Comments Thread For: Erik Morales Confirms Mayweather Rumor, Backs Marquez

[JJRod]

I hate the it wasn't me that night excuse

As a boxing fan for years, I have heard these excuses all the time from various boxers, and I just laugh everytime.
Why is it that when a fighter loses its because there was something wrong, or he didn't prepare well enough? Credit is never given to the opponent.

Yes Pacquiao did not look like his typical dominant self, but it had nothing to do with him, rather it had to do with his oppoenent. Marquez was the difference, he frustrated him and did not allow Pacquiao to look good.

This is no different than how many people were saying Marquez could not compete above 135 because he looked bad against Floyd. Not realizing he looked bad against Floyd because Floyd was just that much better than him, regardless of the weight.

Or my favorite excuse from Andre Berto. I wasn't myself, that wasn't me in there, blah blah blah. Yeah had nothing to do with Ortiz being bigger, stronger and better than you!

[waxfondler]

honestly... i think pac fought shook... he was scared to jump in and get some action. seeing a reluctant pacquiao was very disturbing.

getting countered never stopped pac from pressuring in the past... so why now??? to me, it seemed he respected jmm too much.... even katsidis was able to drop jmm by being aggressive. pac mightve made the same mistake diaz did in the rematch by trying to outbox jmm...

its as if to PROVE pac has "improved", but all pac needed to do from the start was bring the fight to jmm. bad strategy. nacho was right... an "improved" pacquiao is easier than an unpredictably dangerous "one-dimensional" pacquiao.

[juandabomb]

garbage fight!!!......mayweather vs martinez, thats the fight i want. if no pacman or maravilla then my third choice would be vs Berto.

[GoogleMe]

Well for a tune up, Morales in febuary would be ok.

[ManOnTheMoon]

wow if that fight happens, i'd be embarrassed to call myself a big boxing fan.

[Taylorslade]

I've been saying this for a while now after the second Pacquiao Vs Marquez fight and I still stand by it now ; Freddie Roach has obviously made great improvements with Pacquiao, we all know that. However, it doesn't matter how many changes Roach makes to Manny as far as Marquez is concerned, because Pacquiao makes certain mistakes which he will ALWAYS do, and these mistakes and movements are bread and butter for a fighter like Marquez who has such refined ring intelligence.

Other than what has already been talked about regarding the in-ring action of the fight, one of the things which Marquez used against Pacquiao to great effect was doubling up on the foot shift feints, and feinting immediatley after Pacquiao's come-forward attack bursts, which made Manny hold his feet for a crucial amount more than what he normally would've, and put him in prime position for Marquez's precise counter punches.

I have to say, that as far as fight odds and who was the favourite and underdog in this fight, this was one of the most ridiculous examples of that I have ever seen of a fight where one guy was an overwhelming favourite when he should not of been to that extent. Ever since the fight was announced, all I heard about was how Manny was going to destroy Marquez once and for all. Everytime I heard such crazyness, I shook my head.

Another thing I noticed which seems to be apparent, is that the vast majority of observers/writers etc who are now saying Pacquiao is fading and very much on the way out, they are the very same people who were heavily backing a devistating KO win for Pacquiao, and are now writing on their internet/print columns and blogs about how Manny "wasn't the Pacquiao we all came to love", in doing so taking a large amount of credit away from Marquez, sheerly because they haven't got the balls to admit that they made a massive error of judgement that they made using paper-thin reasons and arguments that had no real substance to them when looking at them properly. Everyone gets it wrong now and then when it comes to fight predictions, but considering that a lot of these writers get paid a decent living and front row seats to history, then you would think that they would be able to at least ; 1-admit when they are wrong....2-see the real facts and statistics that matter going into a fight and see it for what it really is.

Although I do not believe that you have to be an ex-fighter to really know the game properly, (although I myself had quite a decent and fairly extensive amateur background), but many people over the years have done great things in the sport despite never actually stepping between the ropes....but I definatley believe 100% that there is a major problem in boxing right now regarding a large amount of well-known people who appear on some very large news media outlets, and do not have any knowledge whatsoever about ring tactics, techniques, subtleties etc....and while it might not sound like such a problem on the surface, but it really is....because it can have serious consequences, one of the main ones being that there are FAR TOO MANY examples of fights being scored incorrectly , mainly due to the bull**** obsession that these uninformed people have with "the aggressor" , which more often than not boils down to a guy plodding forward for 12 rounds like a zombie. Two words guys ; "EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION".

That **** needs to stop.

[Pinoy4ever]

That fight won't happen period.

[rambov]

BS damage control. More bs

[boxingfan76]

As a boxing fan for years, I have heard these excuses all the time from various boxers, and I just laugh everytime.
Why is it that when a fighter loses its because there was something wrong, or he didn't prepare well enough? Credit is never given to the opponent.

Yes Pacquiao did not look like his typical dominant self, but it had nothing to do with him, rather it had to do with his oppoenent. Marquez was the difference, he frustrated him and did not allow Pacquiao to look good.

This is no different than how many people were saying Marquez could not compete above 135 because he looked bad against Floyd. Not realizing he looked bad against Floyd because Floyd was just that much better than him, regardless of the weight.

Or my favorite excuse from Andre Berto. I wasn't myself, that wasn't me in there, blah blah blah. Yeah had nothing to do with Ortiz being bigger, stronger and better than you!

great post man all these idiots are eating crow now from self proclaimed boxing experts writers to the most fanatical pac fans all we hear is manny this manny that,countless ridiculous excuses they wont say plainy and simply marquez is the better fighter of the 2 despite pac pretty much losing to him 3 fights in a row already,people need to use their common sense more,if pac is soo great why did he even have to fight this man 3 times??? because he keeps losing to him thats why! to me the only thing that even keeps pac in the conversation when it come to marquez is the knockdows nothing else because jmm just keeps beating manny this time it wasnt even close ,a draw my ass,it was a clearcut testament to how good Juan is.the only time Juan looked bad was against Mayweather and it stands clear now that guy is in a different class.
this marks the 3rd straight fight manny looks bad, the best Manny I saw was against cotto,and its clear those days are gone,he didnt look good against margs or mosley and jmm owned him,its safe to say pac is shopworn and dare I say is showing the signs of being shot at 32 its in his dna and genes by the time hes 35 hes gonna be totally shot like his brother bobby .pac simply over his long career aways got hit too cleanly and the effects are showing.

[Sin City]

Erik Morales is full of ****, Floyd said in an interview that those rumors about Floyd wanting to fight him was bull****.

or maybe it's Mayweather who's full of ****?..