MERGED: All About Pacquiao vs. Marquez III

[koontz_circle]

---

Hardly. More of overconfidence vs. paniguro. That only shows that in Beristain's assessment, they were dominating the fight which they clearly did not, huge tactical error here. Roach was more conservative in his assessment and that has an impact on how Pacquiao went out in the later rounds.

For sure, Marquez would have come out of his corner in a different way had Beristain told him the rounds were really close and he cant leave anything to chance. IMO, a corner should be more conservative in a way they assess a fight especially close contests.


Mexican audience? LOL...Of course these people know boxing except that it is judges who score the fight. Some of these people watched the fight again and have changed their opinions like Amir Khan and even some Mexican fans

Okay so if wala pa nisulti si Nacho nga “you’re winning the fight” ni Marquez.. that official 114-114, 115-113 could have been 116-112, 115-113! Provided that Marquez continued to pummel Pacquiao. We could have had Marquez winning the fight if wala pa nikompyansa right? If that how conservatism works for you then I guess Manny’s aggressiveness on round 11 and 12 saved his ass, even though na kulating sya ato nga rounds. hehehe

Amir Khan changed his opinion because Pacman is his boss. Mutual relationship matters, just like Filipino-Pacquiao relationship

[dhingarhdz]

please back read bro, I've mentioned earlier nga daugan ko sa pusta, my money was on DECISION table. I already enjoyed my winnings.

My point is, Pacquiao deserved to get the nod of judges and from loyal Pinoy fans like you. He's the humble fighter between the two. He's the title holder. He own the popularity arena. But he didn't win in the third fight with Marquez.

Ahw, daug man diay ka boss, nganu butthurt man ghapon ka na daug si Pacquiao, and for the record I'm not a fan of Pacquiao but a fan of boxing itself, AFAIK, Pacquiao was the champion, yet Pacquiao was the aggressor, Pacquiao landed more punches than JMM. If this wasn't a title fight, dili champion si Pacquiao ani, JMM would have won, or it could have been a draw, but sadly champion man si Pacquiao then si JMM cge lang ug counter punch, dili jud siya ka daug kung mag cge lang siya ug huwat nya mu counter punch lang, he must send Pacquiao to the canvass which all of us know is less likely to happen if ga cge lang siya ug counter punch.

[koontz_circle]

Ahw, daug man diay ka boss, nganu butthurt man ghapon ka na daug si Pacquiao, and for the record I'm not a fan of Pacquiao but a fan of boxing itself, AFAIK, Pacquiao was the champion, yet Pacquiao was the aggressor, Pacquiao landed more punches than JMM. If this wasn't a title fight, dili champion si Pacquiao ani, JMM would have won, or it could have been a draw, but sadly champion man si Pacquiao then si JMM cge lang ug counter punch, dili jud siya ka daug kung mag cge lang siya ug huwat nya mu counter punch lang, he must send Pacquiao to the canvass which all of us know is less likely to happen if ga cge lang siya ug counter punch.

"However, Pacquiao’s disputed win over Marquez pointed out he still has several significant flaws. He struggles against counterpunchers and he doesn’t do well backing up. He also often forgets to jab his way in." - Kevi Iole

[rics zalved]

mag 1 week na lang ni ugma ilang away wa gihapon nahuman diri...hehe...round 1 pa gihapon..hahaha

[thadzonline]

Okay so if wala pa nisulti si Nacho nga “you’re winning the fight” ni Marquez.. that official 114-114, 115-113 could have been 116-112, 115-113! Provided that Marquez continued to pummel Pacquiao. We could have had Marquez winning the fight if wala pa nikompyansa right? If that how conservatism works for you then I guess Manny’s aggressiveness on round 11 and 12 saved his ass, even though na kulating sya ato nga rounds. hehehe

Pacquiao nakulating sa 11th and 12th rounds? I'm now starting to wonder what fight you are watching nga klaro kaayo sa naked eye that in the 11th and 12th rounds si Pacquiao ang gadala sa dula, He did get tagged with some clean counters pero kung volume of punches ang basehan, klaro kaayo even with the naked eye nga mas daghan gibuhian si Pacquiao ani nga rounds. Kung wala mo kompyansa si Marquez ani nga rounds it would have been different, ang 114-114 mahimong 116-112 for Marquez, ang 115-113 mahimong 114-114 draw, ug ang 116-112 mahimong 115-113 for Pacquiao fight would have been a split draw. Kung iapil nimo nga mas ni aggressive si Marquez sa 10th round, the scores would have read 116-112, 115-113, 114-114 majority decision win in favor of Marquez. This goes to show Pacquiao won the fight in the last 3 rounds, that was how close it was.

Amir Khan changed his opinion because Pacman is his boss. Mutual relationship matters, just like Filipino-Pacquiao relationship

It's not just Amir Khan, Even Oscar Dela Hoya admitted that while he had Marquez winning by 2 he says it was a close fight and agrees it could have gone either way.

[dhingarhdz]

"However, Pacquiao’s disputed win over Marquez pointed out he still has several significant flaws. He struggles against counterpunchers and he doesn’t do well backing up. He also often forgets to jab his way in." - Kevi Iole

There's no perfect fighter man cguro, every fighter has his flaws and a rival na maglisod jud xa, same story with "Smokin" Joe Frazier vs Mohammed Ali. But if you really want to push your case about this fight na daug jud si Marquez, adto reklamo sa NSAC.

[thylene]

KADTONG MGA NAG TUO NGA SI MARQUEZ ANG NAKADAUG:
TAN-AW MU SA REPLAY in SLOW MOTION:

PACMAN vs MARQUEZ III in slow motion (para wala'y mag duda)
1-2 Dissecting Manny Pacquiao vs Juan Manuel Marquez 3rd Fight (Rounds 1 & 2) - YouTube
3-4 Dissecting Manny Pacquiao vs Juan Manuel Marquez 3rd Fight (Rounds 3 & 4) - YouTube
5-6 Dissecting Manny Pacquiao vs Juan Manuel Marquez 3rd Fight ( Rounds 5 & 6 ) - YouTube

[trax]

Pacquiao-Marquez III: Not a Robbery
Published: Nov 18 2011 by: Scott Levinson

In the wake of Pacquiao-Marquez III, many have called the fight a “robbery.” The outrage at the MGM was evident, as Marquez fans slung allegations of corruption. The anger is understandable to a certain degree.

After all, Marquez has fought Pacquiao 3 times in fights with little separation between the two and has scored zero victories. You can sense the anger about the two previous fights resonating in their protest about the third fight’s result. Their belief that Marquez deserved one of those fights is within reason. Is it right for Pacquiao to just so happen to get the nod in all those close fights? Maybe not.

But let’s not get carried away.


Credit: Chris Farina - Top Rank

It just sounds a little strange to hear people saying the fight is a robbery then quote their 115-113 scorecard in favor of Marquez. A refresher course in what constitutes a “robbery” might be in order Go watch Pernell Whitaker vs Julio Cesar Chavez or Lennox Lewis vs. Evander Holyfield I and you will see what a “robbery” is all about.

You can say that Marquez should have won. But a robbery? It does a disservice to those who have truly suffered robberies.

Is giving the benefit of the doubt to a mega-superstar something new? Did Marquez just stumble upon an unfortunate new phenomenon that began with the Pacquiao era? Just about every transcendent boxing star has been the beneficiary of this type of treatment. We can debate the merit of the unspoken rule in boxing which states that you must clearly beat “the man” to become “the man.” But it is a standard practice that was begun by men who are no longer with us. It’s part of the game--like it or not.

And it’s not as if the judges are even cognizant of this phenomenon. It’s subconscious to a large degree. You can’t expect boxing judges to be nonhuman and be able to look at Manny Pacquiao like he’s just some regular pug. He’s been the face of this sport for several years. That comes with a lot of spoils--one of them being that you get the benefit of the doubt from time to time.

And Marquez’ chief second Nacho Beristain should know this. Any late advice short of “put the petal to the metal” was highly inappropriate under those conditions. For the record, the only time when Marquez wasn’t losing the fight on the cards was after the 8th round, at which point the fight was a draw.

It’s also important for people to grasp the negligible difference in scorecards they like and dislike. Surely, no Marquez fan had much beef with 114-114, so how is 116-112 in favor of Pacquiao a scandalous card? That’s 2 rounds difference in a fight where many rounds were not conclusively won. It’s not 4 rounds difference--it’s 2 rounds.

Boxing doesn’t have a score on the board. Other than MMA, there is no other sport like it. If the fight doesn’t end by knockout, judges decide the outcome. There are judges in other sports, but they appraise solo performances against each other--not two people competing at the same time.

So it boils down to individual preferences. And in rounds where it is difficult to attribute clear superiority, there are a slew of factors that figure into the equation. Some of those standards might favor the bigger-name fighter, which might upset some.

But there can actually be a liability to possessing the identity of “the man” when fans judge fights. Fighters like Pacquiao are in the position they are in precisely because they are dominant fighters. Therefore, it becomes easy to allow the mind to equate a competitive fight to failure, in a sense. When you juxtapose the image of Pacquiao’s fight with Marquez with his recent run of one-sided beatdowns, the difference is vast. It could possibly make it look like Marquez was doing better than was actually the case.

And surely everyone at the fight saw the long odds against Marquez on the board. When you see a huge underdog doing much better than expected, the mind tends to go to a certain place. You see Marquez doing far better than expected, while Pacquiao is falling short of what was forecasted. That typical Pacquiao effervescence was flattened to a degree. This dynamic tends to give Marquez the vibe of a winner. That doesn’t necessarily mean he won the fight.

The pro-Marquez throng at the MGM was passionate. Galvanized by their unity and numbers, in addition to Marquez’ great showing, they were vociferous in their support of their fighter and in their protest of the decision. And Juan Manuel’s style was very conducive to eliciting the biggest response. A counterpunching marvel, Marquez was the last one to strike. He almost always landed the final punch of the exchanges, which left a more vivid image.

In a lot of those exchanges, Pacquiao would land several punches, only for Marquez to snap his head back and send his hair flying dramatically with a crisp counter. Marquez surely won his share of those exchanges. But a lot of Pacquiao’s punches were drowned out by Marquez’ more compelling and easier-to-see-and remember counter shots. If Pacquiao lands 3 so-so shots and takes a nice counter in return from Marquez, who really wins that particular exchange?

Unlike their first two meetings, Pacquiao failed to knock Marquez down. Disappointing as that might be to some, he did inflict some damage on Marquez. He lacked some of his normal flair, but he was assertive--landing jabs and punishing straight lefts. He was slightly more insistent than Marquez in certain rounds.

I can understand the angst. Marquez did about as well as he possibly could and it still wasn’t enough. When “Dinamita” asked, “What more can I do?” at the post-fight press conference, it was hard not to feel for him a little bit. Because there wasn’t much more that he could have done. That makes it almost seem like he’s in a no-win situation. As if the boxing establishment will deny a 38-year old lightweight a welterweight victory over the best fighter in the world in the face of anything less than domination. Marquez and his supporters are within their rights to loathe what seems like an un-winnable situation.

But a robbery? No. The amount of people thinking Pacquiao won makes it hard to say that. When robberies occur, you won’t be in the press room hearing a bunch of people having it a draw or a narrow win for the alleged benefactor of the alleged robbery. After Lewis-Holyfield I, there weren’t any people saying Holyfield should have won.

Not being a huge punchstat guy, I hesitate to use that as evidence. In this case, however, the fact that Pacquiao landed 38 more punches serves as another roadblock for people trying call this a robbery. As does the fact that Marquez threw only 436 punches--142 less than Pacquiao. Unless you pack big power, 36 thrown punches a round isn’t the typical workload of a “robbed” fighter.

So let’s not get carried away and try to project our opinions as universal truths. Those who feel Marquez won are more than reasonable in thinking that, but calling it a scandal is a less lucid stance than any scorecard handed in on Saturday night.

Source:Pacquiao-Marquez III: Not a Robbery | ProBoxing-Fans.com

[ravits]

pildi pakyaw oi klaro kaaus reaction after sa 12th round.. hasta pag announce kisa daog.. plastic kaaug reaction pagkibaw niya daog siya... ngano man lagi sauna after sa 12th round kay ngisi ngisi dayn nya alsahon dayns iya trainer... unsa may deperinsya sa last niya nga fight?

i like pacman. but i don't kiss his ass...

[thadzonline]

Pacland's Philippine Boxing Forum • View topic - ***Exposing Juan Manuel Marquez...***

Why do people want to see a Pacquiao vs Marquez fight?
Answer: To see who's the better man of the two.

But we've seen three fights already and what did we see?... right, the same thing over and over again. Why? Have either fighter made any changes to try to out do the other? As far as Pacquiao is concern, I believe and everyone else know for a fact that Manny improved a lot since their first fight. But How about Juan Manuel Marquez? I think he did as well but not that much. I think Marquez only improved a little especially on his head movement.

But how come despite the improvement on Manny compared to his other fights with other fighters, his fight with JMM always ends up almost the same? This is on the premise that our eyes are strictly focused on Pacquiao. But if we try to take a look at Marquez' fights and analyze, what do we see and notice that will give us clue on why their trilogy always ends up a close fight?

As far as Pacquiao's other fights are concern, I believe that we can all agree that he made a huge difference from before and now. Even when he fights JMM I think we can all agree that of the two, Pacquiao is the one who's really trying hard to make a difference to make something happen by being always the aggressor and initiating the action. Marquez on the other hand, if we compare his previous fights, I think the key to this enigma is his fight against a superb counter puncher Chris John. That fight was also a close fight and Chris John won a decision.

What does this mean? This means that Marquez is only effective against all forward all aggressive careless fighter. Because his style is merely to wait for his opponent to make mistake when coming forward. Other than that, when he encounters a superb and careful counter puncher like Chris John and Pacquiao, his ability to win with his style greatly diminishes. But usually ends up a close fight because of the nature of "play safe" kind of style. The only difference between Chris John and Pacquiao is that Pacquiao can also be a good attacker at the same time.

However, the reason why Pacquiao can't attack Marquez the way he do against other non-superb-counter punchers is because Marquez' combination of counter punches naturally neutralizes the combination of any attackers which therefore minimizes the effectiveness of any combination of any good attackers. This is why we always see Pacquiao ending up doing just single punching or 1-2 combination on Marquez.

This illusion makes people think that since Pacquiao can't do what he usually does against other fighters with Marquez, it makes Marquez like a great fighter because he seemed like the only guy who can give Pacquiao a close fight. But if we try to understand, what does Marquez do to really beat Pacquiao?... NOTHING. Against a careful counter puncher like Pacquiao and Chris John, he almost can't really do anything else unless his opponent tries to keep on coming forward so he can score.

Conclusion: Based on the above, this is the clear reason why no matter how many times both fighters (Pac vs JMM) fights, it will always be the same. As long as Marquez keeps being a counter puncher and does not decide to really engage Pacquiao head on, it will always be a close fight. Worse, I don't think Marquez will ever try to be an aggressor against Pacquiao, because he learned it the hard way in their 1st 2 fights that Pacquiao is so good a knock down artist that he can't afford to be knocked down again and lose. The best that Marquez can do is to make an illusion that he is the better fighter by just limiting Pacquiao's abilities to attack. But in reality, he can't do anything to really beat Pacquiao such as to KO him, knock him down, or clearly lopsidedly out punch him to make a difference. Marquez would always want a rematch only for the hopes that during the course of their fight, Pacquiao would make an amateur mistake. But Pacquiao is way past that level if he thinks Pacquiao will commit such kind of mistake.