If you want the belt, you need to take it, not leave it in the hands of the judges

[15rounder]

This whining by Marquez fans is getting old real fast. I seriously think they've been pacing their bedrooms at night and sacrifice small animals to their alter of Marquez before they go to work in the morning. Both of these guys were way too cautious in this fight. They beat the hell out of eachother for 24 rounds previously and both of their goals were to first, not get caught, then attack, when previously, it was the other way around. Marquez and Beristain aren't stupid people. They had to know that a close decision wasn't going to go their way. The close rounds were going to go to Manny. Every boxing fan in the world knew that. Marquez has himself to blame. He had his chances and the rounds that Marquez won, he won more decisively than the rounds that Manny won. I don't think Manny is necessarily on the decline. I believe he knew too much about Marquez and that's what made him cautious. That style is made to fight someone like Manny. All the credit to Marquez for a good fight, but if you want the belt, leave no doubt. Don't depend on 3 strangers to give it to you. Pacs previous opponents weren't people he had actually been in the ring with before so he came out super aggresive. This cautious thing is for the birds and something I don't think he'll do again. That being said, I'm 100% convinced now that it's Bob Arum that is holding up this fight. I'm tired of it. I do think this fight will come off though. Before the end of 2012.

[:::PSL:::]

The strong evidence of that was in the 12th round. JMM didn't come out blazing with both guns. You don't be conservative in a championship round especially when you're the challenger. But it wasn't JMM's entire fault. He was just following Beristain's advice.

[FinitoElDinamita]

[Chino]

Is it part of the official boxing rules to say that the popular boxer doesn’t have to do much to win but the challenger has to jump through hoops to win?

I can understand Pac’s embarrassment of his very own performance. He and his team were sure they were going to totally destroy JMM and look what happened. The older smaller guy who had to go up more than 10 pounds to face him and lose speed, punch, legs, stamina, etc. ended up in controversy once again.

3 fights already and Pac can’t still “beat” JMM. It only took Floyd one fight to beat every single round to a victory vs JMM.

[chris6878]

I agree. Too bad the 99 percenters on this site will not agree. They scream jmm was robbed as if he knocked PAC down. They both had good rounds. They both landed punches. Neither one of them were hurt. So of course the #1 pfp in the world will win. Just like u said and I have said previously. Jmm didn't want to take the belt. Round 12 he should have went H.A.M but he didn't. If they fight again, which I hope not, he better attack and knock PAC ass out. I doubt he will do that cause we know the outcome that will cause.

[:::PSL:::]

Is it part of the official boxing rules to say that the popular boxer doesn’t have to do much to win but the challenger has to jump through hoops to win?

I can understand Pac’s embarrassment of his very own performance. He and his team were sure they were going to totally destroy JMM and look what happened. The older smaller guy who had to go up more than 10 pounds to face him and lose speed, punch, legs, stamina, etc. ended up in controversy once again.

3 fights already and Pac can’t still “beat” JMM. It only took Floyd one fight to beat every single round to a victory vs JMM.

You're missing the point. Clearly, JMM only wanted to win by points. He didn't really show any sign of enthusiasm of winning the final round. He basically waited for the clock to run out.

[15rounder]

Is it part of the official boxing rules to say that the popular boxer doesn’t have to do much to win but the challenger has to jump through hoops to win?

I can understand Pac’s embarrassment of his very own performance. He and his team were sure they were going to totally destroy JMM and look what happened. The older smaller guy who had to go up more than 10 pounds to face him and lose speed, punch, legs, stamina, etc. ended up in controversy once again.

3 fights already and Pac can’t still “beat” JMM. It only took Floyd one fight to beat every single round to a victory vs JMM.

While I agree with your post, especially the last 2 sentences, you can't judge how manny would do against Floyd by how they both did against Marquez. As discussed on saddo many times, just because boxer a beats boxer b and boxer b beats boxer c, doesn't necessarily mean boxer a can beat boxer c. if that were the case, manny did much better against Delahoya, Hatton, and arguably Shane mosely because he knocked him down (this is debateable though). Case and point...Ali, Foreman, Frazier. Roy Jones, Antonio Tarver, Eric Harding. I could go on and on. I just think Manny needs to quit with this cautious crap. Floyd lets himself get backed up against the ropes. Marquez doesn't. That was Marquez's first fight at that weight and Floyd came in heavier. But I digress. Solid post sir.

[15rounder]

Looks like i stepped on a nerve here. You do know that Marquez doesn't crap gold and fart roses don't you?

[Majesty]

You have to "take" the belt, is the same misconception that fans put on fighters the same way they put "he fought like a champion" in front of when someone gets knocked out when they are ahead because they stood and traded.


Just because you are the champion shouldn't give you a special benefit if you lose. The belt shouldn't even be a deciding factor. Whether you lost 7 rounds to 5 or were knocked out you should still lose regardless of whether you have the belt or not.

A Champion shouldn't get a special benefit against the challenger, if the mentality is the champion can fight at 60% speed and still retain and the challenger has to fight 150% to take it from him is dumb and if that's the mentality judges have then we'll see many more robberies of close fights just because someone is the champion. Do we want to see that continue to happen in boxing?

[LobowolfXXX]

That stuff about "have to take the title" does describe the way some judges misscore fights; however, it's patently improper. Boxing commissions have specific, enumerated criteria on which to base the scoring of each round. "If it's a close round, give it to the champion" is not one of them.

[FinitoElDinamita]

You have to "take" the belt, is the same misconception that fans put on fighters the same way they put "he fought like a champion" in front of when someone gets knocked out when they are ahead because they stood and traded.


Just because you are the champion shouldn't give you a special benefit if you lose. The belt shouldn't even be a deciding factor. Whether you lost 7 rounds to 5 or were knocked out you should still lose regardless of whether you have the belt or not.

A Champion shouldn't get a special benefit against the challenger, if the mentality is the champion can fight at 60% speed and still retain and the challenger has to fight 150% to take it from him is dumb and if that's the mentality judges have then we'll see many more robberies of close fights just because someone is the champion. Do we want to see that continue to happen in boxing?

Well said.. ^^^ that's boxing 101

[miron_lang]

THe thread title is not the main contention of those who gave most of the close rounds to Pac.

the FF are as per my understanding :

1. Juan Manuel Marquez exclusively fought moving backward waiting for Pacquiao, I did not see a combo that didnt come off Pacquiao launching attacks and being countered. This gives JMM a big advantage in landing shots because he's the guy waiting setting traps and Pac obliged in being the agressor. If JMM did not get tagged while landing those combos then it should be a dominant win for him


2. Eye catching blows obviously will always come from Juan. Why? since Pac's head would always snap given that he is moving forward while JMM would sometimes appeared to have dodged some combos while he was actually got tagged because he was moving backward. 1 head snapping shot is just counted that. one shot.


3. Even rounds should be given to the fighter moving forward. why? because he initiates action for without action it would be a boring fight and everybody loses.

[Majesty]

THe thread title is not the main contention of those who gave most of the close rounds to Pac.

the FF are as per my understanding :

1. Juan Manuel Marquez exclusively fought moving backward waiting for Pacquiao, I did not see a combo that didnt come off Pacquiao launching attacks and being countered. This gives JMM a big advantage in landing shots because he's the guy waiting setting traps and Pac obliged in being the agressor. If JMM did not get tagged while landing those combos then it should be a dominant win for him


2. Eye catching blows obviously will always come from Juan. Why? since Pac's head would always snap given that he is moving forward while JMM would sometimes appeared to have dodged some combos while he was actually got tagged because he was moving backward. 1 head snapping shot is just counted that. one shot.


3. Even rounds should be given to the fighter moving forward. why? because he initiates action for without action it would be a boring fight and everybody loses.

But when did the official criteria of scoring a round devolve from effective aggressiveness...to just aggressiveness?

[15rounder]

You have to "take" the belt, is the same misconception that fans put on fighters the same way they put "he fought like a champion" in front of when someone gets knocked out when they are ahead because they stood and traded.


Just because you are the champion shouldn't give you a special benefit if you lose. The belt shouldn't even be a deciding factor. Whether you lost 7 rounds to 5 or were knocked out you should still lose regardless of whether you have the belt or not.

A Champion shouldn't get a special benefit against the challenger, if the mentality is the champion can fight at 60% speed and still retain and the challenger has to fight 150% to take it from him is dumb and if that's the mentality judges have then we'll see many more robberies of close fights just because someone is the champion. Do we want to see that continue to happen in boxing?

I didn't say it was necessarily the right thing. But I do think that if you want that belt you should leave absolutely no doubts at all. While I think Marquez fought a better fight over all, there were PLENTY of close rounds. Again, he had to know that the close one were going to go to Pac. Unless you've got a knockdown or two, you should NEVER go into the last 2 rounds, especially as the challenger, thinking you've got a big enough lead and can hang back a little. That suprised me the most. Marquez is a smart fighter. Beristain for the most part, is a smart trainer. But one of the most ill advised moves ive seen in a title fight by a trainer. DONT EVER TELL YOUR FIGHTER HES WINNING WHEN YOU KNOW ITS A CLOSE FIGHT. If marquez brings pressure in the last 2 rounds, this may be a different story. But i do think you have to bring it harder if you're the challenger. You do have to win more decisively. You need to earn that belt decisively. A close fight 90% of the time is going to be scored for the title holder. I'm not saying it's the right thing or the wrong thing. It just is. You can't challenge for a title with the mentality "i'm coming to fight to not lose". You're mentality needs to be to win. Neither one of those fighters had that mentality that night.

[Rantcatrat]

Did Baristain really tell Marquez that he was way ahead and not to fight hard? Because it would seem to me that Marquez has come up short (rightly or wrongly) in three other fights, two against Pacquiao and one against John. Thus, that would be the worst possibly advice to give him even if he was up on the cards. Right?