prime Pacquiao would have gotten a late stoppage over Horn.

Specifically, good, reliable, trust worthy pundits, the top 3 pundits in this country who I stand by 100%, and Paulie Malignaggi, also, Al Bernstein, Steve Farhood, what did these guys say?, I mean, Bob Arum, Freddie Roach, you know what they said, I mean, I'm just saying, your 100% right is to stand by your scorecard, I'd have no right to dispute that, but with that, as you can see, all these guys would have to be wrong, and I think you know that can't be true, but look, I just commented this on the main fight page, you, Tales, Corey, Nagabilly, most of the others, you are all capable of scoring a fight no worse than me, but due to your minds subconsciously being misguided by commentary, you see, you all got this one wrong, when I was watching Garcia vs Guerrero with bad commentary, I had it 117-111 Garcia, I watched it with the sound off, I got 6-6 the second time, the first time I watched Pacquiao vs Bradley, with Lederman's joke scorecard, I had 117-111, the second time, no sound, I had Pacquiao 115-113, I know of people out there who had Mosley losing only narrowly to Avanesyan, because of the commentary, and they watched it again, and had it at least 116-111, I had it 118-109, I have no doubt that this is what's happened to you guys.

That's very understandable, it's hard to decide, but it is easy to put the real analysts on their level, and separate then from Stephen A, Rafael, Merchant, Bayless, and over here, Powell, and a few others. I think Spence, Crawford, it's not so much that they are frineds kf Pacquiao's as much as that the opportunity to have such a fight is something they've always wanted.

Like I said, I've stated all the facts, which darn near confirm I'm right, but we can never be literally 100% sure, but bavk to the point, I'm leaving this to your judgement, I know when I'm right, this runs in my family, we analyse things, we break things down, for my dad, it is economic, politics, for my sister, it is veganism, but anyway, as well as this, we DO NOT like to bully people and force people's decisions or opinions, so I want to make it clear, my point is not "change your card, it's wrong", my point is, I saw with my own eyes, Horn win 7-5 and lose 7 rounds tops, that is no more proof than you seeing Pacquiao get robbed because we are of a similar level in terms of perception, but I 100% stand by, the best pundits in the world, Malignaggi, Jones, Bunce, what are the odds they are wrong? On the same night? And is Bob Arum just too old? What about Roach? Why was he wrong, hey, all these are not literally 0% possible, nothing is, I mean, we I could win the lottery 10 times in a row, hey, it is not impossible, but anyway I'm rambling on now, I guess from your side you can question me, how do I know Bunce, Jones are the best in the UK? Why are these guys better than Stephen A? I can give you the answer if you like, but yeah you can definitely stand up for your argument, but only if you want to have this discussion, the final thing I will say, to be forced on nobody, is that I have 100% confidence in the decision!

Smith is a loud, disrespectful moron, and Atlas is a thug. Two bold statements, can you argue against that? Yes, but I can also back that up with evidence.

I think it was both to. Because I really thought that Pacquiao would be too much for Horn, and Horn made it competitive. His last great performance for me was against Bradley, after that I thought he slowed down. I think his best performance was against Cotto, and that Pacquiao would've beat Horn easily. Also, that is a good point for the Mayweather vs Maidana setting up the Pacquiao fight. I think that made other fights want to fight Mayweather to because he looked beatable against Maidana in the first fight. I still think that Mayweather vs Pacquiao would've still been made regardless because it is such a huge event, and was the best fight in boxing to be made for a few years.

That's true, the pundits were saying exactly what Roach and Arum were saying. I think it says a lot that Roach and Arum are saying. Freddie Roach is very honest when it comes to boxing and I'll believe him when he says it's close. Same with Arum, he never shys away from giving an honest opinion. Sometimes commentary can sway a fight, I feel like I do a good job of detecting bias commentary and not listening to it, and not let it factor in on scoring. I feel like twitter can have an effect on scoring to. I remember for Ward vs kovalev 1 people were saying Kovalev was winning and I just didn't see it. That might be the case for this fight.

I meant by some of the people who said Pacquiao got robbed are other athletes that aren't in his weight class. I think that Spence and Crawford said that because they still want to fight him and a win over Pacquiao still means something.

I don't feel like your forcing your opinion on me at all. I mean watching the first time can be hard to score. For some cards, most if not all close fights, I rewatch them to see if I missed something the first time around and most of the times I do. Sometimes I just keep it as is because I feel I did a good job. That's for scoring purposes, sometimes I like to rewatch fights because they were so great like Morales vs Barrera. How about this I will rewatch the fight and we can discuss the decision after it? And regardless of decision, I enjoyed the fight I want to watch and score it again.

I agree Smith can be like that. Even for Sports outside of boxing he can do that, but I still find him entertaining and sometimes he knows what he's talking about in other sports. For Atlas, I don't love or hate the guy, but I want to know why you think he's a bad guy.

Champion97's picture

Not sure about easy, but I don't think it would be really a difficult fight when we think about what qualifies as a difficult fight at this level. It wouldn't have been made had Pacquiao not agreed to the random drug tests, and I don't think Pacquiao would have if he had known how good Maidana was, or Mayweather had beaten him with ease.

The pundits who know what they are talking about. I think you definitely try to, and look put for it, which is great, and in general, if you say you do then that is good enough for me, but, it just seems to me from where I'm standing as if commentary was the reason for you thinking Pacquiao won 8-4 and it was a bad decision. But doesn't that prove the opposite in that case? because exactly, you saw through the illusion of Kovalev winning, and had Ward ahead, although I suppose I see what you mean if you are saying that you think everyone on twitter swayed your perception of the fight.

I know. Yeah that's exactly what I meant to say.

That's good, I wouldn't want to come across that way. Absolutely, I have learned that, I thought Cotto beat Canelo 118-110 the first time I watched it, and Porter beat Brook by the same score, I thought Mayweather vs Alvarez was close the first time I watched it, believe me I now about messing up cards with the first watch. You have every right to watch it or not watch it, that's good that you want to watch it because you want to watch it again, don't change it out of feeling like you have to, you can score the fight however you see it, but I know you like to do it well, this is a hobby for fans like us, but it is more than just that, and I think, when neutral, when not influenced, you'll see the same fight as I saw, I think Pacquiao clearly won rounds 8 and 9, Horn clearly won rounds 1 and 6, maybe all the others were debatable. I think you, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think you agree with me that this was a fair decision, and you don't believe there is any other explanation for what Arum, Roach, Malignaggi, Bunce, Jones, Lilis, Rawling and I think Bernstein and Farhood, also, Top Rank commentators who are very good, say, I mean, it is impossible for there to be no crazy, extremely unlikely coincidence, and for the decision to have been invalid, it has to be one or the other, I, would calmly say I would put all my money on the extremely unlikely coincidence (all those guys being wrong on the same night) not being the answer. I'd like that, I always enjoy discussing these fights. That's great, I might watch it again myself, it was awesome.

He's a disgrace, he's not as bad as Merchant, but as bad if not worse than Rafael, Bayless, he was extremely disrespectful to Marcos Maidana a few years ago, he acted like he knew more than Tim Bradley, about what the fighters are going through when they are in the ring!!! The only bias you'll ever see from me will be in favour of USA people, honestly, I mean, I want to be a US citizen one day, if I say someone on the US is trash, I darn well mean it, it hurts me to tell the truth on Smith, much more than it does to tell the truth on Powell, there much more great analysts in the US than bad, but there are some, probably 5-10, famous analysts, who stink. Al Bernstein went off on Smith, and ripped him over his bullshit, I say thanks Al. Yeah yeah, he might do, but he has no business saying a word in boxing, sitting down and correcting a staged moron, a comedian (literally a comedian, nobody can possibly be that stupid), I could have done that 5 years ago, as a kid.

Ok, that's fine, I'm willing to explain my opinion. First off, I do not think Atlas is a truly bad person, I don't think he's as bad as Smith, Merchant, I don't think even these guys are heartless, truly bad, BAD people, but I do not like Atlas, I just lost a lot of respect for him, and I think now, he has become a negative bully who is biased, stubborn and makes a lot of mistakes without accepting them, he also has pathetic control over his temper, he's a bully, not a scumbag, not someone who should be locked up, a bully, a disrespectful, incorrect bully, and an aggressive, inaccurate analyst.

Why? Ok, so, he gets asked about Joshua vs Klitschko, he skipped over all the credit we all havs to give Joshua "but let's be real here, he still got dropped by a 41 year old", that's all he really said about the fight, he was horrible going up to Jeff Horn and confronting him like that, had he done that to Bradley had after the first Pacquiao fight, after any warrior has been through that in the ring to win the title, is disgusting, but if you are wrong as well! Jeff Horn is a good guy, he didn't let he get to him, because he knows he won, and Atlas is just a nasty thug. What he said about Thurman during his fight against Collazo was very wrong, questioning his heart, forget about being hurt you moron, the guy stayed up, and weathered the storm, anyway, that is what I think of Mr Atlas.

I thought he agreed to random drug tests a little after he denied them at first, but honestly I don't remember. I just think the fight had to happen because it was a fight the fans wanted and would make both of them a ton of money.

Yeah that's true, the pundits focus on purely boxing for the most part. It's the field they are experts in and they know what they are talking about. I think it could've been the commentary that could've swayed everyone thinking it was a bad decision. For certain situations I can see through everything. I was very confident with my original score of 115-112 Ward, everybody was saying how bad of a robbery it was and I was looking for it and couldn't see it.

Yeah, it was more of something I wanted to do. I know you don't force opinions on me. I remember you told me to ignore what your opinion you had on Broner and still be a fan of his. I might watch it again and have it the same again. Regardless of who we thought won, the fight was great. I mean I thought Pacman was a shell of his old self but was still able to put on an entertaining fight. For Horn, whether you think he won or lost deserves a lot of respect for giving a legend a competitive fight. Even though I think Pacquiao is serverly declining, a win over him still means something. You have to look at Horn's situation, he was a teacher then became a world champion. Nobody thought he would be competitive and he was, that deserves a lot of respect. I'll have to rewatch it and see if I agree if it was a fair decision.

We're talking about Smith right? In boxing I agree with you. He comes off as someone who thinks they know boxing but really don't. I noticed that for other sports with Smith. He can't control his temper when he's arguing with Max Kellerman. It was good of Bernstein for calling him out. I also noticed some boxers called him out to on this.

That is a pretty good analysis on those guys you mentioned.

That's true he does treat fighters with disrespect. Even if he thought Pacquiao won, he still shouldn't be saying that to Horn, and good on Horn for not letting him bother him.

Champion97's picture

Yeah he agreed to them eventually, you know my theory on why, but what I notice, is that there was no long process of the fight, nearly being made, not in the months in the run up to the fight, it went from "we'd love to see it, it will probably never happen though, shame, but what are you going to do, that's life", to "bam!, done deal, confirmed", and I think that is because 5 years earlier, everything was sorted out, but Pacquiao, he refused to take random drug tests, so Mayweather, quite understandably, said no drug tests, no fight, but after he beat Algieri, and Mayweather being troubled by Maidana, he agreed, all the fight needed. I don't agree with that, you could be right, but I don't agree, you'll know better than me about how much money means in sport, th financial, business side of boxing, I definitely think is better than mine, but in my opinion, it can be as popular, and as financially beneficial as it wants, they could both have each made half a billion, but if one guy doesn't agree to random drugs tests, there's no fight, and I don't think any amount of money was going to make Pacquiao take a fight he maybe didn't believe he could win.

Yes, well, the pundits who I'm using to back up the fact that Horn beat Pacquiao fair and square. It was. You couldn't see it because you had the knowledge and perception to score the fight properly.

That's right yes, because forcing your opinions on someone, it's what a dictator does, it takes away their right to think independently, it's wrong, I'm glad you don't feel as if that's what I'm doing. 100% Joe Goosen was saying that on EsNews, of course it is true, you that Pacquiao fans, horrible idiots who think old Pacquiao is the Saint he seems, they have attacking Horn and his wife online, viciously, the pieces of shit, these lowlives want to attack a couple who have done nothing wrong, nothing to them, just pondlife fuckers, sorry for my language. Oh of course, it still means something that Joe Smith beat Hopkins, and he's 51. Exactly, 100%, he's the sort of guy I'd want my son to look up to. Ok, well I've given my opinion, I won't say it again, just enjoy the fight, if you end up with Pacquiao winning 10-2, I will think no less of you as a judge of boxing or a person!, just score it, with what, based on what you've learned in the last couple of years, you think is right, not based on me, not based on what I say, not based on what most of the world is saying either, just take everything into account, relax, and judge it honestly.

Yes. Yeah because they see through his BS and know what a fool he is. Robert Garcia has said before, he doesn't know boxing, 'who is Stephen A Smith?'. Smith is a no good analyst know doesn't know jack about this sport, that, I am 99.9999% sure of.


Exactly, no class, after Horn just went through that in the ring. 100%, Horn is a good guy.

What about all the fouls Horn was doing? Elbows, headbutts, pushing down Pacquiao. I think he also kicked out his foot intentionally and tripped Pacquiao in one of the rounds...

First of all, I'm a fan of boxing and I score fights objectively. Manny is no doubt a great boxer but he's not even one of my favourites. Secondly, most people who watched the fight scored it for Manny. That is fact. I watched the fight at a bar. There were about 70 people watching. I dont think there was one person who thought Horn won the fight. Everbody in the bar was shocked and disgusted with the call. I'm sure not everyone inside the bar was a Pacquiao fan. Most of us are just fans of boxing. You don't need to insult people who scored it for him. Eyeonthering seems like it's a great community of boxing fans, and you insulting the members of this site may turn some of them away. If you don't respect their opinion then why should they respect yours? Let's keep the conversation more civil...

I don't really know when he accepted them to be honest. I thought he did a little after he declined at first. I think there was a lot more than drug tests that held up this fight, but I do think it could've played a big part in it. I remember reading it was close to being done and Bob Arum stopped negotiating because there was a new stadium being built, and there wasn't any fault you can give to Manny or Floyd on that one. Also I think Manny getting knocked out by Marquez also was a road block to getting the fight being done. I knew that this fight would be huge because even non boxing fans were waiting for this fight to get made, and after everytime Mayweather and Pacquiao fought, they would always bring up the super fight. When the fight was finally made everyone was excited for it.

I rewatched it and saw it better, I still had it a draw though. I think it was the commentary becuase I was watching the top rank broadcast and they were pretty fair to Horn as well as Pacquiao. They made you believe the fight was close.

That's really messed up that they would attack Horn. One Horn is a good guy and doesn't deserve it along with his wife, 2 at the end of the day it's boxing there's more important thing in life then boxing. I like Pacman but I'll never attack someone over beating him in a boxing match, one I think it's wrong, and two there's more productive things I can be doing is talking shit to some pro boxer online.

Smith should stick to other sports.

I like Horn but he doesn't deserve any negativity.

Champion97's picture

He accepted then early in 2015, just before the fight was confirmed. I'm not sure I buy that, don't forget, Pacquiao saying what he says, he loves everybody, it probably isn't what he really means, he just says it to build up the good guy persona. Yeah I think so too, I mean he had 5 losses on his record when he fought Mayweather, it would have taken something awah from the fight had Pacquiao not gotten 3 consecutive, impressive victories aftrr the defeat. Of course, it was the biggest fight in boxing, too bad it was dull for so many fans when it actually arrived, and that is because Pacquiao never was and never will be anywhere near as good as Mayweather, and nayone who says different, is wrong, I mean, Pacquiao, 7 losses, Mayweather, 0 losses, Pacquiao got schooled by Mayweather, 8-4 - 10-2, these are two simple facts.

Yes, your scorecard is 100% valid now, I was 99% sure you would, that's what I said from the start, I knew you would see what really happened with the second watch.

They should be forced to box 2 minutes with Horn, they should be given the right to wear lighter gloves than Horn, and have Horn tie his right hand behind his back, but still, they'd pay for their heartless cyber crimes.

I don't care what the moron does, as oong as he stays away from this great sport, and shuts the fuck up!

Course not, he just pulled off a massive upset.

Horn vs Pacquiao II, who you got?

rorschach's picture

Manny doesn't love everybody, he made it pretty clear homosexuals are the devil and that they will all burn in the firey pits of hell. Or something along those lines, either way he has a real problem "due to his religion" with homosexuals. Don't you remember that, it wasn't to long ago he did a couple real bad interviews and stated this kind of crap and pissed a metric fuck-ton of people off. I like Manny the boxer, but he's one of those crazy "take the bibles words and his religious beliefs to a crazy level" people.

Champion58's picture

No of course not, you know what pal, that disgusts me, as a Christian who found his faith at the age of 17, and is still coming to terms with his beliefs, to read horrible stuff like that, is infuriates me, I mean, discrimination of any kind, sexism, homophobia, racism, whatever, is so wrong. He's a nutter, you know what?, I think he has no conscience, I don't think anything really mattters to him, he just seems to approach life as if it is fiction, he's playing the role of good guy, when really he's a bad guy. And all those years 'Floyd running scared from Manny', ridiculous, all the guy had to do was agree to random drugs tests, 'scared of needles', his tatoos beg to differ.

Champion58's picture

Oops, didn't realise the computer was still logged into dad's account, I need to log back in as Champion97.

Ok. I thought he did accept them earlier then that but something came up that stopped the fight. I don't think Pacquaio having a lot of losses effected the fight, I think losing to Bradley(even though I thought Pacquaio won) and getting knocked out by Marquez held the fight back. Because before those 2 losses his last loss was Morales which was in 2005.

The top rank commentary was better than that of espn. They made it seem like it could've went either way.

Wonder how that would go.

Haha yeah, he should stay away from boxing.

He deserves credit for pulling off the upset.

It's hard for me to call the rematch. I might lean towards Pacquiao but barley this time. I think after this fight he should retire for sure.

Champion97's picture

I don't know, but whether he accepted then retracted or didn't accept at all, long term, the outcome was still the same, no random drug tests, no fight. Actually no I agree on that, two were so early you could discount them, and the Morales defeat, he avenged that twice and then some, the Bradley fight, well that went down as a robbery, he has beaten Marquez twice before, everyone called it 'a lucky punch', or many did, so yeah I agree, and also, Pacquiao defeated 4/5 of their common opponents in a bigger way than Mayweather, especially De La Hoya and Hatton.

They were right, and by the way if any more idiots tell you Horn clealry lost, tell them Pacquiao's cornerman said Horn won. Basically, the deal was, from your point of view, agree that the fight could have gone either way, wait until you've seen it again to build any kind of opinion or even review the situation, which is what you did, which was great, or try to argue that all those top pundits were wrong, and that was extremely unlikely, about as likely as a pilot crashing a plane through clumsiness, ridiculously unlikely, because it had to have been one of the two. The answer is, Top Rank were right, Teddy Atlas was wrong, it is beyond me how an idiot can give round 6 to Pacquiao, after looking at it again, round 9 was not 10-8, and round 8, that was close but decisive for Pacquiao.

A massive amount of credit, getting through that torrid ninth round, coming back with that tenth, finishing so well.

I lean towards Horn, it is interesting, Horn, at 29, for another few years, he'll only get fitter and stronger as he continues to grind hard, Pacquiao, well that fight put milage on the clock, and he's only getting older and further into decline, on the other hand, Pacquiao, with all that experience, he might be able to make the bettr adjustments, although that's never something he's been able to do as well as Leonard or Mayweather, but no I think Horn, decisively, he can hurt Pacquiao, he did in round 6, next time, if he can land a couple more big shots, who knows? Wouldn't you just love to see the good knock the bad guy out cold?! Would be great if Abraham could do that against Eubank, but I doubt he will, I think maybe he could have done a few years ago, but not now, I think he'll go the distance though, win rounds.

Who are you rooting for Figueroa or Guerrero?

It doesn't really matter at this point because the fight already happened. I would agree those first 2 losses shouldn't be held against him because he was inexperienced at the time, he might of still been a teenager. Then for Morales he lost the first fight, and clearly showed who's better in the next two fights, and for Bradley everyone knows that was a robbery. An interesting thing about the Marquez is I think it was a lucky punch from different reasons, he scored that ko with one second left and was able to get it. I don't think the punch was lucky at all because I think Marquez had Pacquiao timed pretty well and caught him coming in reckless.

Really, one of his cornermen said that? That's big of them to admit, most fighters teams when they lost close fights they say they got robbed or something like that. It is really hard to argue against what pundits say. For round 9, I think that it shouldn't be 10-8 becuase there was no knockdown, I usually don't score 10-8 unless there's a knockdown.

Yeah, they almost stopped the fight.

That's true, he's the younger and fresher of the 2 as well. Not only did that take a toll on Pacquiao, he's been through so many brutal fights that it will all add up. I also think he declined a lot this fight, I didn't even think he looked great against Vargas. So I might lean towards Horn. I think if Pacquiao decides to do a rematch he will retire after it.

I want to see Guerrero get a big win. What about you?

This world boxing super series is really taking off. The crusierweight division is stacked. You got Usyk, Mike Perez, Gassiev, Bredis, Yunier Dorticos, Krzysztof Wlodarczyk, Marco Huck, and Dmitry Kudryashov. I think we will know who fights who on saturday since there is a draft for Seeding. Another thing is that this is a good tournament with solid names whoever comes out on top should be in the pound for pound discussion. Who do you think will win and who are you rooting for?

Champion97's picture

You're right. Yeah, and there was the fight when he didn't make weight, was punished with having to wear heavier gloves. I don't like the term, 'lucky punch', Marquez won, because he was the better boxer on the night, Dmitry Pirog beat Danhy Jacobs because he was the better man on the night, Lewis lost to McCall, because he was the better man on the night, these guys all lost to guys who they were better than really, but sometimes, the better boxer in general can lose. Yes!, but I find this very interesting, not only is that true, but not only did Pacquiao not evade the shot, he was actually moving towards it, and sort of crashed into the shot, making the shot harder, the opposite of moving away from a big shot and taking the sting off it, like with a car crash, if on the motor way, someone is driving 60, the person is driving 55, they maintain this, the crash might be bad, maybe a couple of broken bones, and it would have been a milder outcome had the car front picked up speed right as the behind approached it, but if two cars are going 60, towards each other, nobody slows down, everyone's dead, you see what I mean?

Yep. Yes, but if you do score 10-8s, you score them because a guy did everything but knock the guy down, for at least 2 and a half minutes, Horn did too well in the first minute to lke a 2 point round.

It was funny when the referee warned him again after round 10, and Glen Rushton got annoyed, understandably, 'e's fine, he won the bloody round!!'.

No we said that didn't we, that's two in a row now, I think that last Bradley fight was great for him, but that was it really. Only if you believe that, I can see Pacquiao edging it, bit I'm 65/35 on Horn winning again.

Oh absolutely! I think that a prime Guerrero would beat Figueroa, maybe even wide, maybe even 8-4, but now, I just think Figueroa will have ever so slightly too much, too young, and just about good enough to beat a fairly declined Guerrero. I think Figueroa vs Guerrero is a similarly interesting situation to Hurd vs Trout, I think Hurd is better than Figueroa, but Trout is better than Guerrero, I would like to see the undefeated guys lose, but I predict them to win M and S Ds, I give Guerrero and Trout a 45% chance of winning themselves though.

That's great. I don't mind a bit to be honest. I think Usyk, followed by Bredis, what do you think?

Josh Taylor vs Ohara Davies, who you got?

Which fight was that, I don't remember that? Also I don't think the punch itself was lucky, I think it was more the timing that was lucky, he executed it perfectly with one second left. The punch was so effective because of how Pacqaio ran into it and perfect timing by Marquez. I also think Pacquiao could've fought with more patience. He said he wanted to get Marquez out of there, he should've been more patient about getting him out.

That's true, and Horn had a decent start. How do you think Horn does against elite welterweights?

I'm split on the rematch really.

Same here. Even though I'm rooting for Guerrero, I think he will lose.

I think Usyk wins the tournament, and I'm probably rooting for him to.

I think Davies will win.

Champion97's picture

One of his early fights, I think the guy was called Singustrat, Pacquiao was probably younger than you are now at that point, so you're right about them not needing to be factored into the equation now. Pacquiao just made one massive mistake, and exactly like you said, he wanted to get the guy out of there.

I think he does very well, I think Spence stops him late, but I think for 10 rounds or so, Horn gives a good account of himself, I don't think it would be a close fight, but Horn might win 3 rounds or so I think, a competitive fight, not easy for Spence, for Thurman, something similar, maybe a wide decision, I think Porter, Garcia, same result, Khan would struggle with him I think. I think Horn beats Adrien Broner, what do you think?

Yeah well that's sensible really, it is not easy to predict, but I really hope Jeff Horn wins again.

Very close though in my opinion, I think considering how well he did against Garcia, he should not be written off, but I think Figueroa has got him just about late enough. I don't think Figueroa compares to the elites at 140 or 147, but he's a good fighter.

Usyk looks like if he was an actor, he would surely be cast to play the bad guy, haha, no that's good, to have an intimating appearance as a great boxer, I don't mind a bit in all honesty, but I think Usyk is the best, his performance against Mchunu was great, although I thought he'd do better against Hunter.

Me too, I think 115-112, 114-113, I think he'll get up off the deck to egde Taylor.

Parker vs Fury who you got?

Ok, that makes sense. It was one of the fights while he was a teenager. That was the thing for Marquez he was so focused on knocking him out that he got knocked out himself.

I think Thurman and Spence stop him. Porter and Garcia beat him by decision. I'm not sure how he does against Broner.

It's a hard one to predict for me.

One thing that can work in Guerreros favor is that Figueroa has been out of the ring for nearly 2 years. He's coming off an injury as well so we'll see how it goes. I don't think Figueroa is with the elite of 140 and 147.

Haha, he does look like he can play a villian in a movie. I agree I think Usyk is the best of the division. I think his footwork is phenomenal for the division. Somebody made a good point on that the crusierweight is so stacked that you can add another 8 to the tournament and still be a good tournament. But that's too time consuming. I also think he did great against Mchunu, and for Hunter I thought he did better in the later rounds.

I could see that.

Parker. What about you?

Champion97's picture

There was no real method in what he was doing, he was swinging for the fences, he's already been down once, he should have created more distance.

Yeah good point. I think the distance could be an issue for both, for different reasons, Guerrero, a lot more disciplined, much better general fitness, Figueroa, the younger, the fresher, less miles on the clock. If Guerrero just simply had an off night against Peralta, and can do what he did against Garcia, then I think he can beat Figueroa quite wide, I honestly do.

I like Ohara Davies, I think he is good for boxing, he is a bit like Adrien Broner, but I think he has taken his antics too far. I wouldn't be shocked of Taylor won.

I think Fury will edge it, I hope I'm wrong, but I think Fury will cause the upset.

How awesome would it be if Abraham were to defeat Chris Eubank Jr?

That's what he should've done.

I think if he fights figueroa like he did Garcia he can win. I see it to.

I haven't seen a ton of him but I don't mind him. This fight kind of reminds me of Degale vs Groves.

I could see it happening, Parker was underwhelming in his last fight.

That would be great. I wonder how the dad will react if he loses.

Champion97's picture

Tactically, I think Freddie Roach and Manny Pacquiao haven't worked so well together over the past few years.

I mean, experience, strength, pressure, but also movement, boxing ability, and man is he a durable fighter, I think Figueroa could really have a problem come July 15, if he beats Guerrero, I believe it is because Guerrero isn't the fighter he once was, I could see Danny Garcia stopping Figueroa late.

A little bit, I don't think it is as personal as that, but I think there is more aggro. Do you think Degale beats Groves?

I'm 95% sure we won't see that Parker against Fury, if we do, forget win the fight, he won't win a round. It's a 50/50 fight, I hope Parker wins, but I'm 60% sure he'll lose.

He'd be very disappointed, it would be hard for him to explain the loss, come on Abraham!

Who do you hope Tony Bellew fights next?, Haye again?, or Ward?

I agree to an extent. I remember Roach took some of the blame for Pacquiaos ko against Marquez.

He is very durable and that will help him. And I agree, if he loses to Figueroa it's becuase he is declined. I guess at this point Guerrero is a wild card. It depends what Guerrero we see.

Hard to say if Degale beats Groves. One thing I will say is I think he'll win that super middleweight tournament. He's fighting Jamie Cox first.

Let's hope we don't. If he fights like he did last fight he will lose bad. I can see Fury pulling off the upset.

Yeah, I wonder how he'll take it, wonder if he'll be a sore loser or not.

I want to see a Haye rematch personally, I feel the fans would like to see that since most (not me) think that Bellew only won because of an injury and a rematch will remove doubts. I do think Haye was at a disadvantage with the torn achillies but people said he would get him out of there before the injury occured, and he made many mistakes in the fight. For Ward, I just want to see him fight Stevenson or any elite 175 pounder.

How do you see Ward vs Stevenson going?

Champion97's picture

I really hope he wins, because he is a great guy, after what he's been through, with his wife suffering cancer, staying strong, staying humble, achieving what he has achieved in his career, and underrated effort against Mayweather (did he really look any worse than Canelo, Marquez?, much worse than Pacquiao, Mosley?), gutsy, incredible bravery against Thurman, coming so close to causing the upset against Garcia, I mean, it really would be great to see him win. In all honesty, the Guerrero who beat Berto, the Guerrero we saw against Garcia, I tnink that Guerrero beats Figueroa, maybe 8-4 more than any other score, I really believe that, I mean, is Figueroa that good?, I really hope Guerrero wins this, hats off to Omar if he wins though.

I know, he should be careful of the power, but Jamie Cox is not a defensively strong figyter, not got the fastest feet, doesn't attack the body so well, still a good fighter, strong, a lot of variety in his offence, a lot of power, good pressure fighter, teak tough, I think Groves wins a UD, tough, competitive, but one sided fight I think. I'm almost certain Groves beats Degale again, I've never said otherwise.

So do I. Oh for sure, I think the rematch might be 50/50, that injury was definitely a massive disadvantage, I think Bellew would have won, but in nothing like that dominant way. That isn't most real fans, just idiots. They both made mistakes, both can make adjustments.

If it happens, because Stevenson needs to start fighting the right opponents now, I think Ward stops him late, you?

I hope he gets the win to. I mean he needs a big win and this will be for him. It will revive his career. I still have to see his fight with Mayweather, but it's on my list of fights to see soon.

To be honest I don't know much of Cox. I'm picking Groves to beat him off what I've seen recently, his perfomance against Chudinov was very good. I pick him to win a wide UD. For a rematch with degale, I'm not sure who I would pick. I wish Degale and Dirrell did the super series to.

I can see it being 50/50. This time I'm leaning towards Bellew is because he is younger, and Haye being 36 coming off a brutal injury will be tough to be back to normal. I think Bellew is the better boxer of the 2.

I think Stevenson will give Ward some problems but will lose a decision.

Champion97's picture

I think if he can beat Figueroa, then he should definitely retire. It was a boxing lesson, but no shame, Alvarez, Pacquiao, Mosley, Marquez all got schooled by Mayweather.

He's a come forward fighter, not a great defensive fighter, strong, got a lot of power, he's skilled with his offence, he can sustain educated pressure, but I don't think he has the skill or the experience to beat an opponent of the calibre of George Groves. Yeah well, what can we do?, shame about Dirrell vs Smith being off, but this guy who is now fighting Dirrell looks the business.

Yeah that's pretty much how I see it. Everyone was calling this a mismatch before it happened, I still believe Haye was always one of the most overrated fighters on the planet, I like Bellew, but does he beat Parker, Wilder?, I highly doubt it, Spencer Fearon (terrible analyst) got the UKs hopes up about those fights, I think they would both knock him out.

I'm 90% on Ward getting the stoppage, but I can easily see why you think it goes the full 12, I don't think Stevenson takes a shot so well, and in the late rounds, I just think Ward would dominate.

So are you predicting a late stoppage for Mikey Garcia against Broner? And are you rooting for Broner?, because if you are, then I have a friend who wants him to win, it will sofetn the blow of the upset occuring should it happen. Interestingly, most of the Mayweather gym seem to think Broner will win.

Yeah, and I think if he gets beat badly by Figueroa he should retire as well. There's no shame in losing to Mayweather.

His style is made for Groves. He can take advantage of his lack of defense. There's nothing we can do to get fighters to enter in the tournament. He's fighting David Benevidez and I think he can pull off the upset.

I was guilty of that to. I thought that since Stevenson knocked him out that Haye would be able to. I didn't factor that Bellew wasn't as good at 175 and was most likely weight drained. I think Parker and Wilder both beat Bellew and probably knock him out.

That's true, I don't think Stevenson has the best chin. When I saw him fight live against Williams, he was getting hurt by him a good bit. Also, Stevenson being almost 40 doesn't help him either.

I'm struggling to make a prediction. I think it goes the distance, but I don't know who I'm picking to win. I mean if Broner takes this fight seriously, he could win, but I'm picking Garcia to win based off consistency. I am also rooting for Broner this fight, but I will be happy if Mikey wins.

Champion97's picture

No, and there is no shame in getting schooled by him either.

I'm not sure about that, like Chudinov, there are pros and cons for Groves, I mean yes he's there to be hit with the jab, but he's strong, Groves can struggle with pressure, and Cox is dangerous, he might hit harder than Chudinov, but I think his feet are slower, he isn't as skilled, experienced, or athletic as Chudinov, so I think Cox should ve easier for Groves than Chudinov was. Hopefully the man from Arizona can do it.

It frustrates me that Bellew stayed at 175 so long, now we have seen how a good a fighter he is, we see how bad it was for him to box in that division.

I think being 40 will show in the second half of the fight, and we know Ward can punch.

I'm still saying a round 10 TKO for Garcia. I give Bronera slim chance against Garcia, I believe Garcia is on another level, he beats Broner easily if Broner isn't on form, that's my current opinion. Broner has been horrible in the build up to this fight, some of the things he said about Shawn Porter, he's bitter because he got beaten by the better man, but anyway, fully appreciate and even admire that you support hjm as one of your favourite fighters, if he wins, I won'tbe happy for him as much as, I'll be happy for you.

I can't wait for Crawford vs Indongo, and Lomackenko vs Marriaga, how do you see those fights going?