Marquez-Naz? Why did Marquez blatantly refuse to fight Naz? Fact.

Is it that time of the year already? :dancer:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

AdamGB,

Fenster didn't even say Naz would knock him down. I just produced a statistic that shows Naz has a 100% KO record when decking opponents (at 126). This statistic strongly suggests that Naz could have KO'd Marquez had he floored him. I didn't say he would have.

I'm merely revealing what the stats say.

I don't know who would have won between Naz-Marquez. I 100% firmly believe though that Marquez would have still become a GREAT even with a spectaular one-punch KO loss, inside three rounds probably, to the Naz fella. That's all i'm saying.

---

Sorry dude but boxing isn't about statistics it's about who's the better fighter. If those numbers were based from elite fighters then you would have a point. But the way your saying it is like going to Tennessee and saying since people there love country music it's the most popular music in the USA, but it's not because your just basing it off of Tennessee not the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saddo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruthless rocco

why don't wee get them in the ring before the years end. i'm sure marquez vs naz in december as marquez' farewell fight would be great to watch.

my money's on marquez.

---

i'm not so sure I mean marquez would be giving Naz a massive weight advantage :-X

Naz does still keep his hand in thou so he would be no pushover in fact only just last week he done an exhibition bout with Hatton

http://theboxingtribune.com/wp-conte...2787619304.jpg

---

Ok, so I'm reading this thread right after breakfast, enjoying seeing AdamGB own Fenster, when WHAM!!.................
I run into this picture.


Just for clarity's sake..... is Hamed the one on the left?

hamed is on the right... using his unorthodox lunging style.
hatton's on the left eating the punch.
if i'm not mistaken thats rush limbaugh standing behind.

Andre - thank you very much my friend for actually answering the question. Your reply was very thought provoking.

Ruthlessrocco - my use of the word "blatant" is very apt in this particular context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Andre - thank you very much my friend for actually answering the question. Your reply was very thought provoking.

Ruthlessrocco - my use of the word "blatant" is very apt in this particular context.

---

Fens my man, are you by any chance a Lawyer? If not you really should consider it as a vocation.

cheers

This thread is based on a lot of assumptions.

Assumption # 1: JMM ducked Naz at some point.
Assumption # 2: Naz would've knocked JMM down.
Assumption # 3: The knockdown would've occurred inside of 3 rounds.
Assumption # 4: Had he knocked JMM down, JMM would've stayed down.

Sounds like a lot of assumptions from a guy who likes to sign all his posts with "Fact".

So Fenster, when's the next scheduled resuscitation of this tired, old argument?

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Andre - thank you very much my friend for actually answering the question. Your reply was very thought provoking.

Ruthlessrocco - my use of the word "blatant" is very apt in this particular context.

---

Fens my man, are you by any chance a Lawyer? If not you really should consider it as a vocation.

cheers

---

I disagree. His agenda is too obvious and he's tripped up over his own words far too much.

Back pedalled from a guaranteed KO loss for Marquez to a mere 'possible' one and then trying to deny that he ever said Hamed would win.

If you can't even talk consistantly typing on a message board, you'll not manage live in court.

Very poor.

Fact. Discuss
(real facts can't be discussed, only stated)

Good to see a Naz thread getting the pages it deserves... I don't think any boxer has or could create so much heated debate 10 years after he has retired more than Naz.

with maybe the exception of the credibility of Marciano's record :-X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruthless rocco

hamed is on the right... using his unorthodox lunging style.

---

correct ;)

oh and Ricky is holding :-X

AdamGB - Tripped over his words? Agenda? You're interpreting Fenster's totally inoffensive question utterly wrong.

I asked... even if Marquez was guaranteed a KO loss why would he refuse a HUGE career high payday? Why turn the fight down even if he believed he would lose? He refused a $500,000 payday for a $5000 one. A very puzzling course of action, surely?. I have NEVER once said he would be KO'd.

Titofan - Assumption 1: is a 100% verifiable fact. If you want to ignore it that's fine by me. Assumptions 2, 3 and 4: have NEVER been called "fact" by Fenster at any point during this fantastic thread (that both you and AdamGB think is boring/pointless/tired but can't stop replying too).

Mars_ax - what an extremely pertient observation. Although I have never studied law, I do rather enjoy John Grisham adaptations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

AdamGB - Tripped over his words? Agenda? You're interpreting Fenster's totally inoffensive question utterly wrong.

I asked... even if Marquez was guaranteed a KO loss why would he refuse a HUGE career high payday? Why turn the fight down even if he believed he would lose? He refused a $500,000 payday for a $5000 one. A very puzzling course of action, surely?. I have NEVER once said he would be KO'd.

Titofan - Assumption 1: is a 100% verifiable fact. If you want to ignore it that's fine by me. Assumptions 2, 3 and 4: have NEVER been called "fact" by Fenster at any point during this fantastic thread (that both you and AdamGB think is boring/pointless/tired but can't stop replying too).

Mars_ax - what an extremely pertient observation. Although I have never studied law, I do rather enjoy John Grisham adaptations.

---

Out of morbid curiosity.... show me ONE quote from JMM where he says he'd rather not fight Naz.
That's the ONLY way you can use the word "verifiable". If not, it continues falling under the category of "assumption."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

AdamGB - Tripped over his words? Agenda? You're interpreting Fenster's totally inoffensive question utterly wrong.

I asked... even if Marquez was guaranteed a KO loss why would he refuse a HUGE career high payday? Why turn the fight down even if he believed he would lose? He refused a $500,000 payday for a $5000 one. A very puzzling course of action, surely?. I have NEVER once said he would be KO'd.

Titofan - Assumption 1: is a 100% verifiable fact. If you want to ignore it that's fine by me. Assumptions 2, 3 and 4: have NEVER been called "fact" by Fenster at any point during this fantastic thread (that both you and AdamGB think is boring/pointless/tired but can't stop replying too).

Mars_ax - what an extremely pertient observation. Although I have never studied law, I do rather enjoy John Grisham adaptations.

---

Out of morbid curiosity.... show me ONE quote from JMM where he says he'd rather not fight Naz.
That's the ONLY way you can use the word "verifiable". If not, it continues falling under the category of "assumption."

---

TitoFan - there is no need to apologise...

Featherweight Marquez said no to Hamed

Juan Manuel Marquez conceded Friday that he turned down a fight with Prince Naseem Hamed, the World Boxing Organization featherweight champion. "I had been waiting two years," said Marquez, speaking through a translator. "Now they want the fight. I wasn't prepared."

"Hamed is difficult to fight. Hamed is like a wrestler," Marquez said. "He will toss you around if he can. I'll have to knock him out to get the victory."

Marquez said he would like to fight Hamed as the champion of one of the other sanctioning bodies. Otherwise, Marquez said, fighting Hamed "is not on even terms."

Nacho Beristain, Marquez's manager, said: "They want to get us when all of our energies are gone (from negotiating)," Beristain said. "We never want to fight (Hamed). Who do they think they are? They came out with an offer of $400,000. It is not worth it."

LAS VEGAS RJ:SPORTS: Featherweight Marquez said no to H...

There you go.

1. Proof that Marquez admits refusing to face Naz. Fact.

2. Proof that Marquez wanted a title first. Fact.

3. Proof that Marquez manager "NEVER wants to fight Hamed." Fact.

4. Proof that Marquez turned down a career high payday (at the time). Fact. (research that if you don't believe me, although trust me, it's a fact)

5. Proof that every single thing Fenster has said is verifiable fact. Fact.

Whoomp there it is!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

AdamGB - Tripped over his words? Agenda? You're interpreting Fenster's totally inoffensive question utterly wrong.

I asked... even if Marquez was guaranteed a KO loss why would he refuse a HUGE career high payday? Why turn the fight down even if he believed he would lose? He refused a $500,000 payday for a $5000 one. A very puzzling course of action, surely?. I have NEVER once said he would be KO'd.

Titofan - Assumption 1: is a 100% verifiable fact. If you want to ignore it that's fine by me. Assumptions 2, 3 and 4: have NEVER been called "fact" by Fenster at any point during this fantastic thread (that both you and AdamGB think is boring/pointless/tired but can't stop replying too).

Mars_ax - what an extremely pertient observation. Although I have never studied law, I do rather enjoy John Grisham adaptations.

---

Out of morbid curiosity.... show me ONE quote from JMM where he says he'd rather not fight Naz.
That's the ONLY way you can use the word "verifiable". If not, it continues falling under the category of "assumption."

---

TitoFan - there is no need to apologise...

Featherweight Marquez said no to Hamed

Juan Manuel Marquez conceded Friday that he turned down a fight with Prince Naseem Hamed, the World Boxing Organization featherweight champion. "I had been waiting two years," said Marquez, speaking through a translator. "Now they want the fight. I wasn't prepared."

"Hamed is difficult to fight. Hamed is like a wrestler," Marquez said. "He will toss you around if he can. I'll have to knock him out to get the victory."

Marquez said he would like to fight Hamed as the champion of one of the other sanctioning bodies. Otherwise, Marquez said, fighting Hamed "is not on even terms."

Nacho Beristain, Marquez's manager, said: "They want to get us when all of our energies are gone (from negotiating)," Beristain said. "We never want to fight (Hamed). Who do they think they are? They came out with an offer of $400,000. It is not worth it."

LAS VEGAS RJ:SPORTS: Featherweight Marquez said no to H...

There you go.

1. Proof that Marquez admits refusing to face Naz. Fact.

2. Proof that Marquez wanted a title first. Fact.

3. Proof that Marquez manager "NEVER wants to fight Hamed." Fact.

4. Proof that Marquez turned down a career high payday (at the time). Fact. (research that if you don't believe me, although trust me, it's a fact)

5. Proof that every single thing Fenster has said is verifiable fact. Fact.

Whoomp there it is!

---

well there you go... all the answers to your question are right there in your post.

case solved.

thread closed.

(btw referring to yourself in the third person makes you look like a douche. thats something we can all agree on.)

what year is it? i loss track about everything here in saddo.. ;D
who's gonna be Naz next opponent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

AdamGB - Tripped over his words? Agenda? You're interpreting Fenster's totally inoffensive question utterly wrong.

I asked... even if Marquez was guaranteed a KO loss why would he refuse a HUGE career high payday? Why turn the fight down even if he believed he would lose? He refused a $500,000 payday for a $5000 one. A very puzzling course of action, surely?. I have NEVER once said he would be KO'd.

Titofan - Assumption 1: is a 100% verifiable fact. If you want to ignore it that's fine by me. Assumptions 2, 3 and 4: have NEVER been called "fact" by Fenster at any point during this fantastic thread (that both you and AdamGB think is boring/pointless/tired but can't stop replying too).

Mars_ax - what an extremely pertient observation. Although I have never studied law, I do rather enjoy John Grisham adaptations.

---

Out of morbid curiosity.... show me ONE quote from JMM where he says he'd rather not fight Naz.
That's the ONLY way you can use the word "verifiable". If not, it continues falling under the category of "assumption."

---

TitoFan - there is no need to apologise...

Featherweight Marquez said no to Hamed

Juan Manuel Marquez conceded Friday that he turned down a fight with Prince Naseem Hamed, the World Boxing Organization featherweight champion. "I had been waiting two years," said Marquez, speaking through a translator. "Now they want the fight. I wasn't prepared."

"Hamed is difficult to fight. Hamed is like a wrestler," Marquez said. "He will toss you around if he can. I'll have to knock him out to get the victory."

Marquez said he would like to fight Hamed as the champion of one of the other sanctioning bodies. Otherwise, Marquez said, fighting Hamed "is not on even terms."

Nacho Beristain, Marquez's manager, said: "They want to get us when all of our energies are gone (from negotiating)," Beristain said. "We never want to fight (Hamed). Who do they think they are? They came out with an offer of $400,000. It is not worth it."

LAS VEGAS RJ:SPORTS: Featherweight Marquez said no to H...

There you go.

1. Proof that Marquez admits refusing to face Naz. Fact.

2. Proof that Marquez wanted a title first. Fact.

3. Proof that Marquez manager "NEVER wants to fight Hamed." Fact.

4. Proof that Marquez turned down a career high payday (at the time). Fact. (research that if you don't believe me, although trust me, it's a fact)

5. Proof that every single thing Fenster has said is verifiable fact. Fact.

Whoomp there it is!

---

Dude the links you provide seem like crap.