One would have to beat a champion convincingly....

[VaginaPuncher]

That's one of those baloney axioms like "he knows how to win." It doesn't mean anything. And even if it did mean something, Marquez DID win convincingly god dammit.

it's just pac-tards' last resort of justifying a nonexistent win for pacquiao

[BennyST]

So explain why Marquez didn't get the decision in the second fight? He was the champion with Pac the challenger and yet it was Marquez that won more convincingly than Pac but still didn't get the decision.

[vacon04]

For me Marquez convincingly won last night ... he gave a masterful performance

[letsgobrady]

most people thought marquez won covincingly but of course it seems you have to scrap your counterpunching style even if it is winning you the fight and become more aggressive or you get no credit

[-Kev-]

Thanks for clearing that up bro.

Bro, JMM had to win all 12 rounds, just to get a draw.

[RisAri0]

It was a draw at best....not convincing for both fighters at all...but since Manny's the champ one would have to out point him which wasn't the case from a statistical standpoint.

[Kris Silver]

I think this saying is just that, a saying and bollox. If it's a a guideline for any org than it shouldn't be.

If someone "wins" a sporting event, no matter how closely, they win. Period. You don't get called a loser for "not winning by enough". Crock of *****e.

[Spray_resistant]

....in order to take the title from him. Hasn't this always been the case tho?

The moment the champ steps in the ring and the bell rings the title is as much his as it is the challengers, he has to do just as well to keep it but yeah JMM convinced me.

[VaginaPuncher]

The moment the champ steps in the ring and the bell rings the title is as much his as it is the challengers, he has to do just as well to keep it but yeah JMM convinced me.

I agree to this.

[BigStereotype]

Bro, JMM had to win all 12 rounds, just to get a draw.

I remember that. I still have that pic saved on my computer haha