Looks like the love between Golden Boy and Top Rank is short lived

[the wiz]

Tempers flare after Pacquiao-Marquez fight ends in split decision - Los Angeles Times


I'd love to see a rematch but I kind of agree with Arum here. If you give the rematch some time between fights it does create more of an interest. I think Marquez-Vazquez hurt their trilogy by fighting three in a row.

[eagle]

Tempers flare after Pacquiao-Marquez fight ends in split decision - Los Angeles Times


I'd love to see a rematch but I kind of agree with Arum here. If you give the rematch some time between fights it does create more of an interest. I think Marquez-Vazquez hurt their trilogy by fighting three in a row.

The problem with spreading out a trilogy is that one of the fighters loses to a lesser known oponent then that taints the last fight and makes it not as appealing to fans.

Example. If Pac fights David Diaz, and JMM fights Guzman. If either loses then the last fight wont make as much money cos Pac or JMM has lost to a little known opponent.

Make sense?

[the wiz]

Tempers flare after Pacquiao-Marquez fight ends in split decision - Los Angeles Times


I'd love to see a rematch but I kind of agree with Arum here. If you give the rematch some time between fights it does create more of an interest. I think Marquez-Vazquez hurt their trilogy by fighting three in a row.

The problem with spreading out a trilogy is that one of the fighters loses to a lesser known oponent then that taints the last fight and makes it not as appealing to fans.

Example. If Pac fights David Diaz, and JMM fights Guzman. If either loses then the last fight wont make as much money cos Pac or JMM has lost to a little known opponent.

Make sense?

I agree with you there, but take a look at probably the greatest trilogy recently: Morales vs Barrera

They way they did those three fights, it was spread out many years. I just think it helps build the fights. And I don't think Pac loses to Diaz or JM Marquez loses to Guzman, although the Guzman fight would be a good one.

[eagle]

Tempers flare after Pacquiao-Marquez fight ends in split decision - Los Angeles Times


I'd love to see a rematch but I kind of agree with Arum here. If you give the rematch some time between fights it does create more of an interest. I think Marquez-Vazquez hurt their trilogy by fighting three in a row.

The problem with spreading out a trilogy is that one of the fighters loses to a lesser known oponent then that taints the last fight and makes it not as appealing to fans.

Example. If Pac fights David Diaz, and JMM fights Guzman. If either loses then the last fight wont make as much money cos Pac or JMM has lost to a little known opponent.

Make sense?

I agree with you there, but take a look at probably the greatest trilogy recently: Morales vs Barrera

They way they did those three fights, it was spread out many years. I just think it helps build the fights. And I don't think Pac loses to Diaz or JM Marquez loses to Guzman, although the Guzman fight would be a good one.

On the otherhand i think R Marquez, Wazquez trilogy was btter than Morales v Barrera and they fought 3 in a row.

Morales v Pac is a good example. A lot of gloss was taken off their last two fights after Morales was beaten by Raheem. It showed he was on the decline.
Just my opinion.

[Kirkland Laing]

There's nothing to beat Barerra-Morales. The first B-M fight was better than the first two V-M fights put together.

I think that Bob Arum thinks that Diaz is an easier fight than Marquez again, who let's face it won both fights so far.

[albsur2006]

Tempers flare after Pacquiao-Marquez fight ends in split decision - Los Angeles Times


I'd love to see a rematch but I kind of agree with Arum here. If you give the rematch some time between fights it does create more of an interest. I think Marquez-Vazquez hurt their trilogy by fighting three in a row.

The problem with spreading out a trilogy is that one of the fighters loses to a lesser known oponent then that taints the last fight and makes it not as appealing to fans.

Example. If Pac fights David Diaz, and JMM fights Guzman. If either loses then the last fight wont make as much money cos Pac or JMM has lost to a little known opponent.

Make sense?

I don't agree about losing tainting the rematch. It's all about promotion. Look at the Morales-Pacquiao trilogy. Nobody seems to remember Morales getting his ass spanked by Zahir Raheem right before the first rematch with Pacquiao. The same people that were going to pay for the fight will still pay for the fight even if either fighter loses.

I think that there should a buildup card before a rematch though. For example, look at Pavlik-Taylor. The first match was a fight of the year candidate, people were still talking about that fight. Then the rematch happened four months later and it seemed like the rematch wasn't as big as the first match. The ticket sales were not good and the PPV numbers were below expectations (225K) considering how popular both Pavlik and JT are and how good the first fight was. It's because people were still tired from the first fight so the second fight coming so soon seemed sort of anticlimatic.

I think JMM should move to 135 if he wants the fight. Pacquiao already said no matter what happens he wants to move up. It's pretty obvious by gaining 16 pounds on fight night that he's killing himself to make that weight. He might say he's not, but he is. Putting on 16 pounds of body weight after weighing 129 means you are severly dehydrated. It would only be fair to Pac for JMM to move up.