Don't get me wrong, i'm a fan of CM, but looking at the criteria of how judges score rounds, they probably scored correctly. Any madman can go into a fight and land more punches than his opponent, but were they effective? I don't think Conor was effective at all. He gassed himself out and landed very few punches that hurt FM. Meanwhile, FM's defence was perfect. He barely broke a sweat. The judges are experienced enough to know that you don't win rounds by simply using up all of your energy on punches that don't cause any damage. Look at the rules which I posted earlier.

So a boxer can win a round now because he saved himself up for a round in the future? I can see someone talking about a strategic victory in that case, but not an actual scorecard victory.

I don't know much about boxing. I guess I always thought the scoring was about landed punches.

I totally agree with what you're saying, but if you look at the rules, the judges could have looked at CM's aggressive effectiveness vs Floyd's defence and ruled against CM. However, like I said in an earlier post, they didn't want CM to win so they gave the round to Floyd. If the opposite had happened, maybe everyone would be hailing CM's defence. But again,I'm just trying to look at it through a biased judges eyes.

And they thought the Mayweather fight would never happen, look what is next...