Final thoughts on Pac-JMM III

[:::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.

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

yea. but katsidis and diaz were more fucked up after the fight. do you see where i'm getting at?

[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.

[johnsebastianmiran]

PAC won the fight and one of the judges failed an eye test once again and someone should give him directions that involve taking a long walk off a short pier JMM fought PAC and gave him a fight and on this no one should disagree. I don't feel anyone was dominated, frustrated but not dominated. PAC hit the target with his straight left until his punch looped from fatigue. Marquez used the ring to offset PAC's power punches and made him miss more than any other time in his career. When PAC threw punches in bunches, JMM Countered the same way with a difference from PAC, he threw his down the middle and was standing in front of PAC matching him almost punch for punch and frustrated PAC on several occasions. I could go on but I truly sat right in front of the TV and took a closer look the second time around and I did one more thing, I cut the volume on a blowhard announcer that seemed to be making Kellerman look like he swallowed a bunch of lemons that burst open on his mouth at the same time. I agree about one thing, I would have been happy with a draw because JMM improved and he wasn't even close to being hurt this time PAC didn't come to lose but he did not recognize this physically fit thirty eight year old in front of him because it's true, age is just a number. I also feel that the fight with Floyd should finally happen in May because we fans are chanting,"Shit or get off the pot gentlemen."

[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.

yea. but katsidis and diaz were more fucked up after the fight. do you see where i'm getting at?

You can't compare damage on a fighter's face, points wise Meldrick Taylor was a mile infront vs JCC. But his face looked like it'd been rammed into brick wall, whilst JCC looked quite fresh.

[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.

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.

Oh God here we go again. Ok so George Foreman was not a great choice to head the list, although even he acknowledges Marquez bar the "must clearly beat the shit out of the title holder" theory, i stupidly included him and Tyson because i had just watched
http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...1-17-11-a.html. The others are all there for you to verify on twitter with Zab Judah, Steve Cunningham and the great Marvin Hagler going way beyond clear victory and declaring robbery.

http://twitter.com/#!/themarvelous0ne

13 Nov
"Disgusting result! #ROBBERY!"
"Wake up people and realize that we can no longer tolerate corruption in our sport. There needs to be a primary governing body."

http://twitter.com/#!/SUPERJUDAH

13 Nov
"Robbery!!!!"

http://http://twitter.com/#!/usscunningham

13 Nov
"All pro fighters I know ,guys which know what to look 4 in a fight had jmm winning. It's not just entertainment to us its a #lifestyle#"
"Boxing is f#$ked up"

http://twitter.com/#!/realjoecalzaghe


13 Nov
"Just watched Marquez v Pacman and have to say thought Marquez was robbed! Thought he won the first 2 fights also!"

http://twitter.com/#!/jcchavezjr1

13 Nov
"Gano marquez hoy. Fue un robo juan manuel gano claramente. esto esto es malo para el boxeo. Saludo a todos"


"Marquez won today. It was a robbery juan manuel won clearly. This this is bad for boxing. Greeting to all"

I could go on but i don't want to hijack Mars's thread and "turn it into a pissing contest."
I didn't want to mention the R word but you both kinda forced my hand, so there you go.

Oh and Mars,

Looks like i'm the asshole hijacking this and turning it into a fucking whinefest about how Marquez, "clearly won the fight" but was robbed by a "Pactard" conspiracy...

I hope this helps..

[:::PSL:::]

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.

Oh God here we go again. Ok so George Foreman was not a great choice to head the list, although even he acknowledges Marquez bar the "must clearly beat the shit out of the title holder" theory, i stupidly included him and Tyson because i had just watched
http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...1-17-11-a.html. The others are all there for you to verify on twitter with Zab Judah, Steve Cunningham and the great Marvin Hagler going way beyond clear victory and declaring robbery.

http://twitter.com/#!/themarvelous0ne

13 Nov
"Disgusting result! #ROBBERY!"
"Wake up people and realize that we can no longer tolerate corruption in our sport. There needs to be a primary governing body."

http://twitter.com/#!/SUPERJUDAH

13 Nov
"Robbery!!!!"

http://http://twitter.com/#!/usscunningham

13 Nov
"All pro fighters I know ,guys which know what to look 4 in a fight had jmm winning. It's not just entertainment to us its a #lifestyle#"
"Boxing is f#$ked up"

http://twitter.com/#!/realjoecalzaghe


13 Nov
"Just watched Marquez v Pacman and have to say thought Marquez was robbed! Thought he won the first 2 fights also!"

http://twitter.com/#!/jcchavezjr1

13 Nov
"Gano marquez hoy. Fue un robo juan manuel gano claramente. esto esto es malo para el boxeo. Saludo a todos"


"Marquez won today. It was a robbery juan manuel won clearly. This this is bad for boxing. Greeting to all"

I could go on but i don't want to hijack Mars's thread and "turn it into a pissing contest."
I didn't want to mention the R word but you both kinda forced my hand, so there you go.

But none of them couldn't really explain why robbery occured.

[Mars_ax]

Oh God here we go again. Ok so George Foreman was not a great choice to head the list, although even he acknowledges Marquez bar the "must clearly beat the shit out of the title holder" theory, i stupidly included him and Tyson because i had just watched

I could go on but i don't want to hijack Mars's thread and "turn it into a pissing contest."
I didn't want to mention the R word but you both kinda forced my hand, so there you go.

Oh and Mars,

Looks like i'm the asshole hijacking this and turning it into a fucking whinefest about how Marquez, "clearly won the fight" but was robbed by a "Pactard" conspiracy...

I hope this helps..

The nerve of you Greenbeanz! But you hijacked it with remarkable cleverness, stealth and cunning.

[shza]

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.

I saw it. Over 40% of the commentators/experts said they scored it a draw. Hardly seems like support for cries of "robbery" or "clear victory" for anyone.

[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.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

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.

I think that comment should be the final thought on Pac-Jmm III and should end the argument.

[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.

[Dench]

Since when do you have to dominate a fighter to win the fight ?

Since people started to consider that close fights like this trilogy is a robbery either way depending on the fighter they personally favor.

can't you just win it the old fashion way by just plain winning more rounds and outboxing your opponent ?

Actually, there's a dilemma here. Yes you can try to box your way, be carefull, be defensive, cautious and try to win rounds. But in this case (of pac-jmm) people are looking at their own perspective. And winning is all about convincing the people who's the better fighter.

it's very hard to dominate a great fighter in there prime.

True. Thats why when two greats fight, they will remain greats win or lose. Pac was considered to be the greater fighter than JMM (with all accomplishments, and disadvantage going into the fight), and yes its very hard to dominate a fighter like pac, and JMM knows that. Thats the challenge there, if you cant dominate this fighter here then you cant and wont be able to take his place.

Ask yourself this did Manny Pacquaio dominate JMM ? no. So how come's he got the decision then ?

I say No. Pac never dominated JMM. He was expected to dominate JMM (again because of disadvantages of JMM going into the fight), but he fails. Why he failed? Because JMM gives him a lot of trouble, and that will always be the case whenever they fight. With JMM pac skills are taken into the most strenuous test. The last fight we never saw JMM took a bad beating or even a KD from Pac. So now why did pac got the decision? Go back to the old times (like what you said), and look for the one who initiate, the one who was busy, the one who connects more. Review the tapes and you will see, pac is connecting more, JMM was connecting clean. Pac connects like 10 punches a round with left leads and hooks, JMM counters 7-8 very clean punches. But then again its still 7 or 8 and 10 is greater than both.

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.

For fans like us, it s BS crap. But taking a closer look from a different perspective, it makes sense. Pac becomes well known because he fought his way to the top by dominating the fighters up in weight. For someone to bump him out of the spot, he must try to do what pac has done to the man before him. And JMM fails miserably in that context. He was there and showed he can fight pac from end to finish, but not to topple the man out.

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.

Most cautious? He was tagged by clean punches all the way, those punches landed because he is fighting a counter puncher. And if pac doesnt choose to initiate a fight, will marquez be able to land or even make a counter punch?

Add the fact that the head butt he had was inflicted when he charged in on an exchange -- something you wont do if you are cautious. And after the head butt, with a big crack on his eye brow, did he changed his phase and switched to being cautious?

[Leighton]

First fight I had Pac ahead but had three drawing rounds so could have been a draw.
Second fight I had Marquez up by one round but that could have been a draw because there was a couple of close rounds.
Third fight I had Marquez up by three rounds. I will watch the fight again with the sound turned down but I dont think it will change my mind. I saw Marquez winning easy. The commentators say Marquez winning and the Guys in the studio saw it too. Even Khan saw that Marquez was winning but changed his tone at the end when he found out Pac won.
And above all the defeated look on Pacs face said it all. He knew he didnt win but when he got the decision he was happy with it anyway.
As for a Mayweather super fight I think that it is a waste of time. Pac has slowed down in his last three fights and I think he is passed his best. I see and easy win for Mayweather.