Marquez was able to control the tempo of the fight against Pacquiao while Khan was not able to do the same in his fight with Peterson. You have to also take into the fact that Khan got with nearly 230 punches and had to had to blatantly foul to keep Peterson off of him. Marquez didn't do either of those things.
Who was more deserving of a win? Khan or JMM?
Collapse
-
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
Posts like this are hardly worth replying to. The choice is like chosing between Scylla and Charybdis. Neither fighter deserves this choice because they both lost. Khan lost more obviously than Marquez, looking like Oscar in the last 5 rds of his fight with Trinidad. It would have been worse if he hadn't been strong-arming Peterson right through the fight, with only 2 points taken, although I think the second point is controversial only because it's not certain if it was because of another strong-arm push, or the uppercut with which he followed it. I can't rrecall if the ref called a break there. Peterson's body atrack was SOLID.
As for Marquez, he boxed very well, but constantly on the retreat, and why he looked good it was because his was often the last punch ending an exchange. However he so blatantly and deliberately stepped on and pinned down Pacquiao's foot,(preventing him from balancing properly or getting away) when he delivered some of his best combinations, makes him, as far as I'm concerned, just as "foul-happy" as Khan. I was astonished to see that in the last rd, he actually stepped WITH his foot on top of Pacquiao's for at least 2 paces.
And got away with it.....
They were both good fights for the spectators.Comment
-
-
Comment