Final thoughts on Pac-JMM III

[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

[Mars_ax]

Final thoughts: Pacquaio was off his game, Marquez was really switched on and gave it his all. Pacquaio was lucky to get the win, i had him winning, but would've had no problem if Marquez got the decision, so it was very close. Pacquaio has a lot going on in his life right now, (maybe to much going on and this was a distraction going into this fight?) He could be on the decline, his next fight will determine that. I would still like to see him fight Floyd in May, but i'm not holding my breath. Not sure if a 4th Marquez fight is warranted or overkill.
If Floyd doesn't fight him in May then throw Khan to the wolves and get him in with the Pacman. If Khan doesn't get Pacquaio then he should fight Marquez.

I give Marquez credit for making Pac look bad, but I didn't think Pacquiao really fought all that bad. Pac did the best he could do against, a determined, discipled Marquez, who surprised everyone, including Pacquiao and Roach, with how much he had left in the tank.

For the time being, enough with Pac-JMM fights, time to move on.

[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.

[Dench]

The first time I watched the fight on Live TV, I was convinced that Marquez won the fight. Then I happen to got a copy of the fight from one of my friend, and watched the fight again. Now I have watched it for 5 times, and slowly Im beginning to realize that Pac really won the fight.

As much as I wanted to explain to myself, I just couldnt get the idea of how pacman won the fight until after a couple of days. I have my few points below:

1. Pacman wasnt dominating, he was being challenged, and there was a sense of competition.
2. People (media and fans alike) seemed to have that notion/expectation that whenever Pacman fights someone other than Floyd, he will dominate. Same goes to Floyd for this instance.
3. People was unconsciously thinking "marquez beat pacman twice" and "pacman will prove them wrong, and end all doubts" -- this plays crucial role on judgement, since you will look into the fight using these as footholds.
4. Pacman was landing his punches as marquez does -- but pacman was trowing & landing more, while marquez was landing few but clean punches.
5. Marquez seemed to let go of his pedal during the last 4 rounds, and waited pacman to charged in.


With these, I can say now that there was no robbery. The fight is a hairline close and could have gone either way. If the judges ruled it a draw, I can live with it. But now, I cant see marquez winning the fight anymore. He almost got the win, but he himself let go of it. If only he finished stronger, he could have snatched it.

So true, If you really want to win, you should act like you are willing to die for it, or at least try.

[Mars_ax]

The first time I watched the fight on Live TV, I was convinced that Marquez won the fight. Then I happen to got a copy of the fight from one of my friend, and watched the fight again. Now I have watched it for 5 times, and slowly Im beginning to realize that Pac really won the fight.

As much as I wanted to explain to myself, I just couldnt get the idea of how pacman won the fight until after a couple of days. I have my few points below:

1. Pacman wasnt dominating, he was being challenged, and there was a sense of competition.
2. People (media and fans alike) seemed to have that notion/expectation that whenever Pacman fights someone other than Floyd, he will dominate. Same goes to Floyd for this instance.
3. People was unconsciously thinking "marquez beat pacman twice" and "pacman will prove them wrong, and end all doubts" -- this plays crucial role on judgement, since you will look into the fight using these as footholds.
4. Pacman was landing his punches as marquez does -- but pacman was trowing & landing more, while marquez was landing few but clean punches.
5. Marquez seemed to let go of his pedal during the last 4 rounds, and waited pacman to charged in.


With these, I can say now that there was no robbery. The fight is a hairline close and could have gone either way. If the judges ruled it a draw, I can live with it. But now, I cant see marquez winning the fight anymore. He almost got the win, but he himself let go of it. If only he finished stronger, he could have snatched it.

So true, If you really want to win, you should act like you are willing to die for it, or at least try.

Good post Dench, everyone has a right to have a "reasonable" opinion about the fight, I don't however believe it's reasonable to assume that either Pug dominated the other, that the fight wasn't close, or that it was some kind of conspiratorial robbery.

That being said, while i'll admit i'm more of a fan of Pacquiao than I am JMM, and might be slightly prejudice in my view of the fight, for reasons that I outlined in the OP, I had it, Pac 7-5 or Pac 7-4-1 even. I watched the replay 3 times and could not find more than 4 or 5 rounds to give to Marquez. For me it's just that simple, a close fight that I had Pacquiao winning, but even a draw would have been acceptable.

cheers

[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.

[Dench]

The first time I watched the fight on Live TV, I was convinced that Marquez won the fight. Then I happen to got a copy of the fight from one of my friend, and watched the fight again. Now I have watched it for 5 times, and slowly Im beginning to realize that Pac really won the fight.

As much as I wanted to explain to myself, I just couldnt get the idea of how pacman won the fight until after a couple of days. I have my few points below:

1. Pacman wasnt dominating, he was being challenged, and there was a sense of competition.
2. People (media and fans alike) seemed to have that notion/expectation that whenever Pacman fights someone other than Floyd, he will dominate. Same goes to Floyd for this instance.
3. People was unconsciously thinking "marquez beat pacman twice" and "pacman will prove them wrong, and end all doubts" -- this plays crucial role on judgement, since you will look into the fight using these as footholds.
4. Pacman was landing his punches as marquez does -- but pacman was trowing & landing more, while marquez was landing few but clean punches.
5. Marquez seemed to let go of his pedal during the last 4 rounds, and waited pacman to charged in.


With these, I can say now that there was no robbery. The fight is a hairline close and could have gone either way. If the judges ruled it a draw, I can live with it. But now, I cant see marquez winning the fight anymore. He almost got the win, but he himself let go of it. If only he finished stronger, he could have snatched it.

So true, If you really want to win, you should act like you are willing to die for it, or at least try.

Good post Dench, everyone has a right to have a "reasonable" opinion about the fight, I don't however believe it's reasonable to assume that either Pug dominated the other, that the fight wasn't close, or that it was some kind of conspiratorial robbery.

That being said, while i'll admit i'm more of a fan of Pacquiao than I am JMM, and might be slightly prejudice in my view of the fight, for reasons that I outlined in the OP, I had it, Pac 7-5 or Pac 7-4-1 even. I watched the replay 3 times and could not find more than 4 or 5 rounds to give to Marquez. For me it's just that simple, a close fight that I had Pacquiao winning, but even a draw would have been acceptable.

cheers

I couldnt agree more mate.
I was thinking after the fight that Pacman lost. After a few days still I stand by it, and was even thinking maybe judges saw more money in pac than marquez - thats why they give the nod to pac on the very close rounds which proved to be tough to call.

Then now I am thinking, maybe I saw pacman losing because he wasnt able to live up to his statement that: "he will end all doubts" (and the only way he can do that is by knocking this guy out) AND that marquez was the one who was able to prove his statement "that he has pac's number, and that he beat the man twice"

Having said that, I think most of the people saw pacman losing because he wasnt able to show the usual domination he's been doing since Hatton. And considering that he's fighting a guy at his weight class adds up to that notion, as if giving Manny even more advantage. With all these, people are expecting brutal devastation of Marquez. But that wasnt the case -- marquez was able to push pac to the limits, and suddenly, pacman is hittable, beatable and vulnerable -- something we never saw since they last fought. Add the material of surprise, who would have thought that Marquez can keep up with Manny? At 38, he is again at disadvantage. But in the ring, they were like twins with equal skills.

So at the end of the fight, people didnt saw the ferociously dominating Manny PAcman. The pac who KOd Hatton brutally, bloodied the face of Cotto, Dela hoya and Margarito, and the 2nd person to KD Mosley. But vs Marquez, Pacman is a mere human. And just because of that people were saying he lost the fight.

I am actually one of those people, and I must admit, I erred. my bad.

[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.

[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..

[:::PSL:::]

lt was a great great fight. i really enjoyed it. Too bad some people still think it was a robbery.

It's not just "some" people. Go to HBO Boxing and see the big percentage of people who voted that JMM was robbed. Did you see the JC Chavez Jr. fight last saturday? Did you see the HBO polls as well as the experts/commentator polls? It's way more than "some" people that think JMM got robbed.

oh yeah? explain to me how he got robbed.

...

It's been explained far too many times already on these forums. Marquez was in control the entire fight, landing the clean effective blows - any time Pac let his hands go he would get countered. It would've been generous to have given Pac 4 rounds. For the judges to mess up not only the scores on the last fight (which Marquez won too, albeit was a bit closer), but to give Pac the win when he was clearly beaten this time round is disgusting. The almighty dollar won this one for Pac.

JMM - One of the greatest of the legendary Mexican fighters, who's been screwed over twice (arguably 3 times) now.
Pac - Cash cow.

if marquez was landing the cleaner effective blows, then how come his face was more messed up than Pac?

Pac received a cut from a accidental headbutt and a busted lip. JMM's face though was all swollen.

[ICB]

lt was a great great fight. i really enjoyed it. Too bad some people still think it was a robbery.

It's not just "some" people. Go to HBO Boxing and see the big percentage of people who voted that JMM was robbed. Did you see the JC Chavez Jr. fight last saturday? Did you see the HBO polls as well as the experts/commentator polls? It's way more than "some" people that think JMM got robbed.

oh yeah? explain to me how he got robbed.

...

It's been explained far too many times already on these forums. Marquez was in control the entire fight, landing the clean effective blows - any time Pac let his hands go he would get countered. It would've been generous to have given Pac 4 rounds. For the judges to mess up not only the scores on the last fight (which Marquez won too, albeit was a bit closer), but to give Pac the win when he was clearly beaten this time round is disgusting. The almighty dollar won this one for Pac.

JMM - One of the greatest of the legendary Mexican fighters, who's been screwed over twice (arguably 3 times) now.
Pac - Cash cow.

if marquez was landing the cleaner effective blows, then how come his face was more messed up than Pac?

Pac received a cut from a accidental headbutt and a busted lip. JMM's face though was all swollen.

His face was swollen up vs Katsidis, Diaz, he was still winning the fights.

[Mars_ax]

The first time I watched the fight on Live TV, I was convinced that Marquez won the fight. Then I happen to got a copy of the fight from one of my friend, and watched the fight again. Now I have watched it for 5 times, and slowly Im beginning to realize that Pac really won the fight.

As much as I wanted to explain to myself, I just couldnt get the idea of how pacman won the fight until after a couple of days. I have my few points below:

1. Pacman wasnt dominating, he was being challenged, and there was a sense of competition.
2. People (media and fans alike) seemed to have that notion/expectation that whenever Pacman fights someone other than Floyd, he will dominate. Same goes to Floyd for this instance.
3. People was unconsciously thinking "marquez beat pacman twice" and "pacman will prove them wrong, and end all doubts" -- this plays crucial role on judgement, since you will look into the fight using these as footholds.
4. Pacman was landing his punches as marquez does -- but pacman was trowing & landing more, while marquez was landing few but clean punches.
5. Marquez seemed to let go of his pedal during the last 4 rounds, and waited pacman to charged in.


With these, I can say now that there was no robbery. The fight is a hairline close and could have gone either way. If the judges ruled it a draw, I can live with it. But now, I cant see marquez winning the fight anymore. He almost got the win, but he himself let go of it. If only he finished stronger, he could have snatched it.

So true, If you really want to win, you should act like you are willing to die for it, or at least try.

Good post Dench, everyone has a right to have a "reasonable" opinion about the fight, I don't however believe it's reasonable to assume that either Pug dominated the other, that the fight wasn't close, or that it was some kind of conspiratorial robbery.

That being said, while i'll admit i'm more of a fan of Pacquiao than I am JMM, and might be slightly prejudice in my view of the fight, for reasons that I outlined in the OP, I had it, Pac 7-5 or Pac 7-4-1 even. I watched the replay 3 times and could not find more than 4 or 5 rounds to give to Marquez. For me it's just that simple, a close fight that I had Pacquiao winning, but even a draw would have been acceptable.

cheers

I couldnt agree more mate.
I was thinking after the fight that Pacman lost. After a few days still I stand by it, and was even thinking maybe judges saw more money in pac than marquez - thats why they give the nod to pac on the very close rounds which proved to be tough to call.

Then now I am thinking, maybe I saw pacman losing because he wasnt able to live up to his statement that: "he will end all doubts" (and the only way he can do that is by knocking this guy out) AND that marquez was the one who was able to prove his statement "that he has pac's number, and that he beat the man twice"

Having said that, I think most of the people saw pacman losing because he wasnt able to show the usual domination he's been doing since Hatton. And considering that he's fighting a guy at his weight class adds up to that notion, as if giving Manny even more advantage. With all these, people are expecting brutal devastation of Marquez. But that wasnt the case -- marquez was able to push pac to the limits, and suddenly, pacman is hittable, beatable and vulnerable -- something we never saw since they last fought. Add the material of surprise, who would have thought that Marquez can keep up with Manny? At 38, he is again at disadvantage. But in the ring, they were like twins with equal skills.

So at the end of the fight, people didnt saw the ferociously dominating Manny PAcman. The pac who KOd Hatton brutally, bloodied the face of Cotto, Dela hoya and Margarito, and the 2nd person to KD Mosley. But vs Marquez, Pacman is a mere human. And just because of that people were saying he lost the fight.

I am actually one of those people, and I must admit, I erred. my bad.

In a nutshell, when I watched the replay I was prepared to see Pacquiao lose, because that's most of what i'd been seeing and reading. But after I watched it for myself, in HD I came to a totally different conculsion. Pacquiao was in a real fight for the 1st time in years, but he still did enough to win 7 rounds.