If pac fought marquez after oscar...

Hi guys,

Pac is a great fighter with a great personality and i wish him a speedy recovery.

I was just wondering whether the general feel of the pacmania that we all had would have still been this strong if pac would have fought marquez straight after oscar?...

If you look at clotty, hatton, cotto, margarito they are the complete opposite from a marquez type fighter which manny has always had problems with.

If manny fought marquez after oscar and the fight ended up like marquez 3 or 4, there definately would not be no mention from any fan, critic or hater that he is past his prime, leg cramps, no alex ariza, etc.

Like i said, we cannot ignore mannys achievements and his interest in politics and his age..this is affecting all fighters but im not talking about now im talking about then.

Was this great marketing from bob arum to avoid a marquez type of fighter for so long?

What are your thoughts on all of this?

Pac was great, but picking the right styles and catchweights made him even bigger than that.

I like pac, i think hes a good guy and a credit to the sport

all the abuse he has taken from the mayweather camp and then after the loss to bradley and then marquez there were no excuses, he is just happy to be in the position he is

I agree with adam to a certain degree tho

i honestly believe had pac fought margarito a couple of years earlier it would have been a different fight, same with hatton

i believe if the cotto and dlh fights hadnt have been at a catchweights they could well have turned out very different

i think he has had some benefits/advantages along the way that has made his rise seem much better than it was

Yes thats true but i dont want it to turn into a discredit/compare fighters history thread.

Im interested in your views if he fought marquez earlier then it certainly would have changed everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

Yes thats true but i dont want it to turn into a discredit/compare fighters history thread.

Im interested in your views if he fought marquez earlier then it certainly would have changed everything.

---

yeah i was being a cunt in my earlier post soz

didnt pac fight marquez at about that time?

i think pac was worthy of his two nil lead over marquez going into the last fight, i also think he would have won the last fight had it gone all the way

so to summarise i think barring a KO pac struggles with marquez but is slightly better over the distance and that would be the same at any point in their carears

what do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

Yes thats true but i dont want it to turn into a discredit/compare fighters history thread.

Im interested in your views if he fought marquez earlier then it certainly would have changed everything.

---

yeah i was being a cunt in my earlier post soz

didnt pac fight marquez at about that time?

i think pac was worthy of his two nil lead over marquez going into the last fight, i also think he would have won the last fight had it gone all the way

---

You wasnt being a c&nt at all fella,

All the fights were close apart from the 4th one.

Its just a shame the 3rd marquez fight wasnt a bit earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

so to summarise i think barring a KO pac struggles with marquez but is slightly better over the distance and that would be the same at any point in their carears

what do you think?

---

I agree with that.
Marquez needs the ko all the time to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

so to summarise i think barring a KO pac struggles with marquez but is slightly better over the distance and that would be the same at any point in their carears

what do you think?

---

I agree with that.
Marquez needs the ko all the time to win.

---

do you agree with the controversy of the 3rd fight?

i didnt see it live and from reading the press and forums after the fight it seemed pac had been gifted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

so to summarise i think barring a KO pac struggles with marquez but is slightly better over the distance and that would be the same at any point in their carears

what do you think?

---

I agree with that.
Marquez needs the ko all the time to win.

---

do you agree with the controversy of the 3rd fight?

i didnt see it live and from reading the press and forums after the fight it seemed pac had been gifted

---

I think they gave it to pac due to the aggression. It could have went either way if im being honest.

Whenever these guys fight its always close.

When they fought for the 3rd time pacs camp were so cocky as they were used to the weight and everything and they fought it would be so easy.

I even remember alex ariza saying something like even "God cant help marquez."

It's amazing what one bad loss can do to a career. Before Marquez 3, people were talking about Pac like he was the new and improved Henry Armstrong, and he was a top 5 guy of all time, ect.

Now he's a guy who was overrated and chose convenient catch weights to ambush his opponents (and I'm not even saying that's entirely untrue.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

so to summarise i think barring a KO pac struggles with marquez but is slightly better over the distance and that would be the same at any point in their carears

what do you think?

---

I agree with that.
Marquez needs the ko all the time to win.

---

do you agree with the controversy of the 3rd fight?

i didnt see it live and from reading the press and forums after the fight it seemed pac had been gifted

---

I think they gave it to pac due to the aggression. It could have went either way if im being honest.

Whenever these guys fight its always close.

When they fought for the 3rd time pacs camp were so cocky as they were used to the weight and everything and they fought it would be so easy.

I even remember alex ariza saying something like even "God cant help marquez."

---

i watched it a couple of days after and thought pac deserved it on agression

perhaps marquez won a couple of rounds more clearly but i think pac won the majority

pacs camp seemed very confident this time too, i think the emphasis on getting the KO from his camp lost pac the fight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

It's amazing what one bad loss can do to a career. Before Marquez 3, people were talking about Pac like he was the new and improved Henry Armstrong, and he was a top 5 guy of all time, ect.

Now he's a guy who was overrated and chose convenient catch weights to ambush his opponents (and I'm not even saying that's entirely untrue.)

---

I've been one of the few who had said it all along, I would give him the credit he deserved but wouldn't gush over him like if he was some God, Pacquiao would nit pick his opponents and always seek some "advantage" rather taking on an opponent on even terms, he only decided to take on Marquez in the 3rd fight because Floyd had taken him apart but won by decision so he figured since JMM was older he could get the stoppage and was completely schooled in the process, had a bad showing against Bradley then decided to take on Marquez again but again he paid dearly for it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

It's amazing what one bad loss can do to a career. Before Marquez 3, people were talking about Pac like he was the new and improved Henry Armstrong, and he was a top 5 guy of all time, ect.

Now he's a guy who was overrated and chose convenient catch weights to ambush his opponents (and I'm not even saying that's entirely untrue.)

---

I've been one of the few who had said it all along, I would give him the credit he deserved but wouldn't gush over him like if he was some God, Pacquiao would nit pick his opponents and always seek some "advantage" rather taking on an opponent on even terms, he only decided to take on Marquez in the 3rd fight because Floyd had taken him apart but won by decision so he figured since JMM was older he could get the stoppage and was completely schooled in the process, had a bad showing against Bradley then decided to take on Marquez again but again he paid dearly for it

---

Agreed. It was his fan boys that I had a problem with and not Manny. People saying he'd beat Robinson, Armstrong etc etc. It got to the point on a lot of forums when I thought people were actually devolving at least mentally. Arum had a slave contract and also knew full well that if Manny had issues with Marquez that Floyd would turn him into his personal rag doll. Like I said in that comparison thread, what he has done is really unprecedented but the way in which he went about it to me is tainted and I believe notations will be made in historical context and they should be. Starting with Oscar who had not made 147 in ten years, weighed 145 and then came to the fight only weighing 147. Making Cotto come down 2 pounds for his own title and then fighting the biggest welter in the division in Clottey w/o a catch. A great fighter no doubt but there are some critical skid marks imo. He's defaulted to the greatest Filipino boxer ever but I just don't agree. I still have him below Elorde and Villa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

i watched it a couple of days after and thought pac deserved it on agression

---

I hate when guys get the nod for aggression. Boxing is supposed to be the sweet science, the art of hitting without being hit. Effective aggressiveness is one thing, but if a guy is throwing and missing a lot, I don't think you should win the fight on that.

Marquez outfoxed him, plain and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales

I've been one of the few who had said it all along, I would give him the credit he deserved but wouldn't gush over him like if he was some God, Pacquiao would nit pick his opponents and always seek some "advantage" rather taking on an opponent on even terms, he only decided to take on Marquez in the 3rd fight because Floyd had taken him apart but won by decision so he figured since JMM was older he could get the stoppage and was completely schooled in the process, had a bad showing against Bradley then decided to take on Marquez again but again he paid dearly for it

---

I've never been a fan of Pacquaio (thats only because he beat a lot of fighters I really liked) and I never bought him as the guy who would dethrone Floyd. I always thought it was lame that he made guys come down and meet him at a catch weight.

But that being said, what he accomplished over the last 7 years or so is nothing short of incredible. Pacquiao is a legend in the sport and has a solid argument for top 10 p4p of all time IMHO.

For him to come from 130 and a year or two later be steamrolling 140, 147, and 154lbers is just remarkable.

If Pac fought JMM after he had beaten ODH then Pac Man would have been firm favourite to win. He was on a impressive roll and was probably at his peak of his powers. Manny would always have stylistic problems with JMM but would have got the victory because JMM did not look impressive at a welterweight when he fought Floyd at welterweight.

pac's accomplishments over the years have been nothing short of incredible. he reminds me of lance armstrong and his dominance over the sport of cycling.

no challenge too big, no opponents too strong... no doubt achieved with dedication, hard work and natural talent.

I'll say this though, ever since his KO loss there has been far less visceral hatred of Manny on this forum as well as many others. I wonder if Floyd were to lose, would people be kind towards him too all of the sudden?

As for the original question. I think Manual would always bring trouble to Manny same way Willie Pep and Sandy Saddler were the antithesis of one another.

You have to remember here that Marquez didn't first look nearly as effective above 140 as he has over the last year and a half or so. If he'd taken on Pacquiao at welterweight right after he was going life or death with Katsidis and Juan Diaz at 135, I think there's a good chance he wouldn't have been strong enough or had the punch to handle him the same way. Not to say it wouldn't have still been a hard fight, but it probably would've looked more like the 2nd(which I thought Manny won) than the 3rd at that time imo.
However, hate to say I'd put money on neither men having been clean fighters over the last few years, so the timing of their moving up in weight is almost a moot point imo. Bottom line is Marquez has Pacquiaos number but not the raw tools or athletecism, it's a coin toss every time assuming they both prepared the right way.
As an aside, does anyone think Marquez could've really performed on the same level that Pacquiao did against the "handpicked" opponents he took on during his tear up the weights? Aside from the corpse of De La Hoya, I think Marquez may well have lost to every single opponent Manny fought aside from him above lightweight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

i watched it a couple of days after and thought pac deserved it on agression

---

I hate when guys get the nod for aggression. Boxing is supposed to be the sweet science, the art of hitting without being hit. Effective aggressiveness is one thing, but if a guy is throwing and missing a lot, I don't think you should win the fight on that.

Marquez outfoxed him, plain and simple.

---

This is another good point but unfortunately the judges were from top rank..aggression wins if it goes to points and manny is fighting.

Another point someone mentioned which i agree with is the general distain fans have which isnt for manny but its for the camp.

You cant fault manny as a person as he comes across as a gentleman whether he wins or looses.

Its the freddie roach predictions and the alex ariza perfect fitness regime and the hundred hangers on his camp on that can touch a nerve..and what is the purpose of manager michael c&ntz..sorry koncz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruthless rocco

pac's accomplishments over the years have been nothing short of incredible. he reminds me of lance armstrong and his dominance over the sport of cycling.

no challenge too big, no opponents too strong... no doubt achieved with dedication, hard work and natural talent.

---

Lol. Lance armstrong?

Pac is an atg despite what anybody says. The only boxer to win titles in 8 division. If that alone doesn't merit an all time great, he wouldn't be the only boxer to have done it.

Haters talk about his catch weight fights but miss the point that he isn't the only one in history to do this plus the fact that he is coming from a smaller weight at that time.

Others want to talk about Pacs fight with Marquez. These two had 3 close fights and that is the honest truth. If you are to say one had it winning decisively than you are blind or bias. The 4th fight Marquez ended with the perfect punch but can anybody say Marquez was decisively winning that fight before he landed that once in a lifetime punch? Now if Pac was to have landed that punch, excuses would be Marquez is a year from 40!

I guess most if not everything said is just opinions. Bottom line is Pac and many of the fighters he fought will be remembered for a long time. Pac wreck havoc in this decade and gave life back to boxing, enough said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

It's amazing what one bad loss can do to a career. Before Marquez 3, people were talking about Pac like he was the new and improved Henry Armstrong, and he was a top 5 guy of all time, ect.

Now he's a guy who was overrated and chose convenient catch weights to ambush his opponents (and I'm not even saying that's entirely untrue.)

---

Several people said the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruthless rocco

pac's accomplishments over the years have been nothing short of incredible. he reminds me of lance armstrong and his dominance over the sport of cycling.

no challenge too big, no opponents too strong... no doubt achieved with dedication, hard work and natural talent.

---

Lol. Lance armstrong?

---

Yeah! He dominated cycling for a decade and seemed unstoppable doing it...but the truth caught up to his legend. Whoops! Who knows what we may learn about pacman in the future!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruthless rocco

pac's accomplishments over the years have been nothing short of incredible. he reminds me of lance armstrong and his dominance over the sport of cycling.

no challenge too big, no opponents too strong... no doubt achieved with dedication, hard work and natural talent.

---

Lol. Lance armstrong?

---

Woosh...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

It's amazing what one bad loss can do to a career. Before Marquez 3, people were talking about Pac like he was the new and improved Henry Armstrong, and he was a top 5 guy of all time, ect.

Now he's a guy who was overrated and chose convenient catch weights to ambush his opponents (and I'm not even saying that's entirely untrue.)

---

Both can be true. Pacquiao is an great fighter who has accomplished some very impressive things. However, since the ODH fight the cards have pretty much always been stacked in his favour. That doesn't mean what he managed to do isn't great, but it is the reality of the situation.

He could get KO'd 5 times in a row at this point and would still be an atg in my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Manny would always have stylistic problems with JMM but would have got the victory because JMM did not look impressive at a welterweight when he fought Floyd at welterweight.

---

I think JMM looked like shit against Floyd for stylistic/skill reasons, not because of the weight. Floyd didn't use his size advantage to beat JMM, he out-"little guyed" the little guy with speed and skill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

i watched it a couple of days after and thought pac deserved it on agression

---

I hate when guys get the nod for aggression. Boxing is supposed to be the sweet science, the art of hitting without being hit. Effective aggressiveness is one thing, but if a guy is throwing and missing a lot, I don't think you should win the fight on that.

Marquez outfoxed him, plain and simple.

---

i dont agree, i think pac landed more (in more of the rounds) too, perhaps at times marquezes punches looked better because pac was coming on to them

and agression is a big part of boxing, you have to remember it is a spectators sport and suppose to be entertainment, if everyone fought on the back foot it would be a lot less appealing

I'm not sure why anyone is critical of Pacman. He fought Barrera twice, Morales 3 times, Marquez 4 times, DLH, Hatton, Cotto, Margarito, Mosley and my guess is fans of those guys just got their nose out of joint when their guy lost?
Age and other distractions have finally caught up with Pacquiao, he has struggled since Marquez 3 and i'm one of the few who thought he lost to Bradley. It was no surprise to see him knocked out cold by Marquez in the 4th fight. He has had a great career beginning as a Flyweight and it is truly remarkable that he has won titles in so many divisions above that. I couldn't care less if he fought guys at catchweight either, he won those fights. DLH was poorly handled physically and that was his fault, Hatton just got nailed and he beat up on Cotto and Margarito. Mosley has been finished for years. Now it is Pacman's turn to see the other side of the hill. He's done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

and agression is a big part of boxing, you have to remember it is a spectators sport and suppose to be entertainment, if everyone fought on the back foot it would be a lot less appealing

---

Effective aggression is a big part of boxing. Uneffective aggression is a big part of street fighting.

I understand it's a spectator sport, but the "sport" part should always hold the most weight. Backing a guy up and punching air shouldn't win you a fight.