Quote Originally Posted by Fenster View Post
Beanz, does the concept of "blessing in disguise" apply here? You win a boxing match by legally punching the opponent unconscious.

Marquez intended to counter Pac with his right hand, he had landed the same counter shot dozens and dozens of times, where is the "luck" element?

Where is Marquez luck? He did what he always does.

Where is Pac's luck? He didn't benefit from being knocked unconcious, he didn't change his style and lost hundreds of millions?

(by the way, I like that quote, No Country for Old Men, makes perfect sense)
Yes, I think so. The trouble with dismissing the idea of a lucky punch just because most punches have little to do with luck is that you have to pretend they don't exist at all. Without resorting to semantics, they must exist, but i think the real problem is people labeling the wrong punches.

That said the Marquez punch that turned Manny into a carpet was never executed so perfectly in the first fights or certainly not at the same time as him being walked onto it. How big a part did chance play in it? and how much is chance or fortuitousness involved with any perfect KO?

I don't know if an accumulator is the best betting analogy (is it the same thing when you bet over several events over a year, rather than just horses at the same meet?) but surely Marquez benefited from at least a greater likelihood of landing the hail Mary with every round they fought. Then again Rahman never needed that or many others deemed as throwing a 'lucky' punch.

Maybe the right term is 'luckier punch' ?