Where does everyone have J.M Marquez in their P4P ratings?

[C-Lo]

I voted 2 just behind Calzaghe but i find it hard to put him infront of Hopkins so

1. Joe
2. Hopkins
3. JMM

No Pac?

I don't think GAME has Pac in his top 10...

[pacfan]

I said that if Marquez beat Casamayor, I'd put him on the top, p4p. Though I regretted it later (who'd think Joel will go out with one punch, just like that), promise is a promise, so he's, with a heavy heart, my no.1 p4p guy. I'm whispering here though, lest Saddoboxer catches me. Of course, if pac beats dela Hoya, he'll get back the p4p title, but since that ain't happening I guess Marquez will be there for a long while, at least until his next fight...

[XaduBoxer]

I said that if Marquez beat Casamayor, I'd put him on the top, p4p. Though I regretted it later (who'd think Joel will go out with one punch, just like that), promise is a promise, so he's, with a heavy heart, my no.1 p4p guy. I'm whispering here though, lest Saddoboxer catches me. Of course, if pac beats dela Hoya, he'll get back the p4p title, but since that ain't happening I guess Marquez will be there for a long while, at least until his next fight...

That's your opinion Mr. pacfan, we respect that... But that's a minority opinion here... Mostly have JMM as no. 3...

[GAME]

I voted 2 just behind Calzaghe but i find it hard to put him infront of Hopkins so

1. Joe
2. Hopkins
3. JMM

No Pac?

I don't think GAME has Pac in his top 10...

You will have Pac as your number 1 even after he loses to Oscar cuz he is your National treasure

[C-Lo]

No Pac?

I don't think GAME has Pac in his top 10...

You will have Pac as your number 1 even after he loses to Oscar cuz he is your National treasure

Regardless, when you post about other things I give you MAD respect but when it comes to anything about Pac you refuse to give him credit because of some of his fans. That's just ridiculous. I don't like Joe Calzaghe and always root against him but I can't deny his skills and legacy, you are just on another level on your hate...

Do you honestly think he isn't top 3 pound for pound? Not as a Pacquiao fan but as a boxing fan it makes me question your judgement.

[Kev]

Number 3

He's a terrific fighter but a draw and a loss to Manny,a loss to Chris John and wins over Barrera, Juarez and Casamayor isn't a Calzaghe beating resume

Bilbo have you seen the Chris John fight ? that was a robbery JMM won that quite comfortably by atleast 3 rounds.

So not only do we not pay attention to world title trinket belts anymore but even the actual oficial fight results arn't important either?

If he lost the fight he lost he lost the fight. If he got robbed or not it still counts as a loss and you can't count it as a win.

For what's it worth I've not seen the Chris John fight.

I've only seen highlights of the first Pacqiaio fight, actually watched the whole fight but I wasn't paying enough attention to score it, but it seems the general consensus was that he won most of the rounds after getting out the first.

His rematch with Pacquaio I didn't score rbr but I had the impression it was a very very close fight that Manny was lucky to win seeing as Marquez was the champ, although as nobody regards the belts as worth a damn any more it's a bit rich that some people insist you still have to 'beat the champ' whilst not acknowledging the belt that makes him a champ in the first place!

But I do feel that young, media friendly, income generating fighters tend to always do better with the judges.

I mean Manny against Marquez, Calzaghe against Hopkins, Dawson against Johnson, Hatton against Collazo, Taylor against Hopkins in all cases in these very close fights it does seem that the more box office friendly fighter with the commercial appeal seems to be favoured. Even Casamayor's win over Santa Cruz, there was no doubt that the boxing world wanted Casamayor vs Juan Diaz at that time and Santa Cruz wouldn't have been a popular winner.

Not saying any of these decisions were 'wrong' well aprt from the Santa Cruz robbery but sometimes in hindsight there almost seems like a sense of inevitability about the scoring.


Still just becuase you don't agree with a result doesn't mean you can change it

[ICB]

Number 3

He's a terrific fighter but a draw and a loss to Manny,a loss to Chris John and wins over Barrera, Juarez and Casamayor isn't a Calzaghe beating resume

Bilbo have you seen the Chris John fight ? that was a robbery JMM won that quite comfortably by atleast 3 rounds.

So not only do we not pay attention to world title trinket belts anymore but even the actual oficial fight results arn't important either?

If he lost the fight he lost he lost the fight. If he got robbed or not it still counts as a loss and you can't count it as a win.

For what's it worth I've not seen the Chris John fight.

I've only seen highlights of the first Pacqiaio fight, actually watched the whole fight but I wasn't paying enough attention to score it, but it seems the general consensus was that he won most of the rounds after getting out the first.

His rematch with Pacquaio I didn't score rbr but I had the impression it was a very very close fight that Manny was lucky to win seeing as Marquez was the champ, although as nobody regards the belts as worth a damn any more it's a bit rich that some people insist you still have to 'beat the champ' whilst not acknowledging the belt that makes him a champ in the first place!

But I do feel that young, media friendly, income generating fighters tend to always do better with the judges.

I mean Manny against Marquez, Calzaghe against Hopkins, Dawson against Johnson, Hatton against Collazo, Taylor against Hopkins in all cases in these very close fights it does seem that the more box office friendly fighter with the commercial appeal seems to be favoured. Even Casamayor's win over Santa Cruz, there was no doubt that the boxing world wanted Casamayor vs Juan Diaz at that time and Santa Cruz wouldn't have been a popular winner.

Not saying any of these decisions were 'wrong' well aprt from the Santa Cruz robbery but sometimes in hindsight there almost seems like a sense of inevitability about the scoring.


Still just becuase you don't agree with a result doesn't mean you can change it

Bilbo no offense here but i think you actually need to watch the fight first, before you make a comment on it. It was a robbery and its widely regarded as a robbery, if you want the fight just tell me. And i'll PM you the fight.

[Kev]

Bilbo have you seen the Chris John fight ? that was a robbery JMM won that quite comfortably by atleast 3 rounds.

So not only do we not pay attention to world title trinket belts anymore but even the actual oficial fight results arn't important either?

If he lost the fight he lost he lost the fight. If he got robbed or not it still counts as a loss and you can't count it as a win.

For what's it worth I've not seen the Chris John fight.

I've only seen highlights of the first Pacqiaio fight, actually watched the whole fight but I wasn't paying enough attention to score it, but it seems the general consensus was that he won most of the rounds after getting out the first.

His rematch with Pacquaio I didn't score rbr but I had the impression it was a very very close fight that Manny was lucky to win seeing as Marquez was the champ, although as nobody regards the belts as worth a damn any more it's a bit rich that some people insist you still have to 'beat the champ' whilst not acknowledging the belt that makes him a champ in the first place!

But I do feel that young, media friendly, income generating fighters tend to always do better with the judges.

I mean Manny against Marquez, Calzaghe against Hopkins, Dawson against Johnson, Hatton against Collazo, Taylor against Hopkins in all cases in these very close fights it does seem that the more box office friendly fighter with the commercial appeal seems to be favoured. Even Casamayor's win over Santa Cruz, there was no doubt that the boxing world wanted Casamayor vs Juan Diaz at that time and Santa Cruz wouldn't have been a popular winner.

Not saying any of these decisions were 'wrong' well aprt from the Santa Cruz robbery but sometimes in hindsight there almost seems like a sense of inevitability about the scoring.


Still just becuase you don't agree with a result doesn't mean you can change it

Bilbo no offense here but i think you actually need to watch the fight first, before you make a comment on it. It was a robbery and its widely regarded as a robbery, if you want the fight just tell me. And i'll PM you the fight.

But whether it was a robbery or not is completely irrelevent regarding where you put him in the p4p list. It's still a loss deserved or not.

When Marquez beat Casamayor he became the Ring champ. Now personally I don't believe Marquez deserves to be at number 1 at lightweight seeing as he lost to Pacquaio the fight before and Casamayor in no way deserved to be the linear champ after he was completely dominated by Santa Cruz.

But as much as Casamayor lost that fight, and I've never met a single person who thinks he beat Santa Cruz, he still remained the linear champ and so Marquez is the Ring champ at lightweight.

That's just the way it goes.

So even if I do watch the fight and agree he was robbed I'd still not put him above Calzaghe on the rankings becuase he officially lost.

For what it's worth if Calzaghe had not got the decision over Hopkins I'd have put Hopkins above Joe on the p4p rankings too.

[Spicoli]

JMM at #2 with super-mighty Pac at #1 .Honestly,I hate P4P rankings,all very subjective,etc.

[ICB]

So not only do we not pay attention to world title trinket belts anymore but even the actual oficial fight results arn't important either?

If he lost the fight he lost he lost the fight. If he got robbed or not it still counts as a loss and you can't count it as a win.

For what's it worth I've not seen the Chris John fight.

I've only seen highlights of the first Pacqiaio fight, actually watched the whole fight but I wasn't paying enough attention to score it, but it seems the general consensus was that he won most of the rounds after getting out the first.

His rematch with Pacquaio I didn't score rbr but I had the impression it was a very very close fight that Manny was lucky to win seeing as Marquez was the champ, although as nobody regards the belts as worth a damn any more it's a bit rich that some people insist you still have to 'beat the champ' whilst not acknowledging the belt that makes him a champ in the first place!

But I do feel that young, media friendly, income generating fighters tend to always do better with the judges.

I mean Manny against Marquez, Calzaghe against Hopkins, Dawson against Johnson, Hatton against Collazo, Taylor against Hopkins in all cases in these very close fights it does seem that the more box office friendly fighter with the commercial appeal seems to be favoured. Even Casamayor's win over Santa Cruz, there was no doubt that the boxing world wanted Casamayor vs Juan Diaz at that time and Santa Cruz wouldn't have been a popular winner.

Not saying any of these decisions were 'wrong' well aprt from the Santa Cruz robbery but sometimes in hindsight there almost seems like a sense of inevitability about the scoring.


Still just becuase you don't agree with a result doesn't mean you can change it

Bilbo no offense here but i think you actually need to watch the fight first, before you make a comment on it. It was a robbery and its widely regarded as a robbery, if you want the fight just tell me. And i'll PM you the fight.

But whether it was a robbery or not is completely irrelevent regarding where you put him in the p4p list. It's still a loss deserved or not.

When Marquez beat Casamayor he became the Ring champ. Now personally I don't believe Marquez deserves to be at number 1 at lightweight seeing as he lost to Pacquaio the fight before and Casamayor in no way deserved to be the linear champ after he was completely dominated by Santa Cruz.

But as much as Casamayor lost that fight, and I've never met a single person who thinks he beat Santa Cruz, he still remained the linear champ and so Marquez is the Ring champ at lightweight.

That's just the way it goes.

So even if I do watch the fight and agree he was robbed I'd still not put him above Calzaghe on the rankings becuase he officially lost.

For what it's worth if Calzaghe had not got the decision over Hopkins I'd have put Hopkins above Joe on the p4p rankings too.

Bilbo i have a different opinion to you regarding P4P lists, i think there just a bit of fun and shouldn't be taken too seriously. But if i think a certain fighter won a fight that the record books say he lost, i don't care what the record books say.

I will still for certain say he won the fight, and that will certainly be the difference regarding where i rank that certain fighter on my P4P list.

Just like i do when im rating the all time fighters, i think Pernell Whitaker should only have one loss on his record so i rate him in the top 10.

Where as i rate Muhammad Ali out of the top 10 because i think he atleast lost 9 fights.

P4P lists are all very subjective alot of things come into it like skills/opposition/title defenses ETC. To be honest it does my head in at times mate, so i try not to take it too serious.

[brucelee]

No Pac?

I don't think GAME has Pac in his top 10...

You will have Pac as your number 1 even after he loses to Oscar cuz he is your National treasure

.... and you would not put PAc anywhere in top ten coz you're a tool....


Here we go again GAME.... have you taken your medication this time?

I thought you were already back in your sane self....

[brucelee]

Bilbo have you seen the Chris John fight ? that was a robbery JMM won that quite comfortably by atleast 3 rounds.

So not only do we not pay attention to world title trinket belts anymore but even the actual oficial fight results arn't important either?

If he lost the fight he lost he lost the fight. If he got robbed or not it still counts as a loss and you can't count it as a win.

For what's it worth I've not seen the Chris John fight.

I've only seen highlights of the first Pacqiaio fight, actually watched the whole fight but I wasn't paying enough attention to score it, but it seems the general consensus was that he won most of the rounds after getting out the first.

His rematch with Pacquaio I didn't score rbr but I had the impression it was a very very close fight that Manny was lucky to win seeing as Marquez was the champ, although as nobody regards the belts as worth a damn any more it's a bit rich that some people insist you still have to 'beat the champ' whilst not acknowledging the belt that makes him a champ in the first place!

But I do feel that young, media friendly, income generating fighters tend to always do better with the judges.

I mean Manny against Marquez, Calzaghe against Hopkins, Dawson against Johnson, Hatton against Collazo, Taylor against Hopkins in all cases in these very close fights it does seem that the more box office friendly fighter with the commercial appeal seems to be favoured. Even Casamayor's win over Santa Cruz, there was no doubt that the boxing world wanted Casamayor vs Juan Diaz at that time and Santa Cruz wouldn't have been a popular winner.

Not saying any of these decisions were 'wrong' well aprt from the Santa Cruz robbery but sometimes in hindsight there almost seems like a sense of inevitability about the scoring.


Still just becuase you don't agree with a result doesn't mean you can change it

Bilbo no offense here but i think you actually need to watch the fight first, before you make a comment on it. It was a robbery and its widely regarded as a robbery, if you want the fight just tell me. And i'll PM you the fight.

Robbery?? I have the videos of the two fights. First fight it was apt to be judged as draw. I even think Pac got it because he had shown to be the stronger fighter during the first fight. 3 knockdowns in the first.

Second fight, scored it for PAC. No question about it. Pac won by 1 round. So very close that biases would come into play.

I posted my round by round score somewhere. Can't dig it now.


as to JMM's p4p ranking, he would top three behind Calzaghe.

[CutMeMick]

1. Pac
2. JMM
3. Joe

[Dark Lord Al]

I voted 2 just behind Calzaghe but i find it hard to put him infront of Hopkins so

1. Joe
2. Hopkins
3. JMM

No Pac?

I find it hard to rate Pac above JMM cuz I think he lost twice to him . If we are rating on records though then Id have to go with what the judges say in which case yeah Pac would be up there

Not really valid as lots of people have Calzaghe losing to both Robin Ried and Hopkins.

[GAME]

No Pac?

I find it hard to rate Pac above JMM cuz I think he lost twice to him . If we are rating on records though then Id have to go with what the judges say in which case yeah Pac would be up there

Not really valid as lots of people have Calzaghe losing to both Robin Ried and Hopkins.

I dont . And thats what I base my p4p listings on . My opinion . Not other peoples. I dont need judges telling me that Marquez didnt beat Pac twice cuz I saw it with my own eyes

Bruce Lee- Lets see what faggy excuses you come up with in December. I hope its a painful loss