PAC vs Marquez (SLOW MO)

Manny's face looked bad because he let clottey hit him. WOW! you have to know the diff. Did Marquez let Pacquiao hit him? What's your round by round analysis? You probably gave the 4th round to marquez. Wow! Pac LET Clottey hit him. http://www.slamdunksetc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/mj-laughing.gif

come on now pac makes his opponents face swell due to a high volume of punches he lands watch margaritto, cotto, if u rewatch it u can see him landing a bunch of right hooks and left straights which u probably didnt see the first time u watch it because u expected too much from pac mannys face looked pretty bad after the clottey fight so do u feel clottey won that fight? what is this excuse of everyone expecting to much from pacquiao? was everyone expecting to much from pacquiao when he fought marquez the 2nd time? this 3rd fight looked like the 2nd fight and many people thought marquez won the 2nd fight

All I see is Marquez fighting scared and backing up the whole time. It's not being scared, it's called waiting for an opening and capitalising when they see an opportunity. Marquez got Pac out of his element and won the fight. It's nothing against Pacquiao, everyone has that one person that will always give them hell and let's not forget that JMM is a future HOFer

jmms defense was good - just look at his face at the end. wasnt busted up or anything. :/ WTF are you pactards talking about, JMM's face was un-blemished and clean as a whistle. While Pacquiao looked like he got hit with a mack truck thanks to: two black eyes a broken nose, jaw, and severe lacerations on his lips. http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/7020/07214.jpg Uploaded with ImageShack.us http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/7492/pacquiaomarqueztrilogy2.jpg Uploaded with ImageShack.us

this thread is dumb

All I see is Marquez fighting scared and backing up the whole time. i dont blame him for being scared of manny, but what happened to "im going for the ko"

All I see is Marquez fighting scared and backing up the whole time.

oh yea? watch this video, Pacquiao was landing clean effective straight lefts and right hooks what Marquez defense are you talking about? Pacquiao was blocking almost all of Marquez punches jmms defense was good - just look at his face at the end. wasnt busted up or anything. :/

No one is even stating that @sshat. My point is how valid can your judgement be when you can't even state which fighter won which round, let alone give a final score when asked who won that particular fight. Who won the fight? Fighter A "I thought Marquez won" Ok which rounds and what's your final score? Fighter A "I don't know as I really wasn't scoring the fight" haha, thing is either way i would have had pac winning in rounds, it was 8-4 for me. and if you just make a judgment at the end of the fight how it went overall, it was clear pacquiao beat up jmm.

Lederman>>>>>Haglar or any pro fighter. You see how easy that was? Lederman has scored 1000's of fights, how many have haglar and other fighters scored? With that said, I don't need anyone to help me form an opinion on things. BTW the part in bold has got me in tears.....lol. Funniest sh1t I heard all day. Dont forget yours truly check_hooks scored the fight for Pacquiao so thats all yall haters need to know

I prefer to take both into account. Marvin Hagler > the "slo-mo" analysis of some random jagoff sitting in a internet cafe in Cebu Lederman>>>>>Haglar or any pro fighter. You see how easy that was? Lederman has scored 1000's of fights, how many have haglar and other fighters scored? With that said, I don't need anyone to help me form an opinion on things. BTW the part in bold has got me in tears.....lol. Funniest sh1t I heard all day.

Just because you don't know exactly which round the fighter won, doesn't take away from the fact that they won it. Anyone that watches boxing consistently, knows how to tell who won and who loss without a scorecard in their hand. Hey boxingscene, if you can't tell me the exact rounds you thought your fighter won leading up to a decision (any fight), then you're wrong. It just proves if you were paying attention or not. And with how close of a fight that was.....you absolutely have to have a scorecard to judge a fight properly. SRL made a living off of people failing to do so, by leaving a lasting impressing with his last 30 second furies....leading people to believe he won the round as that's the last thing people saw. Again....with close fights and momentum shifts, you have to have a scorecard to properly gauge who won...other wise your just left with the last mental impression Fighter A left on you.

pacroid lost the fight...pactards gonna hate ...that's all they know how to do..cry and hate :lol1:

Yeah, the ringside press is there to just dick around, and not provide an analysis of the fight. :smashfrea Now if we are talking about those who sole job was to go and judge the fight live, they are obviously aren't the ones I was making reference to. If that's your argue, fine....we can actually debate that. None of that b.s. of what fans and ex-fighters had to say.

Great, from here on out, every fan/spectator that attends any future fight will have a scorecard in their hand. They are not allowed to voice their opinion on who they felt won the fight without showing their mandatory scorecard first. I love these new rules from the pacamaniacs. No one is even stating that @sshat. My point is how valid can your judgement be when you can't even state which fighter won which round, let alone give a final score when asked who won that particular fight. Who won the fight? Fighter A "I thought Marquez won" Ok which rounds and what's your final score? Fighter A "I don't know as I really wasn't scoring the fight"

So explain how only 1 out of 20 ringside observers that sat in press row and watched the fight live had Pacquiao winning? Combined with the fact that roughly 95% of the boxing community (ex-fighters, current fighters etc.) either scored the fight for Marquez, or had it a draw? Is it just some big giant conspiracy? Or is everybody just wrong? Except for a handful Pinoy trolls spread all over the internet (with their 100's & 100's of alts). Like I stated earlier, How many of those fans/spectators had score cards. I've been to several fights live and I can tell you that neither I nor anyone else is there trying to score a fight......rather just enjoying the event. FWIW I actually tried to score a fight live (Margarito vs Cotto) but to sit there and do such took away from the actual event.....so much I stopped doing that sh1t around the 3 or 4th round. And to answer your question.....it was all about the pre-fight expectations that skewed people's judgement. Morales vs Maidana is a similar case in which most thought Morales won because he did better than expected (El Terrible is my favorite fighter btw) but the truth is Maidana won and Erik's success was blew outta proportion due to people thinking he would get KTFO.

Clean punching Effective aggression Ring Generalship Defense Those are the four criteria to judge professinonal boxing fights. I don't think there's any doubt Márquez dominated RG and DEF on the vast majority of rounds. He dictated the pace and cleanly blocked most of Manny's punches. His defense was stellar, really. While Pac appeared to be the aggressor throughout the whole fight, Márquez was clearly the most effective one, landing the crispier, more damaging punches while missing on target less frequently. Manny´s only advantage would be on clean punching, even though a lot of his punches that were either innocuous or even phantom (can't believe some of the "shots" Lampley called). That's it. That's how you should score any professional prizefight. Based on these four criteria, anyone giving Many over six rounds just doesn't quite grasp this concept. The tie score was borderline fair. The 115 - 113 score was dumb, and the 116 - 112 score was downright embarassing. Those two cards were filled before the fight. Pacquiao lost, plain and simple, and Márquez was robbed of a much deserved decision because there was too much money to be lost otherwise. Any observer not invested (financially or emotionally) on Pacquiao knows as much.

so when they make replays of missed catches that can drastically change the game. it doesn't make sense? Who cares about your whining. Unfortunately, I rather have the right call then upset they f*cked up a big call. ^^why do you think they created instant replays. Football doesn't use cameras to influence the referee decision. That being said you're missing my point. I don't mind instant replays in those circumstances but it is being overused.

so when they make replays of missed catches that can drastically change the game. it doesn't make sense? Who cares about your whining. Unfortunately, I rather have the right call then upset they f*cked up a big call. ^^why do you think they created instant replays.

This is getting pathetic now, crap like this is what's killing not just boxing but all sports ''Watch it on slow mo''. Like every time I watch a football (soccer game), they bring these slow motion replays to show just how much a defender fked up by leaving too wide a gap and that crap. What happened to people making an assessment on what they see with their own unaided senses. F_ck.