Ronnie Nathanielsz Telling it how it is Exposing Pacquiao Video Inside

[fabie]

[QUOTE=PunchesNbuncheS;11441621]

No its for watching fights since the 70's and yet still somehow seeing the fight and not admitting that Pac clearly lost it!

That means that you have been watching fights for well over 30 damn years and you still dont know what you are looking at!

Actually hold up, before I get ahead of myself and assume things I need to ask............................................... ..........................

Who did you have winning the fight? (Please be honest and take nationalism or bias out of it)

3 things:

• it is a CONTROversial fight....controversial meant there's proponents on both sides - in short it isn't CLEAR. It is a toss-up. Just so happen the judges and many also see Pacquiao won. Many also saw Marquez won.

• Pacquiao losing "it"...this I agree, that "it" is a variable term and using it in the light that his skills/techniques/bravado weren't there to contend with the stylistic points of Marquez. Marquez did school Pacquiao...clearly, but the bout still goes to Pacquiao (in my humble eyes and the judges) because he simply landed more and more aggressive. Relatively.

• Marquez' prowess shows clearly. That is what is apparent to Pacquiao and to all of us.

[VaginaPuncher]

[QUOTE=fabie;11442309]

3 things:

• it is a CONTROversial fight....controversial meant there's proponents on both sides - in short it isn't CLEAR. It is a toss-up. Just so happen the judges and many also see Pacquiao won. Many also saw Marquez won.

• Pacquiao losing "it"...this I agree, that "it" is a variable term and using it in the light that his skills/techniques/bravado weren't there to contend with the stylistic points of Marquez. Marquez did school Pacquiao...clearly, but the bout still goes to Pacquiao (in my humble eyes and the judges) because he simply landed more and more aggressive. Relatively.

• Marquez' prowess shows clearly. That is what is apparent to Pacquiao and to all of us.

I like your post.
very neutral.
and I take it that you do see why many people think marquez won, right?

[tatangb45]

Nathannielz is not a true Filipno. He is a Sri Lankan who got a Filino citizenship courtesy of Marcos. He became a 'tuta', a Marcos puppy, and defended the regime vigorously. When Marcos was deposed, he immediately switched sides, earning another derogatory tag, 'BALIMBING', after the star fruit, meaning someone with many faces.
Sometime in 2004, he had a falling out with Manny. He became a ***** ever since.

[BoxingFollower]

Nathannielz is not a true Filipno. He is a Sri Lankan who got a Filino citizenship courtesy of Marcos. He became a 'tuta', a Marcos puppy, and defended the regime vigorously. When Marcos was deposed, he immediately switched sides, earning another derogatory tag, 'BALIMBING', after the star fruit, meaning someone with many faces.
Sometime in 2004, he had a falling out with Manny. He became a ***** ever since.

Why is he not a true Filipino?? Because he's not gonna lie and cover up for Manny?

[Tamis!]

Why is he not a true Filipino??

Coz he's Sri-Lankan. Damn!

[tatangb45]

Why is he not a true Filipino?? Because he's not gonna lie and cover up for Manny?

He got a citizenship through brown nosing. He is nothing more than an opportunist, a 'tuta' and a 'BALIMBING'.

[BoxingFollower]

SAD. So his opinion does not matter since he's not Filipino?? Or are Pacquiao fans gonna pretend that hes another BLACK boxing writer hating on Manny?

[tatangb45]

SAD. So his opinion does not matter since he's not Filipino?? Or are Pacquiao fans gonna pretend that hes another BLACK boxing writer hating on Manny?

His opinion is bs because the guy is an opportunist, a vengeful brown noser who was banished from Manny's circle.

[tatangb45]

SAD. So his opinion does not matter since he's not Filipino?? Or are Pacquiao fans gonna pretend that hes another BLACK boxing writer hating on Manny?

The *****s can have him. He certainly would fit easily with that crowd. They deserve each other.

[fabie]

[QUOTE=VaginaPuncher;11442340]

I like your post.
very neutral.
and I take it that you do see why many people think marquez won, right?

Thank you. Doesn't mean I am rooting for Pacquiao that I am a *******. THat is a derogatory term which I loathe and while I have never used the banter of *****S to others either.

I like Marquez likewise and it is foolish for Pacquiao fans to insult the boxer himself. My feelings are that it is perfectly natural for Marquez to feel that he beats Pacquiao.

I think that if there's a 15 round fight instead of the 12, he could have won because he already pinned down Pacquiao's tendencies. My only issue with Marquez is that he is much too defensive and as a counter-puncher vs Pacquiao that he often wait. His trainer Nacho telling him he is ahead must be non-literal but took it instead.

But Pacquiao was more active, notwithstanding his lackadaisical effort throughout the whole fight but he was tentative at best. He didn't want to open up for the fear of being countered. But there are flashes of his straight lefts and right hooks but not enough to do anything, but enough to win the fight barely.

So I don't think it is a UNANIMOUS DECISION, that's far too wide of a gap.

My hats off to Marquez but I don't think he did enough either. He was the challenger and could have rallied and go for broke in the latter rounds. I meant what does he have to lose other than getting "downed" by a tentative Pacquiao?

Marquez had Pacquiao where he wanted him...but not much effort so partly I would blame his trainer for not pushing it. Whereas with Pacquiao, I don't want him to use alibis either. Cramping or emotional strife due to his relationship with his wife cannot be used.

We all can see that he didn't want to risk and didn't really stage a big enough of an attack. He was complacent. In that light, I was really disappointed in his effort (or lack thereof) while giving much credit to Marquez that he had a lot do with Pacquiao's tentativeness.