606 Scorecards: Pacquaio vs. Marquez.

by School Project Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:50 pm

First topic message reminder :

This is my last Pacquaio vs. Marquez thread of the day, but I thought it'd be nice to evaluate all of the scorecards ON THE NIGHT of (in my opinion) the worst example of judging since Holyfield vs. Lewis.

Here's scorecards of some of the most respected Boxing Journalists:

Spoiler:

As for us, what were your scorecards?

School Project: 117 - 112 Marquez.

by fearlessBamber Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:38 pm

The Galveston Giant wrote:
fearlessBamber wrote:
John Bloody Wayne wrote:How is a fighter saying he won a fight being a tool? He'd be a tool to say anything different.

Even when he gives it the nice guy routine and actually clearly lost the fight ?

Politics will suit him just fine. His friendship with Arum has been perfect preparation.

At the end of the day it's not Pacquiao's fault, so why show hate towards the boxer for the decision. He seems a nice enough guy to me. Most boxers would have said the same, you don't actually think Pacquiao thought he had won do you.

It is his fault - as much as it is Arums' or anyone else involved in the debacle. He stands to make considerable money off the back of this injustice. Or are you suggesting that Manny is so naive and such a nice guy that is blissfully ignorant of the millions of dollars set to come his way thanks to the shafting Marquez got.

Stuff like this ruins boxing. What's the point of these massive events if the cash cow just needs to stumble forward whilst getting repeatedly punched in the face to get a decision ?

Unreasonable weight stipulations, title fights at below the normal weight class, cherry picked opposition and seriously dodgy decisions. I'm no fan of Manny.

by BALTIMORA Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:47 pm

fearlessBamber wrote:
The Galveston Giant wrote:
fearlessBamber wrote:
John Bloody Wayne wrote:How is a fighter saying he won a fight being a tool? He'd be a tool to say anything different.

Even when he gives it the nice guy routine and actually clearly lost the fight ?

Politics will suit him just fine. His friendship with Arum has been perfect preparation.

At the end of the day it's not Pacquiao's fault, so why show hate towards the boxer for the decision. He seems a nice enough guy to me. Most boxers would have said the same, you don't actually think Pacquiao thought he had won do you.

It is his fault - as much as it is Arums' or anyone else involved in the debacle. He stands to make considerable money off the back of this injustice. Or are you suggesting that Manny is so naive and such a nice guy that is blissfully ignorant of the millions of dollars set to come his way thanks to the shafting Marquez got.

Stuff like this ruins boxing. What's the point of these massive events if the cash cow just needs to stumble forward whilst getting repeatedly punched in the face to get a decision ?

Unreasonable weight stipulations, title fights at below the normal weight class, cherry picked opposition and seriously dodgy decisions. I'm no fan of Manny.

I'd have to agree with the gist of this. We can't be expected to believe that on the one hand Pacquiao is so skilled as to be able to balance being an elite sportsman and a fairly high-level politician, while on the other hand being so gullible to believe he's still completely naive when it comes to all behind-the-scenes matters regarding his fights.

by The Galveston Giant Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:52 pm

I asked you if you thought manny thought he had won, and that other boxers would do the same, you don't need to tell me you aren't a fan of manny, Manny didn't score the fight.

by fearlessBamber Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:55 pm

The Galveston Giant wrote:I asked you if you thought manny thought he had won, and that other boxers would do the same, you don't need to tell me you aren't a fan of manny, Manny didn't score the fight.

No I don't think he thought he won. During his interview he looked sheepish and shifty.

by Jukebox Timebomb Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:39 pm

fearlessBamber wrote:
School Project wrote:
fearlessBamber wrote:I had it 9 rounds to 3 for Marquez. If someone had it 112-108 for Marquez, I'd accept it.

We don't need Manny to fight FMJ now - although it'd be fun to see an imprint of Pacq's face on Mayweather's right glove.

"I clearly won the fight" - what a tool.

Do you mean 120 - 108? I'm not so sure myself, but it wasn't that wide.

Yes thanks have edited. Manny looked off balance and clueless throughout. Found it hard to give Manny the rounds I did.

That's what I told my mate at the time. A 120 - 108 shutout to Marquez would have been more believable than scoring it to Pac.

by **Fists of Fury** Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:41 pm

Slightly extreme...

by Scottrf Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:42 pm

I agree with it.

by Jukebox Timebomb Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:05 pm

Pac supporters are justifying the verdict by saying that quite a few rounds were close and if they were all scored to Manny then the win was believable. Truth is that I don't believe Pac won a single round clearly so would a shutout to Marquez have been a less credible score?

by **oxring** Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:29 pm

Why the hell does it need to get personal?

Surely one can respect Manny's achievements in the ring without having to believe he is unbeatable?

And surely he can have an off night without having to be exposed, or disliked?

Odd attitude.

by vxrandall Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:16 pm

id have had more respect for him if he'd have said 'it was a close fight - could have gone either way and I'm thankful i got the decision tonight. given the fact that he clearly looked like he knew he had lost the fight before the cards were read it was somewhat insulting to both marquez and the fans to suggest that he felt he won the fight clearly. he didnt raise his arms when the 12th bell went. christ..even his mrs face was a picture of doom until it dawned on her that uncle Bob had done the business.

by John Bloody Wayne Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:03 pm

fearlessBamber wrote:
The Galveston Giant wrote:
fearlessBamber wrote:
John Bloody Wayne wrote:How is a fighter saying he won a fight being a tool? He'd be a tool to say anything different.

Even when he gives it the nice guy routine and actually clearly lost the fight ?

Politics will suit him just fine. His friendship with Arum has been perfect preparation.

At the end of the day it's not Pacquiao's fault, so why show hate towards the boxer for the decision. He seems a nice enough guy to me. Most boxers would have said the same, you don't actually think Pacquiao thought he had won do you.

It is his fault - as much as it is Arums' or anyone else involved in the debacle. He stands to make considerable money off the back of this injustice. Or are you suggesting that Manny is so naive and such a nice guy that is blissfully ignorant of the millions of dollars set to come his way thanks to the shafting Marquez got.

Stuff like this ruins boxing. What's the point of these massive events if the cash cow just needs to stumble forward whilst getting repeatedly punched in the face to get a decision ?

Unreasonable weight stipulations, title fights at below the normal weight class, cherry picked opposition and seriously dodgy decisions. I'm no fan of Manny.

Pacquiao trained to win before the fight and tried to win during the fight. I don't see how a close fight being scored his way is his "fault". I also don't see how anyone could score that a shutout without seriously disliking him. How diplomatic are you in Pinoy?

by fearlessBamber Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:48 pm

I didn't score it a shutout - 9-3, but I said I'd be sympathetic to people who did see it as a shutout.

Manny is culpable for the reason I alluded to above.

by manos de piedra Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:09 pm

Who are his cherry picked opponents? Look at the guys c.v. Its a ludicrous claim. Marquez x 3, Morales x 3, Barrera x 2, De la Hoya, Hatton, Cotto, Margarito, Mosely across many weights. From a guy that began as a flyweight thats real cherry picking if you ask me.

In terms of weight, is there no credence given to the fact that he himself started at flyweight? That catchweights against much bigger guys like Cotto and Margarito may actually be legitimate? That these guys were not forced to take the fight?

He had no control over the judges in his fights. If they were biased or incompetent it was not Pacquiaos fault unless you are suggesting he bribed them.

by fearlessBamber Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:34 pm

Sigh - his last 5 opponents have been carefully chosen and offered little risk - especially the weight weakened Cotto.

If I offered you 100000 pounds to cut off a finger would that be ok ?

How about of I paid you another large amount to arbitrate a dispute I had with someone ? Would you be neutral ?

Marquez 'losing' was wonderfully convenient for most people. Especially little innocent baby Pac.

It stinks.

by John Bloody Wayne Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:37 pm

fearlessBamber wrote:Sigh.

by manos de piedra Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:07 pm

fearlessBamber wrote:Sigh - his last 5 opponents have been carefully chosen and offered little risk - especially the weight weakened Cotto.

If I offered you 100000 pounds to cut off a finger would that be ok ?

How about of I paid you another large amount to arbitrate a dispute I had with someone ? Would you be neutral ?

Marquez 'losing' was wonderfully convenient for most people. Especially little innocent baby Pac.

It stinks.

Is this even an argument?

by fearlessBamber Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:32 pm

manos de piedra wrote:
fearlessBamber wrote:Sigh - his last 5 opponents have been carefully chosen and offered little risk - especially the weight weakened Cotto.

If I offered you 100000 pounds to cut off a finger would that be ok ?

How about of I paid you another large amount to arbitrate a dispute I had with someone ? Would you be neutral ?

Marquez 'losing' was wonderfully convenient for most people. Especially little innocent baby Pac.

It stinks.

Is this even an argument?

I would say yes, whereas your post most certainly is not.

I am not going to spell it out any more clearly as further explanation would be both redundant (for most people) and potentially libelous.

by manos de piedra Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:43 pm

Right... Thanks

Il keep my fingers and all that then so. Cheers for the offer.

by AlexHuckerby Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:04 am

fearlessBamber wrote:Sigh - his last 5 opponents have been carefully chosen and offered little risk - especially the weight weakened Cotto.

If I offered you 100000 pounds to cut off a finger would that be ok ?

How about of I paid you another large amount to arbitrate a dispute I had with someone ? Would you be neutral ?

Marquez 'losing' was wonderfully convenient for most people. Especially little innocent baby Pac.

It stinks.

I can see you're trying to make a point... But you're not making a point...

by **Seanusarrilius** Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:13 am

i had it 116-112 and you can see my round by round at www.maineventboxing.wordpress.com

by Steffan Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:17 am

Seanusarrilius wrote:i had it 116-112 and you can see my round by round at www.maineventboxing.wordpress.com

I always enjoy your Youtube predictions Seanusarrilius

Even with the public school voice...

by **oxring** Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:36 pm

manos de piedra wrote:Who are his cherry picked opponents? Look at the guys c.v. Its a ludicrous claim. Marquez x 3, Morales x 3, Barrera x 2, De la Hoya, Hatton, Cotto, Margarito, Mosely across many weights. From a guy that began as a flyweight thats real cherry picking if you ask me.

In terms of weight, is there no credence given to the fact that he himself started at flyweight? That catchweights against much bigger guys like Cotto and Margarito may actually be legitimate? That these guys were not forced to take the fight?

He had no control over the judges in his fights. If they were biased or incompetent it was not Pacquiaos fault unless you are suggesting he bribed them.

Stop being reasonable.

Half the boxing world seem to believe his career started with ODLH.

Which is fine, but they're clearly morons.

by **oxring** Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:40 pm

manos de piedra wrote:
fearlessBamber wrote:Sigh - his last 5 opponents have been carefully chosen and offered little risk - especially the weight weakened Cotto.

If I offered you 100000 pounds to cut off a finger would that be ok ?

How about of I paid you another large amount to arbitrate a dispute I had with someone ? Would you be neutral ?

Marquez 'losing' was wonderfully convenient for most people. Especially little innocent baby Pac.

It stinks.

Is this even an argument?

No.

It fails to contain premises, or conclusions and so fails key components of validity. Furthermore, the post involves ad populum AND appealing to extremes - ie not one but 2 forms of fallacious reasoning in 4 lines.

I'm quite impressed.

by fearlessBamber Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:07 pm

oxring wrote:
manos de piedra wrote:
fearlessBamber wrote:Sigh - his last 5 opponents have been carefully chosen and offered little risk - especially the weight weakened Cotto.

If I offered you 100000 pounds to cut off a finger would that be ok ?

How about of I paid you another large amount to arbitrate a dispute I had with someone ? Would you be neutral ?

Marquez 'losing' was wonderfully convenient for most people. Especially little innocent baby Pac.

It stinks.

Is this even an argument?

No.

It fails to contain premises, or conclusions and so fails key components of validity. Furthermore, the post involves ad populum AND rappealing to extremes - ie not one but 2 forms of fallacious reasoning in 4 lines.

I'm quite impressed.

Not as impressed as I am by your ability to copy bits out of Wikipedia which you don't understand.

by Scottrf Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:16 pm

fearlessBamber wrote:
oxring wrote:
manos de piedra wrote:
fearlessBamber wrote:Sigh - his last 5 opponents have been carefully chosen and offered little risk - especially the weight weakened Cotto.

If I offered you 100000 pounds to cut off a finger would that be ok ?

How about of I paid you another large amount to arbitrate a dispute I had with someone ? Would you be neutral ?

Marquez 'losing' was wonderfully convenient for most people. Especially little innocent baby Pac.

It stinks.

Is this even an argument?

No.

It fails to contain premises, or conclusions and so fails key components of validity. Furthermore, the post involves ad populum AND rappealing to extremes - ie not one but 2 forms of fallacious reasoning in 4 lines.

I'm quite impressed.

Not as impressed as I am by your ability to copy bits out of Wikipedia which you don't understand.

Spoiler:

by **oxring** Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:42 pm

fearlessBamber wrote:
oxring wrote:
manos de piedra wrote:
fearlessBamber wrote:Sigh - his last 5 opponents have been carefully chosen and offered little risk - especially the weight weakened Cotto.

If I offered you 100000 pounds to cut off a finger would that be ok ?

How about of I paid you another large amount to arbitrate a dispute I had with someone ? Would you be neutral ?

Marquez 'losing' was wonderfully convenient for most people. Especially little innocent baby Pac.

It stinks.

Is this even an argument?

No.

It fails to contain premises, or conclusions and so fails key components of validity. Furthermore, the post involves ad populum AND rappealing to extremes - ie not one but 2 forms of fallacious reasoning in 4 lines.

I'm quite impressed.

Not as impressed as I am by your ability to copy bits out of Wikipedia which you don't understand.

As long as I impress you Bamber, happiness reigns all round.

The benefits of a classical education old boy, wikipedia doesn't come into it.

For the record - and this does sound like a broken record as this has been reiterated so many times on here it is untrue - ODLH picked Manny, not the other way around. Hatton was unbeaten at 140 and meant to be a huge challenge. Cotto was "the man" at 147 after the handwrap scandal broke. Clottey was a substitute for Floyd Mayweather as everyone else at 147 was busy. Margarito was at a new, even higher weight (151). Mosley was a low risk high money fight.

So what exactly are we beating Manny for? The odd big-money low risk fight?

I assume you criticise Mayweather with as much spittle-flecked bile for fighting Gatti instead of Tszyu then.

by **Fists of Fury** Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:51 pm

Summed up perfectly, Oxy, and let's hope that puts an end to this particularly tiresome and ludicrous debate.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:16 pm

Absolutey disgraceful decision as far as i'm concerned, Marquez has had his rightful place at the top of the elite pile robbed not once, not twice but three times by the judges. That's not to say all three were robberies but on the balance of the three fights he should hold a 2-1 record with Pacquiao just about deserving the nod in the second fight. Holding a 2-1 record over an all time great like Pacquiao as well as being a four weight world champion pushes him up to realms of men like Arguello and Pryor but as it is he'll be remembered as a great fighter who came up short at the highest level. Have never felt so sorry for a fighter, more than anyone a warrior like him deserved his moment.

by Steffan Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:21 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Absolutey disgraceful decision as far as i'm concerned, Marquez has had his rightful place at the top of the elite pile robbed not once, not twice but three times by the judges. That's not to say all three were robberies but on the balance of the three fights he should hold a 2-1 record with Pacquiao just about deserving the nod in the second fight. Holding a 2-1 record over an all time great like Pacquiao as well as being a four weight world champion pushes him up to realms of men like Arguello and Pryor but as it is he'll be remembered as a great fighter who came up short at the highest level. Have never felt so sorry for a fighter, more than anyone a warrior like him deserved his moment.

Your back?

by azania Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:25 pm

I've always said that there should be an asterix next to Pac's name. Gotta say also that I haven't seen the 3rd fight but general consensus is that he was gifted another decision.

When the dust has settled and we all get as old as Windy, history books will view Pac kindly as as ghosty said, JMM will be just another good boxer. Shame really.

by Adam D Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:26 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Absolutey disgraceful decision as far as i'm concerned, Marquez has had his rightful place at the top of the elite pile robbed not once, not twice but three times by the judges. That's not to say all three were robberies but on the balance of the three fights he should hold a 2-1 record with Pacquiao just about deserving the nod in the second fight. Holding a 2-1 record over an all time great like Pacquiao as well as being a four weight world champion pushes him up to realms of men like Arguello and Pryor but as it is he'll be remembered as a great fighter who came up short at the highest level. Have never felt so sorry for a fighter, more than anyone a warrior like him deserved his moment.

Welcome back Ghosty

by **oxring** Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:56 pm

azania wrote:I've always said that there should be an asterix next to Pac's name.

I won't bite. You'll be telling me Marciano wasn't great next.

by azania Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:03 pm

oxring wrote:
azania wrote:I've always said that there should be an asterix next to Pac's name.

I won't bite. You'll be telling me Marciano wasn't great next.

I wont bite either. Rocky was.......... censored

by Imperial Ghosty Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:10 pm

..... a great film

by **oxring** Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:12 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:..... a great film

franchise.

There. Posters in harmony...

Good to see you both back on board

by The genius of PBF Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:15 pm

oxring wrote:
fearlessBamber wrote:
oxring wrote:
manos de piedra wrote:
fearlessBamber wrote:Sigh - his last 5 opponents have been carefully chosen and offered little risk - especially the weight weakened Cotto.

If I offered you 100000 pounds to cut off a finger would that be ok ?

How about of I paid you another large amount to arbitrate a dispute I had with someone ? Would you be neutral ?

Marquez 'losing' was wonderfully convenient for most people. Especially little innocent baby Pac.

It stinks.

Is this even an argument?

No.

It fails to contain premises, or conclusions and so fails key components of validity. Furthermore, the post involves ad populum AND rappealing to extremes - ie not one but 2 forms of fallacious reasoning in 4 lines.

I'm quite impressed.

Not as impressed as I am by your ability to copy bits out of Wikipedia which you don't understand.

As long as I impress you Bamber, happiness reigns all round.

The benefits of a classical education old boy, wikipedia doesn't come into it.

For the record - and this does sound like a broken record as this has been reiterated so many times on here it is untrue - ODLH picked Manny, not the other way around. Hatton was unbeaten at 140 and meant to be a huge challenge. Cotto was "the man" at 147 after the handwrap scandal broke. Clottey was a substitute for Floyd Mayweather as everyone else at 147 was busy. Margarito was at a new, even higher weight (151). Mosley was a low risk high money fight.

So what exactly are we beating Manny for? The odd big-money low risk fight?

I assume you criticise Mayweather with as much spittle-flecked bile for fighting Gatti instead of Tszyu then.

No he wasn't Mosley was the man at 147, Cotto has never been the man at any weight...Cotto and Hatton were both underdogs in the Pacquiao fights...3 farce fights in a row and then faces a elite fighter and gets outboxed by Marquez 118-111.

It isn't the odd big-money low risk fight because he has done it 3 times in a row for it to be a coincidence.

Finally the truth has come out and Bob Arum has been preventing the fight for 2 years...For everyone saying Mayweather ducked after the Cotto, remember Pacquiao walked away after Floyd Mayweather signed the contract to fight the mighty Clottey.

by **oxring** Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:19 pm

Cotto had already beaten Mosley and redeemed himself after margarito against Clottey - so was at least 1/2 at the weight. Meanwhile Mosley was scheduling himself to fight Berto.

For a guy who started his career at flyweight - fighting Cotto was pretty impressive.

I thought you were Floyd Mayweather. Or are you referring to yourself in the 3rd person these days?

Seems you believe everything Floyd says at any rate. Sure he signed the contract.

Remind me - why couldn't the fight be in Texas again?

by Imperial Ghosty Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:23 pm

Playing devils advocate for a second Oxy, do we therefore use Torrecampo and Singsurat against Pacquiao? I for one don't but don't consider him to have been a true Flyweight as those losses highlighted he was far too big for the division.

by The genius of PBF Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:25 pm

manos de piedra wrote:Who are his cherry picked opponents? Look at the guys c.v. Its a ludicrous claim. Marquez x 3, Morales x 3, Barrera x 2, De la Hoya, Hatton, Cotto, Margarito, Mosely across many weights. From a guy that began as a flyweight thats real cherry picking if you ask me.

In terms of weight, is there no credence given to the fact that he himself started at flyweight? That catchweights against much bigger guys like Cotto and Margarito may actually be legitimate? That these guys were not forced to take the fight?

He had no control over the judges in his fights. If they were biased or incompetent it was not Pacquiaos fault unless you are suggesting he bribed them.

Marquez - Robbed all 3 times against Pacquiao
Morales - Gets beat by a past it Morales waits till he loses to Raheem to fight him again...Deserves the same credit he gets for Mosley which is none because Morales was done or are you suggesting David Diaz should get credit for a win over Morales?
Barrera - Deserves credit great win for Pacquiao
Guzman - Avoids him like the plague because he is a style nightmare for Manny...Called him out many times.
De La Hoya - Dehydrated and shot
Hatton - Great win
Cotto - Great win
Clottey - Poor fight does nothing for his legacy
Margarito - Poor fight...Margarito not done anything to earn the match coming off a knockout and looked poor in comeback fight.
Mosley - Ducked him when he still appeared dangerous...clearly shot heading into the fight.

I only see 3 great wins on his CV and to some extent De La Hoya fight because he was the underdog.

by **oxring** Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:28 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Playing devils advocate for a second Oxy, do we therefore use Torrecampo and Singsurat against Pacquiao? I for one don't but don't consider him to have been a true Flyweight as those losses highlighted he was far too big for the division.

I would say that we consider that he was at one time a true Flyweight - who had grown too big for the weight by the Singsurat fight - with his mind still making dates his body couldn't keep.

As for Torrecampo - we could sure use the fight against him - but there was a low blow, with dodgy refereeing and it all happened to a teenager in his 12th pro fight.

We then say that he learned from it and didn't get careless again.

So Torrecampo ends in terms of perspective - you could use it in Manny's favour.

by azania Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:30 pm

The genius of PBF wrote:
manos de piedra wrote:Who are his cherry picked opponents? Look at the guys c.v. Its a ludicrous claim. Marquez x 3, Morales x 3, Barrera x 2, De la Hoya, Hatton, Cotto, Margarito, Mosely across many weights. From a guy that began as a flyweight thats real cherry picking if you ask me.

In terms of weight, is there no credence given to the fact that he himself started at flyweight? That catchweights against much bigger guys like Cotto and Margarito may actually be legitimate? That these guys were not forced to take the fight?

He had no control over the judges in his fights. If they were biased or incompetent it was not Pacquiaos fault unless you are suggesting he bribed them.

Marquez - Robbed all 3 times against Pacquiao
Morales - Gets beat by a past it Morales waits till he loses to Raheem to fight him again...Deserves the same credit he gets for Mosley which is none because Morales was done or are you suggesting David Diaz should get credit for a win over Morales?
Barrera - Deserves credit great win for Pacquiao
Guzman - Avoids him like the plague because he is a style nightmare for Manny...Called him out many times.
De La Hoya - Dehydrated and shot
Hatton - Great win
Cotto - Great win
Clottey - Poor fight does nothing for his legacy
Margarito - Poor fight...Margarito not done anything to earn the match coming off a knockout and looked poor in comeback fight.
Mosley - Ducked him when he still appeared dangerous...clearly shot heading into the fight.

I only see 3 great wins on his CV and to some extent De La Hoya fight because he was the underdog.

Even better win for Junior Jones.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:31 pm

In that case had Cotto not grown too big for Welterweight let alone 145lbs as his immediate trip to 154lbs would suggest? I personally think the Cotto win was a great one but also acknowledge him losing to a rather poor fighter in Singsurat, think they are in some twisted way connected.

by The genius of PBF Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:34 pm

oxring wrote:Cotto had already beaten Mosley and redeemed himself after margarito against Clottey - so was at least 1/2 at the weight. Meanwhile Mosley was scheduling himself to fight Berto.

For a guy who started his career at flyweight - fighting Cotto was pretty impressive.

I thought you were Floyd Mayweather. Or are you referring to yourself in the 3rd person these days?

Seems you believe everything Floyd says at any rate. Sure he signed the contract.

Remind me - why couldn't the fight be in Texas again?

Doesn't make him the man no matter how you twist it...Margarito vs Cotto was considered for the number one spot and he lost therefore Margarito was number one and Mosley beat him to claim that title.

Cotto used to fight around 115 pounds in the amateur days...Doesnt look so impressive now does it, Didn't Calderon beat Cotto as light flyweight.

Seems you believe anything Bob Arum says these days.

As for your dig surely you should be setting a example as a mod instead of trying to bait me...or does Windy's "stop baiting members" article don't apply to you?

The fact you need the dig at me shows you lost the debate. Very Happy

by **Fists of Fury** Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:35 pm

Oxy isn't baiting you, I suggest you go and read up on its definition.

He is giving very valid points, which you are being obnoxiously blind to.

by **oxring** Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:36 pm

The genius of PBF wrote:

Marquez - Robbed all 3 times against Pacquiao
Morales - Gets beat by a past it Morales waits till he loses to Raheem to fight him again...Deserves the same credit he gets for Mosley which is none because Morales was done or are you suggesting David Diaz should get credit for a win over Morales?
Barrera - Deserves credit great win for Pacquiao
Guzman - Avoids him like the plague because he is a style nightmare for Manny...Called him out many times.
De La Hoya - Dehydrated and shot
Hatton - Great win
Cotto - Great win
Clottey - Poor fight does nothing for his legacy
Margarito - Poor fight...Margarito not done anything to earn the match coming off a knockout and looked poor in comeback fight.
Mosley - Ducked him when he still appeared dangerous...clearly shot heading into the fight.

I only see 3 great wins on his CV and to some extent De La Hoya fight because he was the underdog.

Marquez - "robbery" once. 2 close fights which went the right way.
Morales - signed for the rematch immediately - not his fault that Morales lost to Raheem. Furthermore - Manny stopped him in 3. Maidana at 140 couldn't do that. And now Floyd is rumoured to want him. Doubtless that's ok?
Barrera - great pair of wins.
DLH - incredible performance
Hatton - Great win
Cotto - Great win

Margarito at 151 pounds for a guy who started at 110 - incredible shutout win. Mosley - didn't duck him. Unless Floyd also ducked him - as Mosley spent a decade calling his name as well. Guzman? Seriously? A drug cheat who struggled like hell with Funeka? You'll be telling me he ducked Valero next.

Shall we go through Floyd's list of great wins? What do we do once we've thrown out ODLH, Corrales and Hernandez?

by **oxring** Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:36 pm

azania wrote:Even better win for Junior Jones.

Doubtless Hamed would have had no credit for beating Barrera either then...

by Imperial Ghosty Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:39 pm

A fight against Guzman should have happened but we're going back about 6/7 years now and I don't think Pacquiao ducked him but would have been a good match up style wise, unfortunately Guzman seems unable to control his weight any more.

by **Fists of Fury** Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:41 pm

One of the biggest wastes of talent of the modern era, Guzman.

by **oxring** Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:42 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:A fight against Guzman should have happened but we're going back about 6/7 years now and I don't think Pacquiao ducked him but would have been a good match up style wise, unfortunately Guzman seems unable to control his weight any more.

Thing is - Manny's CV has been pretty name/money heavy for the past 20 fights - there's been something in all the people he's fought. It is too easy for fans to sit back and say "that's ducking" - but that's the sort of nonsense D4 used to do. T'would be like me proclaiming to the rooftops that Floyd is a ducker for not fighting Tszyu or Hatton.

There were reasons the fights didn't come off. Why did Floyd fight Hatton at 147 instead of Cotto? Hatton made him more money for less risk. Does that mean Floyd ducked Cotto?

by The Galveston Giant Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:43 pm

Fists of Fury wrote:One of the biggest wastes of talent of the modern era, Guzman.

Sure was, nearly fought Alex Arthur but i wasn't holding my breath.

by Sponsored content

Who won the fight?