Final thoughts on Pac-JMM III

[TheBranMan]

A clear win for Marquez. Pac defenders and money-hungry promoters insist it was a close fight, but the majority of boxing fans agree that it was a robbery. Not at all a domination, but a clear decision win for Marquez. It's sad that corruption exists at this level of boxing.

[Mars_ax]

A clear win for Marquez. Pac defenders and money-hungry promoters insist it was a close fight, but the majority of boxing fans agree that it was a robbery. Not at all a domination, but a clear decision win for Marquez. It's sad that corruption exists at this level of boxing.

Post that hogwash somewhere else.

[erics44]

A clear win for Marquez. Pac defenders and money-hungry promoters insist it was a close fight, but the majority of boxing fans agree that it was a robbery. Not at all a domination, but a clear decision win for Marquez. It's sad that corruption exists at this level of boxing.

Mate, i have very little feeling towards pac or marquez, id say my view is as impartial as any, and i thought pac won

I think there are examples of decisions that suggest boxing is corrupt but this isnt one of them

[KananKrus]

People on here in Saddo, characters and personalities we've all learned to respect through all our years of pugilistic acquaintance, disputes or alliances, but who are blessed with the pugnacity to stick to impartiality restores this site's healthy image as an avenue where fair interchange for anything boxing is given preference, accorded reverence over "topical" falsehoods, bigotry, and the plain ol' bullcrap! Kudos to all of you...

Thankful that with this view, it has provided a gravitating reason for people with the good sense for fairplay to stay on with Saddo, keep involved... active and however despite the tiniest of contributions exercise the privilege to interchange boxing notes and ideas.


That said... I myself would have felt bad for Manny had he had not received a favorable decision and lost. I felt he won a close UD. Had he not been the champion, easily a draw or losing 7-5 or 115-113 is not at all far fetched... it was that close. After viewing the fight on replays... even tho' it was that close, under those circumstances, I felt that Juan Manuel did not give a convincing enough effort to snatch the championship from the titleholder. He did not even get in the ring at fight night with the concept of leaving everything in the ring.

Leaving everything in the ring is exemplified by an exhaustive effort to knock the other guy out or at least provide the most effective aggression to cause damage and firmly establish dominance over his counterpart.

What comes to mind to depict such a situation is the night in Zaire, where Muhammad Ali's knocked out the "Big Bad" George Foremen. Muhammad Ali, a 7-1 underdog coming into the fight, and despite the peril for his health as a possible conclusion looming large, as George during that time, delivered those kind of performances, Ali came to fight night with pure "bad intentions". It did not take more than the first few rounds, to establish that there was an obvious powershift for the possible outcome purely from the skill alone on display that night. Ali through superior ring generalship and "timed aggression" provided a clear picture of dominance. This too, as JMM's was from a defensive stance.. To cut it short... he achieved the impossible... he knocked the seemingly indestructible champion in only eight rounds! Need be told... Ali did not even need that knockout that night to strip the crown off of George Foreman's head. That is what dominance is!

This most definitely is not of the back-pedalling variety, JMM version, vainly hoping to dethrone the heavily favored champ on a safe, although time tested, a marginally low return winning scheme!

Other fine examples come to mind.... need not go into details but the mere mention of the principals is by itself, self explanatory . Hagler versus Hearns, where Marvin was size wise dominated, needed only a knockout to beat Tommy Hearns. He did do that and knocked the "Motorcity Cobra" , to my chagrin, in three. Buster Douglas vs Mike Tyson, Savador Sanchez versus champ Danny Lopez!

Those are but a few examples where the challenger, except for the "Hagler", was severely the underdog, still came to fight night with the right attitude and game plan to leave no stones unturned.


Sadly, as good as Juan Manuel Marquez was that night against Pacquiao, for their third install, it was not to be. It was a performance that did not present a clear cut type of conclusion in a fight with a decision.

My apologies, I've rambled on... but some points need be made.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

A clear win for Marquez. Pac defenders and money-hungry promoters insist it was a close fight, but the majority of boxing fans agree that it was a robbery. Not at all a domination, but a clear decision win for Marquez. It's sad that corruption exists at this level of boxing.

I suspected that you were bias when you started that thread on 'Authenticity in broadcasting .....' with the way you responded to a comment and this confirms it.

Not at all a domination by EITHER fighter.

[Mars_ax]

A clear win for Marquez. Pac defenders and money-hungry promoters insist it was a close fight, but the majority of boxing fans agree that it was a robbery. Not at all a domination, but a clear decision win for Marquez. It's sad that corruption exists at this level of boxing.

I suspected that you were bias when you started that thread on 'Authenticity in broadcasting .....' with the way you responded to a comment and this confirms it.

Not at all a domination by EITHER fighter.

I started this thread for everyone to post some "civil" final thoughts on Pac-JMM III, BranMan is trying to hijack the thread and turn it into a pissing contest, he needs to fuck off.

[Beanz]

A clear win for Marquez. Pac defenders and money-hungry promoters insist it was a close fight, but the majority of boxing fans agree that it was a robbery. Not at all a domination, but a clear decision win for Marquez. It's sad that corruption exists at this level of boxing.

I suspected that you were bias when you started that thread on 'Authenticity in broadcasting .....' with the way you responded to a comment and this confirms it.

Not at all a domination by EITHER fighter.

I started this thread for everyone to post some "civil" final thoughts on Pac-JMM III, BranMan is trying to hijack the thread and turn it into a pissing contest, he needs to fuck off.

How very civil of you to call anyone with a view that doesn't match your own as an asshole and then tell them to fuck off. How laughable for InThe NeutralCorner to suspect bias in Branman and not recognise it in himself or the loony views of PSL. It may comfort you to think that you know more about boxing than those on this forum that think Marquez scored a clear decision win over Paqciao , but you should also remember that view is shared by George Foreman, Mike Tyson, Oscar de La Hoya, Steve Cunningham, Marvin Hagler, Zab Judah, Joe Calzaghe,Paulie Malinaggi,Andre Berto, Andre Dirrell, Darren Barker, Julio Cesar Chavez, Andre Ward, Jean Pascal etc, etc, etc. People are entitled to their opinions and correct me if i am wrong but i thought that threads are started to generate an open and honest discussion, not to reflect the view of the Opening Poster and dismiss all others. My final thoughts ? Juan Manuel Marquez did more than enough to win decisively and set Manny up all night, Manny could or would not evolve and his inability to change cost him dearly.Pacquiao was angry and that out of character loss of concentration was capitalised on by Marquez who anticipated his punches and boxed beautifully. The judges present awarded him the fight but Manny lost a lot that night, a seeming air of invincibility, and the respect of a lot of people with the insistence post fight it was a clear win, when he clearly thought otherwise as shown by his demeanour in the ring.

[ICB]

Well i still stand by my opinion that it wasn't that close, and IMO it was JMM's clearest win over Manny Pacquiao. As i've said in multiple threads Freddie Roach told Manny Pacquiao he needed to KO JMM in the last round, also who looked like the winner when the bell rung ?

Manny Pacquiao and there team thought that because JMM was 38, and because he had some trouble with Katsidis, Diaz. And also because they thought they would have an advantage with the weight.

They believed that would be able to get rid of JMM in impressive fashion, to set-up the big money fight with Mayweather/Pacquiao. But JMM didn't follow the gameplan and made Manny Pacquiao look just as bad as he had in there previous 2 meetings.

But there's no way JMM would of ever have got the decision no matter what he done really, unless he dominated Manny Pacquiao from pillar to post. Because there's too money to be made from a Pacquiao/Mayweather fight.

I feel bad for JMM the only fight he has legitmately lost IMO is too Floyd Mayweather Jr, and that was at a higher weightclass.

[badr_hari]

Well i still stand by my opinion it wasn't that close, and IMO it was JMM's clearest win over Manny Pacquiao.

My thoughts too. 9-3 or hell even 8-4 is not close. A clear Marquez win.
Lots of experts trying to break down their ideas now, but its not that important. See Pacquiao's face immediately after the final bell and decide whether it is a winner's face or not.

[Dench]

Well i still stand by my opinion that it wasn't that close, and IMO it was JMM's clearest win over Manny Pacquiao. As i've said in multiple threads Freddie Roach told Manny Pacquiao he needed to KO JMM in the last round, also who looked like the winner when the bell rung ?

Manny Pacquiao and there team thought that because JMM was 38, and because he had some trouble with Katsidis, Diaz. And also because they thought they would have an advantage with the weight.
They believed that would be able to get rid of JMM in impressive fashion, to set-up the big money fight with Mayweather/Pacquiao. But JMM didn't follow the gameplan and made Manny Pacquiao look just as bad as he had in there previous 2 meetings.

But there's no way JMM would of ever have got the decision no matter what he done really, unless he dominated Manny Pacquiao from pillar to post. Because there's too money to be made from a Pacquiao/Mayweather fight.

I feel bad for JMM the only fight he has legitmately lost IMO is too Floyd Mayweather Jr, and that was at a higher weightclass.

I respect your opinion, but I will have counter some of your statements.
First was:

As i've said in multiple threads Freddie Roach told Manny Pacquiao he needed to KO JMM in the last round, also who looked like the winner when the bell rung ?

Manny Pacquiao and there team thought that because JMM was 38, and because he had some trouble with Katsidis, Diaz. And also because they thought they would have an advantage with the weight.

As I have mentioned before on my past posts, prior to the fight, people's expectations on Pac are at a high due to several factors - the disadvantage of JMM on weight and age, the trend of pac's last 5 fights on higher weight class, the improvement of pac, the statement made by JMM claiming he was robbed twice, the statement of pacman that he will end all doubts via KO-- these all plays into our minds over and over up until the 1st round of the fight. It is very evident that in your comment, you were able to mention some of it thus concluding that you, like me, are looking at total domination of pac over JMM prior to the fight. But in my case, I saw pac losing because he wasnt able to "dominate" a guy like marquez. After replays of the fight, I was convinced that pac won it on close fashion. Even though he wasnt able to dominate the guy, even though he was been tagged by clean shots, even though he lost sevaral rounds to JMM-- I dont think it was enough to conclude that pac lost.

As for Pac's reaction after the fight, at first I thought he was thinking that he lost the fight. He was sad and all that. But hey, it is not automatically mean admission of defeat. Roach and pac team claiming that JMM will get his ass whopped, but JMM proved to be tougher than ever. Pac wasnt able to dominate as expected, and so they have eaten their own words. How would you feel in an instance like that?


Second,

But there's no way JMM would of ever have got the decision no matter what he done really, unless he dominated Manny Pacquiao from pillar to post. Because there's too money to be made from a Pacquiao/Mayweather fight.

You are right on the money. I think JMM knows this from the very beginning, that in order for him to beat Pac, he should KO the guy or at least battered him in the ring. He needs to "dominate". But did he dominated pac? 80% of answers will be YES -- but hey, this is because he did the unthinkable, the unexpected, the impossible -- to stay with pac, fight him toe-to-toe, and give pac a run for his money -- something no one has ever done in 3 years or 7 fights. Now I ask all of you, was it all enough to make him a winner, well yes, no one got *that close to Pac. Was that enough to make him the champion, NO. Because even if JMM exceeded far from our expectations and wildest dreams, he wasn able to beat Pac convincingly, period.

Marquez had his nerves when he asked everyone on the interview "what else can I do to beat Pac?" He knows it, and he wasnt able to do it, or even tried to -- to Knock pac out. After 36 rounds, he wasnt able to hit pac and knocked him down. What about that? He knows he cant win if he will not dominate, but did he dominate pac? No. He simply step up to give pac a challenge and didnt try "step over" pac. Thats the reason he lost.

[Mar]

I don't think there's a wrong answer to who won this fight. It was close either way everyones pic is an opinion just like the judges except there's is the only one that matters.

[ICB]

Well i still stand by my opinion that it wasn't that close, and IMO it was JMM's clearest win over Manny Pacquiao. As i've said in multiple threads Freddie Roach told Manny Pacquiao he needed to KO JMM in the last round, also who looked like the winner when the bell rung ?

Manny Pacquiao and there team thought that because JMM was 38, and because he had some trouble with Katsidis, Diaz. And also because they thought they would have an advantage with the weight.
They believed that would be able to get rid of JMM in impressive fashion, to set-up the big money fight with Mayweather/Pacquiao. But JMM didn't follow the gameplan and made Manny Pacquiao look just as bad as he had in there previous 2 meetings.

But there's no way JMM would of ever have got the decision no matter what he done really, unless he dominated Manny Pacquiao from pillar to post. Because there's too money to be made from a Pacquiao/Mayweather fight.

I feel bad for JMM the only fight he has legitmately lost IMO is too Floyd Mayweather Jr, and that was at a higher weightclass.

I respect your opinion, but I will have counter some of your statements.
First was:

As i've said in multiple threads Freddie Roach told Manny Pacquiao he needed to KO JMM in the last round, also who looked like the winner when the bell rung ?

Manny Pacquiao and there team thought that because JMM was 38, and because he had some trouble with Katsidis, Diaz. And also because they thought they would have an advantage with the weight.

As I have mentioned before on my past posts, prior to the fight, people's expectations on Pac are at a high due to several factors - the disadvantage of JMM on weight and age, the trend of pac's last 5 fights on higher weight class, the improvement of pac, the statement made by JMM claiming he was robbed twice, the statement of pacman that he will end all doubts via KO-- these all plays into our minds over and over up until the 1st round of the fight. It is very evident that in your comment, you were able to mention some of it thus concluding that you, like me, are looking at total domination of pac over JMM prior to the fight. But in my case, I saw pac losing because he wasnt able to "dominate" a guy like marquez. After replays of the fight, I was convinced that pac won it on close fashion. Even though he wasnt able to dominate the guy, even though he was been tagged by clean shots, even though he lost sevaral rounds to JMM-- I dont think it was enough to conclude that pac lost.

As for Pac's reaction after the fight, at first I thought he was thinking that he lost the fight. He was sad and all that. But hey, it is not automatically mean admission of defeat. Roach and pac team claiming that JMM will get his ass whopped, but JMM proved to be tougher than ever. Pac wasnt able to dominate as expected, and so they have eaten their own words. How would you feel in an instance like that?


Second,

But there's no way JMM would of ever have got the decision no matter what he done really, unless he dominated Manny Pacquiao from pillar to post. Because there's too money to be made from a Pacquiao/Mayweather fight.

You are right on the money. I think JMM knows this from the very beginning, that in order for him to beat Pac, he should KO the guy or at least battered him in the ring. He needs to "dominate". But did he dominated pac? 80% of answers will be YES -- but hey, this is because he did the unthinkable, the unexpected, the impossible -- to stay with pac, fight him toe-to-toe, and give pac a run for his money -- something no one has ever done in 3 years or 7 fights. Now I ask all of you, was it all enough to make him a winner, well yes, no one got *that close to Pac. Was that enough to make him the champion, NO. Because even if JMM exceeded far from our expectations and wildest dreams, he wasn able to beat Pac convincingly, period.

Marquez had his nerves when he asked everyone on the interview "what else can I do to beat Pac?" He knows it, and he wasnt able to do it, or even tried to -- to Knock pac out. After 36 rounds, he wasnt able to hit pac and knocked him down. What about that? He knows he cant win if he will not dominate, but did he dominate pac? No. He simply step up to give pac a challenge and didnt try "step over" pac. Thats the reason he lost.

Since when do you have to dominate a fighter to win the fight ? can't you just win it the old fashion way by just plain winning more rounds and outboxing your opponent ? it's very hard to dominate a great fighter in there prime.

Ask yourself this did Manny Pacquaio dominate JMM ? no. So how come's he got the decision then ? isn't that contradicting just because Manny Pacquiao is a more well known fighter. He should get the benefit of the doubt ? im sorry but that's BS.

To me it looked like Manny Pacquaio, was the one who fought the most cautious fight he had ever fought against JMM. So he obviously wasn't looking to dominate or "step over" JMM as you pointed out.

All you've done is basically point out what's wrong with boxing.

[Mars_ax]

A clear win for Marquez. Pac defenders and money-hungry promoters insist it was a close fight, but the majority of boxing fans agree that it was a robbery. Not at all a domination, but a clear decision win for Marquez. It's sad that corruption exists at this level of boxing.

I suspected that you were bias when you started that thread on 'Authenticity in broadcasting .....' with the way you responded to a comment and this confirms it.

Not at all a domination by EITHER fighter.

I started this thread for everyone to post some "civil" final thoughts on Pac-JMM III, BranMan is trying to hijack the thread and turn it into a pissing contest, he needs to fuck off.

How very civil of you to call anyone with a view that doesn't match your own as an asshole and then tell them to fuck off. How laughable for InThe NeutralCorner to suspect bias in Branman and not recognise it in himself or the loony views of PSL. It may comfort you to think that you know more about boxing than those on this forum that think Marquez scored a clear decision win over Paqciao , but you should also remember that view is shared by George Foreman, Mike Tyson, Oscar de La Hoya, Steve Cunningham, Marvin Hagler, Zab Judah, Joe Calzaghe,Paulie Malinaggi,Andre Berto, Andre Dirrell, Darren Barker, Julio Cesar Chavez, Andre Ward, Jean Pascal etc, etc, etc. People are entitled to their opinions and correct me if i am wrong but i thought that threads are started to generate an open and honest discussion, not to reflect the view of the Opening Poster and dismiss all others. My final thoughts ? Juan Manuel Marquez did more than enough to win decisively and set Manny up all night, Manny could or would not evolve and his inability to change cost him dearly.Pacquiao was angry and that out of character loss of concentration was capitalised on by Marquez who anticipated his punches and boxed beautifully. The judges present awarded him the fight but Manny lost a lot that night, a seeming air of invincibility, and the respect of a lot of people with the insistence post fight it was a clear win, when he clearly thought otherwise as shown by his demeanour in the ring.

Fuck off, Greenbeanz.. j/k..

No one has to agree with me or what I said in the OP. I just didn't want this thread being hijacked by this asshole and turned into a fucking whinefest about how Marquez, "clearly won the fight" but was robbed by a "Pactard" conspiracy...

I hope this helps..

[InTheNeutralCorner]

A clear win for Marquez. Pac defenders and money-hungry promoters insist it was a close fight, but the majority of boxing fans agree that it was a robbery. Not at all a domination, but a clear decision win for Marquez. It's sad that corruption exists at this level of boxing.

I suspected that you were bias when you started that thread on 'Authenticity in broadcasting .....' with the way you responded to a comment and this confirms it.

Not at all a domination by EITHER fighter.

I started this thread for everyone to post some "civil" final thoughts on Pac-JMM III, BranMan is trying to hijack the thread and turn it into a pissing contest, he needs to fuck off.

How very civil of you to call anyone with a view that doesn't match your own as an asshole and then tell them to fuck off. How laughable for InThe NeutralCorner to suspect bias in Branman and not recognise it in himself or the loony views of PSL. It may comfort you to think that you know more about boxing than those on this forum that think Marquez scored a clear decision win over Paqciao , but you should also remember that view is shared by George Foreman, Mike Tyson, Oscar de La Hoya, Steve Cunningham, Marvin Hagler, Zab Judah, Joe Calzaghe,Paulie Malinaggi,Andre Berto, Andre Dirrell, Darren Barker, Julio Cesar Chavez, Andre Ward, Jean Pascal etc, etc, etc. People are entitled to their opinions and correct me if i am wrong but i thought that threads are started to generate an open and honest discussion, not to reflect the view of the Opening Poster and dismiss all others. My final thoughts ? Juan Manuel Marquez did more than enough to win decisively and set Manny up all night, Manny could or would not evolve and his inability to change cost him dearly.Pacquiao was angry and that out of character loss of concentration was capitalised on by Marquez who anticipated his punches and boxed beautifully. The judges present awarded him the fight but Manny lost a lot that night, a seeming air of invincibility, and the respect of a lot of people with the insistence post fight it was a clear win, when he clearly thought otherwise as shown by his demeanour in the ring.

I was hoping to go through all the names that you wrote above to verify the veracity of your claim. It took me a while to find out about the first on your list, George Foreman, and this is what i got.

Pacquiao-Marquez Fight analysis as tweeted by boxing experts | Features | Techie.com.ph

..... wherein he tweeted that 'Marquez did enough to keep a title; not enough to take the title'. This does not seem like an endorsement of a 'clear victory for Marquez'.

If your claim on the first on your list is inaccurate, I suspect that applies to the rest in that list. Unfortunately, I don't have time to check on all of them. You presented your case above, back it up with links.

[Chino]

did you see the JC Chavez Jr. fight last saturday? Did you see the polls that were made on HBO Boxing for both the fan and the commentators/experts? Check out their stats.