Pacquaio vs. Marquez: SPOILERS!!! How do YOU feel?

First topic message reminder :

Am I seeing the same thing here? Marquez is SCHOOLING Pacquiao?

It's Round 8 and I've got Marquez 5 rounds up...

Another massive robbery to shame boxing I hope Pac and Flyod fight now so Pac can be shown up for what he is which is a fraud.

you feel bad..how does Juan feel???

Disgrace......but he was playing a stacked deck..

dublfcynwa wrote:Another massive robbery to shame boxing I hope Pac and Flyod fight now so Pac can be shown up for what he is which is a fraud.

How is Manny a fraud?

He's a great fighter but like all gold mines with powerful promoters he gets help sometimes..

Yeah, that's my point. He didn't judge the fight himself, blame Arum and the judges for the scorecards, not Manny. I didn't really score it, went round to a friend's and had a few beers, but I thought that JMM won a close but clear decision. I feel for him, but I don't see why Pacquiao shook be labelled a fraud.

Absolutely but people are irritated that the same guy has clearly beat him at least twice!!! and won't get the credit for it!!!

Hard game enough..with out all this c**p.

6oldenbhoy wrote:Yeah, that's my point. He didn't judge the fight himself, blame Arum and the judges for the scorecards, not Manny. I didn't really score it, went round to a friend's and had a few beers, but I thought that JMM won a close but clear decision. I feel for him, but I don't see why Pacquiao shook be labelled a fraud.

It's his comment of "I clearly won the fight" after looking like he knew he'd lost at the last bell, and having had his corner telling him he was behind all night pretty much. A little humility would've been nice. But hey; he's a politician now.

Like the line "My fans knew I'd won"

That's why they are fans Mate...

I love all Meg Ryan's films...

Personally, I've scored all three fights to Marquez. I understand people's frustrations, but there is no reason to blame Manny for the results. Arum is a snake, He won't be missed when he's no longer involved in the sport. Blame him for what's transpired, blame the judges, but don't blame Pacquiao.

I had the 2nd fight close ...Marquez shaded it...

Other two clear winner......10-1-1 and 7-4-1...........

6oldenbhoy wrote:

dublfcynwa wrote:Another massive robbery to shame boxing I hope Pac and Flyod fight now so Pac can be shown up for what he is which is a fraud.

How is Manny a fraud?

Because he's made out to be the best pfp fighter in the world by Bob Arum and Freddie Roach which is laughable, and it will be even more laughable if he ever fight's Mayweather who will destroy him.

BALTIMORA wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:Yeah, that's my point. He didn't judge the fight himself, blame Arum and the judges for the scorecards, not Manny. I didn't really score it, went round to a friend's and had a few beers, but I thought that JMM won a close but clear decision. I feel for him, but I don't see why Pacquiao shook be labelled a fraud.

It's his comment of "I clearly won the fight" after looking like he knew he'd lost at the last bell, and having had his corner telling him he was behind all night pretty much. A little humility would've been nice. But hey; he's a politician now.

But how often do fighters in general show humility after a close fight? I thought Froch lost to Kessler in similar circumstances, but to this day Froch still thinks he won the fight. I disagree with Manny, but it's par for the course these days.

Reckon Mayweather will get robbed even if he does annihilate pac

Apparently Pacquiao was suffering foot cramps from the fourth round. Poor thing. Least he had the use of all his toes, not like Haye.

dublfcynwa wrote:

6oldenbhoy wrote:

dublfcynwa wrote:Another massive robbery to shame boxing I hope Pac and Flyod fight now so Pac can be shown up for what he is which is a fraud.

How is Manny a fraud?

Because he's made out to be the best pfp fighter in the world by Bob Arum and Freddie Roach which is laughable, and it will be even more laughable if he ever fight's Mayweather who will destroy him.

It's not just Arum who thinks he's P4P number one. Many on this forum have him as their number one, Ring Magazine and Boxrec have him as number one, have they all been taken in by Arum? I personally have Floyd as my number 1, but could definitely see and argument for Manny prior to last night. The hype that has surrounded Pacquiao recently has been justified. His achievements up to now have been outstanding.

His achievements have been outstanding but last night he fought the type of opponent many have said would give him the most trouble since...the last time they fought. That he's now coming out with excuses about leg cramps and saying he felt he clearly won...it all just sucks a bit.

i had it a close draw with manny edging it if i HAD to choose a winner.
gutted, wanted marquez to win.

BALTIMORA wrote:His achievements have been outstanding but last night he fought the type of opponent many have said would give him the most trouble since...the last time they fought. That he's now coming out with excuses about leg cramps and saying he felt he clearly won...it all just sucks a bit.

But many also thought that Hatton and Cotto would cause him all sorts of problems as well. I agree, I would prefer if they did act with humility and give credit to opponents rather than blame their performance on trivial things. But unfortunately, standard protocol now seems to look for excuses. Everyone in the sport does it, so I'm not going to single out Manny for doing so.

They were both touted as potentially problematic but that was down to size as much as anything. I just think that last night highlighted the well-selected opponents, his lack of a plan b, and his corner's inability to instruct him on how to negate Marquez's style.

Also highlighted that they thought Marquez was more shot than he was..

Rematch is being drawn up apparentlyy...

marquez has to promise to come in at 160 or above...and promise not to train a month before the fight..in the contract..

I agree completely. I've always thought that Manny is made for Floyd, last night just confirmed that for me. I vaguely remember Arum saying something about a fight in May. What did he say?

He said he wants a fourth Marquez fight in May. He wants to bleed this avenue dry first before Pacquiao loses to Mayweather.

The 4th fight will be an easy sell now.

Clearly Marquez should have got the decision last night and will rightly feel aggreived today. Manny did not look the unstoppable wrecking ball we've come to expect.

After the slower pace against Mosely and now this, is Manny in decline???

If nothing else, it convinces me further that Floyd will win if the fight is ever made.

Cheers, I personally don't see the point in fighting Marquez again. Unless he scores a resounding KO victory, which doesn't look likely, he will lose more of his mantra. Marquez will be almost 39 next May, which would be held against Manny if he did prevail comfortably. Best thing now is to fight Mayweather, whilst he can still get a 50-50 split.

I had it Manny's way. I've always scored heavily in favour of aggression - an last night was the same.

Truss - I've said it before with your 10-1-1 - but how you felt you could give Marquez the second round of that fight is beyond me. He was nearly finishe in that round.

In some ways- last night was a Lewis-Klitschko affair. Lewis won the fight, Vitali won the event. Last night, we were expecting Manny, this destroyer of worlds - to come out and walk straight through Marquez. He didn't.

Now in truth - Marquez has Manny's number - he's always had Manny's number and probably always will. But that doesn't mean he won the fight - just because he did better than we expected him to. Maidana-Morales is another example. Just because no-one expected Morales to match Maidana - doesn't make him the winner. He still lost the fight.

In Steffan's terms - Rocky still lost to Mason Dixon. Even if we enjoyed the fight.

No robbery - but a close fight.

Windy's point on Marquez is a good one - in 3 close fights, where he has edged an awful lot of rounds - he never won once.

However - that first fight was called a draw - when it should have been a decision in Manny's favour (see scorecard fiasco). So it could be fair to say that Marquez has had a little luck - even if that luck feels a bit hollow and thin.

Effective aggression?

ESPN US apparently scored it 8-4 Pacquiao

BALTIMORA wrote:Effective aggression?

Effective is too subjective a word. I've seen some rounds where boxer A has landed about 20 - not perfect shots, whereas boxer B has landed 2 perfect shots. And people have said that counts as "effective aggression". I'd tend to score it to the guy who is making the fight, rather than the guy who can get his punches off twice in 3 minutes.

I appreciate last night wasn't too bad an example of this - as Marquez had a pretty decent workrate.

Overall scoring it to Manny wasn't a robbery IMO. There were an abundance of close, tight rounds - that could have gone either way. That isn't a robbery. Holyfield Lewis - where there were hardly any close rounds - that was a robbery. Ramirez-Whittaker, Lebedev-Huck - they are robberies.

Daylight robbery that dick turpin would have been proud of.

Got to say I had it for Marquez, watched it without knowing the result this morning so was wide awake and sober as a judge and simply cannot see how Manny got the nod, Marquez made him miss with so much and got his own counters off so for me can't see what value one can place on aggression.

You only look at the body language at the end to know Manny thought he had lost, for one of the judges to have it by four for Manny is shameful, simply because we can all reel of a few more fights which were bigger robberies does not justify this, Marquez got screwed, simple as that for me.

I had Marquez winning this one ever so slightly but may have to watch the fight again without the commentary on as two of the three judges did have pac winning.

Maybe the fact that marquez did so well did hamper my judgement slightly.

No matter what however marquez causes pac all sorts of issues. I feel mannys definately lost a little speed since the cotto fight and seems a bit bored by the boxing nowadays.

Cant see him beating Mayweather at all now either.If thats how Marquez made him look then Floyd will turn him inside out.

rowley wrote:Got to say I had it for Marquez, watched it without knowing the result this morning so was wide awake and sober as a judge and simply cannot see how Manny got the nod, Marquez made him miss with so much and got his own counters off so for me can't see what value one can place on aggression.

You only look at the body language at the end to know Manny thought he had lost, for one of the judges to have it by four for Manny is shameful, simply because we can all reel of a few more fights which were bigger robberies does not justify this, Marquez got screwed, simple as that for me.

Yup! Same here.

With regard to scoring Oxring - I think you weigh aggression far too heavily in your scoring.

Dazstarr wrote:With regard to scoring Oxring - I think you weigh aggression far too heavily in your scoring.

Maybe - but it is all subjective. There's plenty of people online who seem to feel that Manny edged it. Just because it didn't go the way we wanted it to go - doesn't make it a robbery.

Essentially - the fight was extremely close. Had it gone to Marquez, I wouldn't have been able to argue. In the same way - as it went to Pacquiao - all that is left to say is that in 3 close fights, you'd think he would lose once. But that doesn't equate to him losing once.

Marquez is unlucky not to own a portion of the trilogy. However - in a close fight - its not right or just to say robbery just because it went the way we didn't expect.

I think aggression should only come into play when there is nothing else to split them, but like you say it is subjective.

I said the same thing on the chat box to Balti last night about the only way you got Manny winning the fight was people putting a over emphasis on aggression over all else.

Predicted Marquez would win the fight but get screwed by the judges and low and behold it came to pass. If only they'd given a SD rather than a MD to Manny.

Marquez didn't run away with it but over the 12 he clearly won in my eyes.

When rounds are close rather than who is the aggressor I always like to look who is executing their plan and who is landing the quality in the round and for me in almost every round that guy was JMM. Appreciate this is all subjective but I had Manny needing to sweep all the last four rounds and for me he didn't do it. Even in the 9th which the commentators were making out as a massive Manny round I felt he missed nigh on everything he threw and the quality shots and ones that landed with any effect came from Marquez.

Body language of Pacquiao at the final bell said a lot to me.

rowley wrote:When rounds are close rather than who is the aggressor I always like to look who is executing their plan and who is landing the quality in the round and for me in almost every round that guy was JMM. Appreciate this is all subjective but I had Manny needing to sweep all the last four rounds and for me he didn't do it. Even in the 9th which the commentators were making out as a massive Manny round I felt he missed nigh on everything he threw and the quality shots and ones that landed with any effect came from Marquez.

That about hits the nail on the head for me. Pacquiao looked flummoxed too often, quite frankly. He didn't seem to have much of a clue unless Marquez stood in front of him.

rowley wrote:When rounds are close rather than who is the aggressor I always like to look who is executing their plan and who is landing the quality in the round and for me in almost every round that guy was JMM. Appreciate this is all subjective but I had Manny needing to sweep all the last four rounds and for me he didn't do it. Even in the 9th which the commentators were making out as a massive Manny round I felt he missed nigh on everything he threw and the quality shots and ones that landed with any effect came from Marquez.

Thats a good way to look at it. Personally i feel if aggression was held in that high esteem by judges then we wouldnt have tactical fights - boxing would just be slug fests and the science of the sport would be lost. Counter punchers and slicksters would become obsolete and surplus to requirements.

Reminded me a little of the Oscar v Mosley 2 battle where I had Oscar a clear winner watching via TV, had a couple of friends who went to Vegas to watch that paticular fight and they had Mosley a clear winner whilst watching the action in the flesh, I had Marquez winning but I'm surprised by many of the US media having Manny winning by 3 and 4 rounds.

rowley wrote:I always like to look who is executing their plan and who is landing the quality in the round

As you say, jeff - this in itself is incredibly subjective. If then fighter A lands 30 punches on fighter B - but fighter B's gameplan has stopped A from landing 60 punches - and fighter B has landed 10 clean, hard shots - does that make it fighter B's round? B has been outpunched 30-10.

I agree, it doesn't help his cause that he looked like he was taking a beating - but much of that was blood from a head-clash.

However - as I said above - I can't argue that you scored the fight to Marquez - as it was a very close fight. I'm only disputing the notion that because it didn't go to Marquez it was clearly a robbery - those 2 statements don't follow.

Interestingly - Guardian called it 116-114 Pacquiao and are now taking a load of flack from what they describe as Marquez fans.

Now the Guardian haven't been paid by Top Rank, probably.

oxring wrote:Interestingly - Guardian called it 116-114 Pacquiao and are now taking a load of flack from what they describe as Marquez fans.

Now the Guardian haven't been paid by Top Rank, probably.

But in the same publication, a different set of eyes saw things differently, and in the fight report it favours Marquez.

I haven't seen the fight yet, but it does seem like there are a lot of different ways to see it, depending on what you're looking for.

Thats because he watches the HBO edition usually, they are quite probably Manny's biggest fan club.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/nov/13/manny-pacquaio-beats-juan-manuel-marquez

This ones a bit strange.

ShahenshahG wrote:Thats because he watches the HBO edition usually, they are quite probably Manny's biggest fan club.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/nov/13/manny-pacquaio-beats-juan-manuel-marquez

This ones a bit strange.

Now that fella was probably also watching the HBO edition. Completely the opposite conclusion. Tight fight, no robbery.

Not sure where you're getting the idea that just because it was close it wasn't the wrong decision.

Jesus, you boys not slept?

I'm going to watch the repeats now with the sound off and see if I had it any other way.

In terms of Mayweather... I would stay away from Pacquiao on the simple premise: If you can't knock him out, no matter how well you box, you won't win.

Mayweather will not be scored fairly when Top Rank promote the fight.

Maybe the world doesn't really need that fight. More importantly... where does this leave the P4P rankings now? Manny has had two poor performances against Mosely and Marquez, only actually winning the one fight, yet he's Number 1. Floyd hasn't really dropped a round since De la Hoya...

BALTIMORA wrote:Not sure where you're getting the idea that just because it was close it wasn't the wrong decision.

I'm suggesting that with a tight fight you can't cry robbery. Robberies, are by nature - clear wins for 1 fighter - which can't by definition occur in a tight fight.

Not slept, no. Once it became light again my body clock told itself to stay awake.

oxring wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Not sure where you're getting the idea that just because it was close it wasn't the wrong decision.

I'm suggesting that with a tight fight you can't cry robbery. Robberies, are by nature - clear wins for 1 fighter - which can't by definition occur in a tight fight.

Giving that to Pacquiao by 8-4 is robbing Marquez blind. A draw would have been kind to Pacquiao.