There are two factors at play here:Originally posted by [GaGe]
I disagree. The judges score based on a 10-point round by round system in both Boxing and MMA. Unless there's a knockout, the winner is whoever scores the most points for the most rounds, not who does the most damage or is the most active throughout the fight.
Mayweather was the clear winner here under the 10-point scoring system. There's no way Pacquiao won 6 rounds of that fight. Mayweather controlled the pace for most of the fight (hence why the fight was boring to most people), and he easily landed his straight right and check left hooks throughout. Pacquiao didn't land anything for most of the rounds.
As for GSP vs. Hendricks, I scored the fight 3 rounds to 2 for GSP, but you could've argued 3 rounds to 2 for Hendricks. It was a split decision with exactly those scores in GSP's favour.
The problem is that the 10-point scoring system makes zero sense for MMA, and the scoring system is set by the athletic commissions and not the UFC.
1) The 10-point system sucks when you have two styles that don't mesh well against each other. A 10-9 round for Mayweather looks very different than a 10-9 round for Pacquiao, but both are scored the same way. The rounds Pac won looked more impressive (like the couple times Pac caught him with the left in the earlier rounds), but when Mayweather took that away in the later rounds all you saw was Mayweather controlling the distance with his jab.
2) The crowd was very skewed towards the Pacquiao camp, so it also sounded like Pacquiao was winning more often than he actually was. Basically every analysis I've read or listened to in the past couple days said the same thing. On TV, you could see Mayweather was winning the match. But in the crowd, it sounded like Pacquiao was winning at times.
Also, Pacquiao is now claiming he hurt his shoulder in training.
Quote
![[GaGe]'s Avatar](b/cavatars/avatar60_3.gif){kind=avatar}
