Go Home Media You're Drunk

It appears the Media just won't let it go

• American website sat its leading commentators down to watch fight again
  They decided to tally every punch and came up with startling statistics
  Figures suggest the megafight could have been scored 114-114
  And it could also be argued that Manny Pacquiao was the clear winner
  Floyd Mayweather retained his unbeaten record on unanimous decision
  

As the purses for the Non-Fight of the Century go through the stratosphere never mind the roof – latest projections $240million for Floyd Mayweather and $160m for Manny Pacquiao – so the scoring of Mr Money’s victory falls deeper into question.

The more pay-per-view returns come in from around the US – currently well over four million US buys at $99.95 a pop – the greater the certainty that we have just witnessed the marketing miracle of The Half-Billion Dollar Fight.

The more intently the tapes of the fight are scrutinised the greater the head-scratching about the unanimous decision in favour of Mayweather.

One dedicated website in America, Boxing News 24, sat its leading commentators down to monitor the video, first at actual speed, then in slow motion, finally frame by frame.

The task was prompted initially by astonishment at the official fight statistics, which among other anomalies proclaimed that Pacquiao had connected with less than 20 per cent of his total punches and only nine per cent of his jabs.

So they decided to tally every blow and in so doing came up with startling numbers which multiply long-standing doubts about the validity of the punch stats, as well as concerns about the verdict itself.

Only by bending over backwards to give Mayweather the benefit of one statistically equal round, by virtue of his higher work rate in those three minutes, and another in which he landed one less punch but would have got the hometown nod could he have achieved even so much as a draw.

Mark that second round 10-10 and the ninth 9-10 and Pacquiao would be their clear winner.

For what it’s worth, I caused something of a stir by scoring the fight a 115-115 draw from my privileged vantage point at ringside.

These were the final tallies of the three official judges, all in favour of Mayweather: Glenn Feldman 116-112. Burt Clements 116-112. Dave Moretti 118-110

These are the website tallies, calibrated round-by-round according to punches thrown, punches landed, the score for each round, with Mayweather’s stats first:

The conclusions here include:
1) The fight was far closer than the judges, especially Moretti, and most pundits perceived
2) Many rounds were exceptionally difficult if not too close to call.
3) The punch stats as counted in the heat of the night are profoundly suspect (one US commentator who had Pacquaio winning asked if they were compiled by ‘kids from the HBO and Showtime offices’ and was told ‘Yes.’)
4) Pacquiao’s claim that he had won the fight was reasonable, not outrageous as the in-ring interviewer implied.
5) If watching on television, maybe better to mute the sound commentary.
6) Mayweather is very wise to keep insisting on home-town advantage in Las Vegas, which benefits from the huge economic impact of his fights.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/boxing/article-3077424/The-punch-statistics-prove-Floyd-Mayweather-fortunate-beat-Manny-Pacquiao-unanimous-decision.html#ixzz3Zs8yuRe6

Where he stole the Article from: http://www.boxingnews24.com/2015/05/mayweather-vs-pacquiao-replay-tells-another-story/

The punch statistics in a fight as compiled by compubox can be a real red herring and are pretty suspect. They are presented as objective, scientific analysis when its really a couple of guys hammering buttons trying to keep up with punches thrown and landed in real time where every punch is misleadingly categorised as a "jab" or a "power shot". They have increasingly started to creep into the boxing psyche as reliable statistics to base a score on which doesnt make much sense.

I think Mayweather deserved to win, but dominant, masterclass etc etc - not the fight I saw. I had Pacquiao winning three rounds clearly, Mayweather winning 4, the rest were pretty close with not a great deal seperating them. Mayweather probably stole them on the basis of a few jabs or single shots landed rather than "dominating".

Wait till the flomos round here see this.

So now that the 'biggest fight in history' is done, the next aim is to make it the most overanalysed fight in history as well, presumably. Great.

I think Mayweather should have fought Pacquiao a few years before he finally did, that he was certainly more to blame in the saga than Pacquiao was, and that his win the other day wasn't a 'master class' or total domination by any means. He gets nowhere near as much credit from me for beating Pacquiao now as he would have got had he done it in 2010 and I don't think his record makes him an automatic top ten man of all time. I also don't pay much attention at all to CompuBox.

Not sure if that's enough to disqualify me from 'Flomo' status in Srongy's eyes (probably not) but just wanted to set that stall out before I say my piece on the above stuff.

There was nothing even remotely controversial in how that fight was scored. 118-110 might have been ever so slightly too wide, but a hell of a lot more understandable than a drawn card (I'm not even going to acknowledge any crackpot opinion which says that Manny was worth a win). The fight wasn't particularly close. Mayweather clearly won. The vagaries of the ten point must system mean that you could have it as a competitive bout, but don't try and tell me that Mayweather only just scraped over the line. But of course, just by coincidence in the aftermath of this fight we've got an improved, ground-breaking way of scoring fights which is actually the right way because it fits a certain agenda.

Forget CompuBox, and forget all this other bollo*ks that Boxing 24 are peddling. Just watch the fight and use common sense. Clean punching, effective aggression, ring generalship and defence. I don't understand this constant need to put every single thing Mayweather and Pacquiao do under a microscope and the obsession that fans seem to have in always having to introduce a new theory or dictum especially for them. If Boxing 24 used the same method to show that Mayweather beat Castillo in their first fight, or that he strolled past De la Hoya 10-2 in rounds, Strongy and Catchweight would probably just be saying what a load of guff it is and how there's no substitute for good old fashioned scoring. It's all just as meaningless as CompuBox.

But yeah, it's Floyd and Manny, so no matter how clear-cut something is the other side has to argue it. I get it.

Bang on Chris the fight was very easy to score, Manny was coming forward and flurrying the air without close so often it wasbt hard to tell Floyd dominates the space and range they fought in and Floyd was very nice with his jab and using the reach advantage. I honestly think that Floyd left the arena and thought "Actually that was a bit easier than I reckoned it was gonna be"

Strange one. I had Floyd winning by 117-111 as far as I remember or around the 116-112 mark. Absolutely no way did Manny win that fight at all.
It's laughable if anyone thinks it was even close let alone a win for Manny. People are just annoyed at how Pacquiao was THE GUY to knock Mayweather off his perch and shut his mouth yet he got outclassed instead which has left a sour tasty in people's mouths....especially De La Hoya.

At the end of the day it's finished, it was one sided, was over hyped and Manny either didn't have a game plan and was very stupid (taking selfies on the way to the ring etc does not really show your UP for it) or he was just simply not goo enough but he knew that anyway.

Floyd won by a distance, it was obvious to most people. Pretty black and white scoring fight, in no way could you make a case for Pacquiao winning unless you were a V2 commentator...!

Manny got his ass kicked, wish people would just deal with it.

Mayweather the great showman pulled off an epic illusion and stole rounds. You muppets don't know a quiet beating when you see one.

116-112 was a fair enough scorecard for me. I originally scored it 117-111.

The Daily Mail journalist scored it a draw! I email messaged him (politely) on twitter to show his round by round scoring but got no answer!

I'm the other way AdamT. Had it 8-4 Floyd on the night (mainly due to the fact I'd sunk a beer or two and was sick of Sky's partisan commentary) but in the cold light of day I could only give Pacquiao 3 rounds.

To be honest I think a lot of the pro Pacquiao nonsense in the aftermath is a result of people feeling a little embarrassed about the anti-climax. Let's be honest it was hyped up to the heavens and Pacquiao phoned it in. Went in carrying an injury and was clearly second best. I think a lot of people are disatisfied and feeling conned. People alleged Clev was carrying an injury against Bellew but if he was at least he's had the sense to keep his mouth shut about it. Pacquiao should have just swallowed his pride and said the better man won. Deserves all he gets for conning people.

People invested a hell of a lot of interest in this rivalry over the years but it was all a bit chummy. Lots of cuddles and they made each other millions at the end of the day!

I'm not a Floyd fan by any stretch but can't level any blame at him. Manny just looked happy to be there.

Do they count ppv's in the same way as compubox. Always amazed at how long it takes to get those figures out.

... They should send ppv counts to Sunderland. They'll have them within half an hour of the fight finishing.

I scored the fight for Floyd (unfortunately) whatever system you used for scoring. However as Catchweight alluded I didn't see this supposed masterclass, dominant performance. He did enough (just) to win more rounds than Pacquaio. I thought both were very poor and I expected a lot more from the pair of them.

Cheers, Rodders

Rodney wrote:I scored the fight for Floyd (unfortunately) whatever system you used for scoring. However as Catchweight alluded I didn't see this supposed masterclass, dominant performance. He did enough (just) to win more rounds than Pacquaio. I thought both were very poor and I expected a lot more from the pair of them.

Cheers, Rodders

The fight was a disappointment, 5 years too late, Mayweather outboxed  Pacquiao and that was about it really, nothing spectacular, won't be looking to put this one in modern day classics that's for sure.

To be honest I feel that Floyd had another gear he could have stepped up but Manny couldn't get close so he didn't really need to, when Floyd actually stepped out at the beginning of the 11th he really showed a total difference in class, Manny was just nowhere near the same level in crispness at all.

I would totally agree Alex. I got the feeling Mayweather did just enough to win the rounds enough to get a clear win and nothing more I.e. If Manny pushed harder then Floyd would have stepped it up.

Ps - how many (me included) still say 'Pac' or 'Manny' because after 10 I still can't spell his surname?!?

Had Mayweather winning quite comfortably after watching fight live.

Watched again yesterday and noted;

SKY commentary was simply awful. They came with the Mayweather masterclass narrative and wouldn't let it go. Wish SKY would offer the option of muting the commentary.
Fight was more entertaining than first thought.
Fight was much closer than first thought. Had it even after 10 with Mayweather just about doing enough by the end - just.

Pacquiao landed the harder cleaner shots, but had Mayweather just out-working him thanks to a load of powder-puff half landed jabs.

I had mayweather winning clearly but much closer than the scorecards

Sky were shocking as they were for the burns fight

Need a new commentary team