I find it idiotic sometimes when I see these types of discussions. Here's a boxer called Pacquiao who many say he's a come-forward, one-dimensional, easy-to-hit, not improving amateurish boxer. And here are these idiots expecting him to display superhuman skills. On the other side, they never expect the opposite on his opponent, who they say is highly skilled, won all the previous fights.
Pac, for example, dominated Mosley. Idiots say that wasn't enough. The amateurish Pacman was expected to cut-off the ring to murk huge Mosley with a wingspan several inches longer than midget Pac. Pacman is the champ and they still treat him as the challenger who had to do all these superhuman feats and at the same time expect his opponents to just stay there and do less. Funny part was Pac DID act like a challenger in the Mosley fight in some of the rounds by staying in one spot, bob and weave ONLY because he can't move due to leg cramps as he admitted in the post fight interview. The audience was booing. Mosley was too terrified to come in even though he is bigger, has longer reach. Pacman had to do something. Otherwise, nothing will happen.
JMM is just one of those guys who does better than expected and gets unwarranted credit for just "looking good".
TBH Erik Morales showed the world how to beat Pacquiao and if you compare that to what Marquez did the 3rd fight, you would realize why JMM lost and why he will never beat Manny.
People say the judges were biased/bought off but fail to realize that a guy like Dave Moretti actually scored Morales over Pacquiao....giving the fight to Erik Morales, so why would he be biased towards Manny in the third fight against Marquez?
Also, Manny outlanded Marquez in every round except 1 (8th round) and had a higher connect percentage in power punches (43%).
Even thought it is known fights are judge off of compubox, it does confirm why the judges gave the fight to Pacquiao, which is that he landed more and was the one pressing the action.
FWIW, the second fight would have been a draw if it weren't for the KD, and the first fight was one in which Manny should have won if it weren't for that judging error.
People say the judges were biased/bought off but fail to realize that a guy like Dave Moretti actually scored Morales over Pacquiao....giving the fight to Erik Morales, so why would he be biased towards Manny in the third fight against Marquez?
Also, Manny outlanded Marquez in every round except 1 (8th round) and had a higher connect percentage in power punches (43%).
Even thought it is known fights are judge off of compubox, it does confirm why the judges gave the fight to Pacquiao, which is that he landed more and was the one pressing the action.
FWIW, the second fight would have been a draw if it weren't for the KD, and the first fight was one in which Manny should have won if it weren't for that judging error.
excellent analysis, the judges have had their say and they believe pacquiao won all 3
taking the word of all the haters over the judges is like respecting the advice of a 2 year old over a doctor.
marquez face looked like **** and pacs was untouched except for a headbutt. not that that is the only criteria for judging fights, but it does prove that pac was landing more effective punches
but i suppose the haters will just continue with the "marquez was controlling the tempo" argument...ya he controlled the tempo by getting punched in the face more often than pac..and by backpedalling for about 85% of the fight
also good point on questioning the integrity of judges like glenn trowbridge and dave moretti - who are 2 of the most respected judges in the business
Comment