Juan manuel marquez aka el dinamita army

[Gandalf]

You are really talking a lot of hogwash, but that is the norm from you. Marquez is known as the victor of the last fight and convincingly so, I don't even know what you are arguing about here.

I gave you a source for a lot of views on the verdict of that second fight and you keep on coming back talking like a gay.

Known by who?

Still can't give the estimate, can you? Hurry up with an objective reply because I have to go somewhere soon. And another name calling, lol!

I have no idea what you are talking about. 'Known by who'? How does that relate to anything I wrote?

It is impossible to reply to you because you don't make any sense. Most writers think Pac lost the last fight and you just talk gibberish. It is understandable. You are dumb and have never studied, you just hang off a couple of testicles.

You are the one who wrote that 'known' and now you don't have any idea who those are.

There you go with that subjective word ('most') again. Anything objective to back it up.

Third name calling and an insult. As you can see, I'm still sticking to what is being discussed and not retorted to them.

I gave you a source.

Marquez beat Paquiao the second time out.

So okey ..... estimate number of people who thought Marquez won is unknown.

This is stupid. You are begging to be insulted.

What, you also don't agree with that? What is it then?

Marquez has beaten Pac twice. It is you with the problem.

That is why you are so absurd. Pac is huge favourite, but it doesn't erase history.

This fight is pure calculation.

[LobowolfXXX]

As an aside, neither the judge nor the jury said, "OJ is innocent." "Not guilty" is not the same thing as innocent. It means that it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt - the highest standard of proof. Every single juror could have thought OJ did it and still vote not guilty. Still had to vote not guilty, if they thought that yeah, he did it, but the proof wasn't convincing enough. NOBODY (whose opinion mattered as far as what happened to OJ) said he was "innocent."

[FinitoElDinamita]

OJ simpson is innocent because the judge said so.

OJ was declared innocent by a Jury, not because the Judge said so. Marquez lost the second fight because two of the three Judges said so. That is just a fact, not an opinion. I've watched both fights and I can honestly say that in my opinion they can both be called draws.

You have to forgive him. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Trust me, you are nowhere near my level when it comes to intelligence or boxing knowledge.

I know many of you pactards never graduated high school but try to stay on point, lil man.

Whether it was the judge or the jury is not important. The point is, OJ is guilty and he was able to get away with it.

You guys are bums. lol Stop living your dreams through one man.

[Dia bando]

OJ simpson is innocent because the judge said so.

OJ was declared innocent by a Jury, not because the Judge said so. Marquez lost the second fight because two of the three Judges said so. That is just a fact, not an opinion. I've watched both fights and I can honestly say that in my opinion they can both be called draws.

You have to forgive him. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Trust me, you are nowhere near my level when it comes to intelligence or boxing knowledge.

I know many of you pactards never graduated high school but try to stay on point, lil man.

Whether it was the judge or the jury is not important. The point is, OJ is guilty and he was able to get away with it.

You guys are bums. lol Stop living your dreams through one man.

The two fights I gave to JMM, it's just what I think?

[LobowolfXXX]

As far as the legal analogy, just because you did the act doesn't make you 'guilty' (as a legal term af art).


As far as MP-JMM I and II, obviously, a lot of people thought differently about who won the first two fights. I don't know that there was an overwhelming consensus either way. I did a Google search and found an article that reported a survey of 80 'experts' and it was 38-33 with 9 draws for Pacqiao (second fight), but it didn't source the survey or name the experts. All of the ESPN panel had it for Marquez by one point. Whatever you thought about either fight, several credible experts agreed with you.

[Dia bando]

As far as the legal analogy, just because you did the act doesn't make you 'guilty' (as a legal term af art).


As far as MP-JMM I and II, obviously, a lot of people thought differently about who won the first two fights. I don't know that there was an overwhelming consensus either way. I did a Google search and found an article that reported a survey of 80 'experts' and it was 38-33 with 9 draws for Pacqiao (second fight), but it didn't source the survey or name the experts. All of the ESPN panel had it for Marquez by one point. Whatever you thought about either fight, several credible experts agreed with you.

Expert's we are all Expert's here.

[pacfan]

Geeze, what's all the noise about, it's gonna be resolved for good in just few hours, can't you fellas just wait. I'll save my saliva and let the fighters do the 'talking' on the ring, which means I'll just sit, relax, get some nice drink, enjoy the fight - and -
wait for the result...

...I'm just mighty glad this issue's going to be resolved today...

And in the meantime, you know better than to ask me whom I'm rooting for. Cool, kiddos...

[Violent Demise]

I don't know why some posters keep saying that Marquez won twice. If they present it as their opinion, then they are entitled to it. But they make it appear as fact. Based on what? I assume it's because they have knowledge that more people (probably not even a hundred) believe that Marquez won. There are likely to have been more than 500,000 people who watched the first and second fights so whatever knowledge they have is not even a representative sample of all the people who watched. It's like saying that McCain should have won the last US presidential election instead of Obama based on their survey of 1,000 people.

The official score is a DRAW and a WIN FOR PACQUIAO in the two fights that are too close to call. Give it a rest.

Okay, Pac got the verdict of the judges in their second bout. But boxing scoring is not an exact science and when you have most boxing writers and forum members arguing that Marquez won then you have to give that its weight as well. This means that the boxing writers and forum members judging are likewise not an exact science. So how can one be better than the other when both are not exact science. And what do you mean by most? How many are this in numbers?

They say history is only written by the winners, but that does not mean that we ignore what really happened and what contemporary commentators really thought at the time. But you are giving great value to the scores of those commentators who agrees with you. How many commentators did you know of that expressed their opinion as to who won?

The second fight in particular was close, but most believe Marquez edged it. How many in numbers is this 'most' that you talk about with regards to all the people who watched the fight.?

You already said that boxing scoring is not an exact science so until they find a better way on how to score a fight, we can disagree with the result but in a VERY CLOSE fight, you cannot insist that your score is right and the judges are wrong.

The hell I can't. My scorecard is right. Anybody else that disagrees with it is wrong. And I know more than you. Scoring fights is not an exact science. It doesn't have to be. There is still a right way and wrong way to do it. Lot of muthfukkas think that just cuz a fool is an offical judge he knows the sport. Wrong. 60% have no buisness being judges.

[FinitoElDinamita]

Some of you dudes on here need to sign up for Violent Demise's school of fight scoring, immediately. You know who you are. Did VD mention that classes are for free? Take advantage of it..

[Dia bando]

Some of you dudes on here need to sign up for Violent Demise's school of fight scoring, immediately. You know who you are. Did VD mention that classes are for free? Take advantage of it..

Can you sign me up bud.haha

[InTheNeutralCorner]

Marquez has beaten Pac twice. It is you with the problem.

That is why you are so absurd. Pac is huge favourite, but it doesn't erase history.

This fight is pure calculation.

I have no problem with what is recorded as the official result of the previous two Pacquiao-Marquez fights. If they have recorded both as a Marquez win, I would not agree with it but I would not argue against it because I would not be able to back it up. Those fights were that close.

And I see another insult. Lots of insult but still nothing to back up your claim.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

OJ simpson is innocent because the judge said so.

OJ was declared innocent by a Jury, not because the Judge said so. Marquez lost the second fight because two of the three Judges said so. That is just a fact, not an opinion. I've watched both fights and I can honestly say that in my opinion they can both be called draws.

You have to forgive him. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Trust me, you are nowhere near my level when it comes to intelligence or boxing knowledge.

I know many of you pactards never graduated high school but try to stay on point, lil man.

Whether it was the judge or the jury is not important. The point is, OJ is guilty and he was able to get away with it.

You guys are bums. lol Stop living your dreams through one man.

The two fights I gave to JMM, it's just what I think?

And there is nothing wrong with that. A close fight can go to either fighter. Anyone who insists that Pacquiao or Marquez convincingly won should be able to back it up objectively.

[FinitoElDinamita]

Some of you dudes on here need to sign up for Violent Demise's school of fight scoring, immediately. You know who you are. Did VD mention that classes are for free? Take advantage of it..

Can you sign me up bud.haha

Sorry, Bando.. This class is only for those who dont know how to score a fight properly so you are not eligible.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

I don't know why some posters keep saying that Marquez won twice. If they present it as their opinion, then they are entitled to it. But they make it appear as fact. Based on what? I assume it's because they have knowledge that more people (probably not even a hundred) believe that Marquez won. There are likely to have been more than 500,000 people who watched the first and second fights so whatever knowledge they have is not even a representative sample of all the people who watched. It's like saying that McCain should have won the last US presidential election instead of Obama based on their survey of 1,000 people.

The official score is a DRAW and a WIN FOR PACQUIAO in the two fights that are too close to call. Give it a rest.

Okay, Pac got the verdict of the judges in their second bout. But boxing scoring is not an exact science and when you have most boxing writers and forum members arguing that Marquez won then you have to give that its weight as well. This means that the boxing writers and forum members judging are likewise not an exact science. So how can one be better than the other when both are not exact science. And what do you mean by most? How many are this in numbers?

They say history is only written by the winners, but that does not mean that we ignore what really happened and what contemporary commentators really thought at the time. But you are giving great value to the scores of those commentators who agrees with you. How many commentators did you know of that expressed their opinion as to who won?

The second fight in particular was close, but most believe Marquez edged it. How many in numbers is this 'most' that you talk about with regards to all the people who watched the fight.?

You already said that boxing scoring is not an exact science so until they find a better way on how to score a fight, we can disagree with the result but in a VERY CLOSE fight, you cannot insist that your score is right and the judges are wrong.

The hell I can't. My scorecard is right. Anybody else that disagrees with it is wrong. And I know more than you. Scoring fights is not an exact science. It doesn't have to be. There is still a right way and wrong way to do it. Lot of muthfukkas think that just cuz a fool is an offical judge he knows the sport. Wrong. 60% have no buisness being judges.

........... rrrrrright.

Question for you: Are those two fights close or did any of them dominate the other?

[InTheNeutralCorner]

To those who think that they are better than any of the judges, why don't you apply to work as a judge so that boxing can use your God-given talent? You get paid and get to see the fight for free.