Comments Thread For: Juan Manuel Marquez Says Retirement is Tempting

[BrokenHat]

Well there is luck in boxing, as in every sport, but its a fine line obviously. A line that I don't think JMM crossed. He meant to hit PAC with that shot, and he did. One could argue, PAC was unlucky since there was only a second left on the clock, but then again, one could argue PAC was lucky more time wasn't on the clock. Just the way the game goes.

And JMM definitely knows this would be the absolute best time to go out on top, but why hasn't he announced his retirement yet? Because he knows he has the potential to get his biggest paycheck by far, for PAC JMM 5. Another 20 million or so dollars, before you retire, is a huge incentive to come back for another one. Remember, JMM isn't going to earn any more money once he retires.

If I had to guess, I'd say JMM comes back for one more if the money is right. Although, its possible he doesn't want to bother with all the ped accusations and possibility of losing the final battle with PAC.

[ddangerous]

Although I would LOVE to see a fifth fight now, I would retire if I was Juan.

[throbk1974]

he should only take the 5th fight, if he gets the bigger chunk of the purse

[ncruzpr]

I think he owes Pacquiao another shot if Pacquiao wants it...Pacquiao gave Marrquez three chances to beat him. Its only right for Marquez to give Pacquiao a chance to avenge his loss.

[JokerOfAces]

He'll never top what he did on on saturday

If hes happy being 1-2-1 against Pac than he should retire

LMAO!!! PETITION???!!!! YOU BUTT HURT LITTLE *****!!!

No really, was your father not man enough to teach you
to accept defeat as a man? You are behaving like a woman.

Excuse me, women accept defeat better. Pathetic *******.

Bless you humble Pac fans. These are the kind of idiots that
make us despise pac fans.

[twosweethooks]

I think it would be good of JMM that if Pac "WANTED" a 5th fight then he should give it to him

as

Pac gave JMM """"3""" more fights and made the last when he didn't have to.

JMM was a great fighter before he scrambled Pacs mind with that one great shot , he put those huge shoulders he built into that punch , he put all the world of hard work into that shot, he actually deserves to be called at this very moment the P4P best

why

because he fought the best at the moment

[JokerOfAces]

It's heart warming how all these haters and alts suddenly have all this concern for Pac's health when it comes to #5.

It really is. I mean if the fans will throw out their
idol to pits of hell to fight the devil himself. WARQUEZ!!!

If his fans don't give a ****. Some one has to take care
of that poor man. Someone stated before. Marquez has
just been doing better every time. Do you want Pacquiao
to die in a 5th? No need for it little pinoy girl.

[JokerOfAces]

He'll probably be President of the Philippines.

If Marquez (1-2-1) don't want to even the series than he should retire

LMAO. I think this business is handled partner.
Even if it was not even, that knock out of Plankiao
completely evened up and out did anything Pac
did in his last 3 fights. This was more devastating
than what he did to Hatton.

[HeroBando]

It really is. I mean if the fans will throw out their
idol to pits of hell to fight the devil himself. WARQUEZ!!!

If his fans don't give a ****. Some one has to take care
of that poor man. Someone stated before. Marquez has
just been doing better every time. Do you want Pacquiao
to die in a 5th? No need for it little pinoy girl.

another well wishing alt

[stretchedout]

It's hard to believe someone like you can wake up in the morning and even get your own pants on by yourself. You're saying that I insinuated that "Pacquiao is a better fighter" - ignoring the fact that I had Marquez winning their third fight clearly, and had picked him to win the fourth?

You are reading way, way too much into the Nadal analogy. For one thing, if you're saying that I am equating Nadal with Pacquiao, that would mean I'm equating Marquez with an unknown, barely-ranked player like Lukáš Rosol? Get the **** out of here. I had him winning their third fight, and picked him to win this one. Clearly you're the one not understanding.

Then explain your ridiculous Nadal theory.

What point were you trying to make exactly ?

This'll be funny.....

Yes - do you care to debate me on this point? Tell me, if I'm the world's best poker player, and I play a game of poker and do everything right to the best of my abilities, and I still lose, what has happened? Is the man who beat me better? And before your ******ed brain takes that to mean "Pacquiao's the best poker player in the world" or some ****, that's not what I'm saying. The point is that yes, there is a certain amount of "luck", if that's what you want to call it, in any sport or even life in general. If you want to debate that you're denying reality.

So you are comparing boxing with poker now ?

What happened to tennis ?

Stick with something you know kid, because boxing clearly aint your game.

For instance: what if Pacquiao never did that careless move and left him self so open? What if despite being completely capable of such recklessness, Pacquiao simply "forgot" to make such a mistake in the fight, thus never getting laid out?

He got laid out twice clownboy.

And you can rely on Pacquiao to make mistakes, Marquez has been capitalizing on them for the last 8 years

You imbecile. The quote that you accuse me of saying Marquez has a "puncher's chance" in came after I already explained myself:

Then why mention it at all dumbarse ?

How the fuk does a paragraph full of whiney dribble about " a punchers chance " belong in a conversation regarding Juan Manuel Marquez? That was as stupid as your tennis theory.

Neither or those topics were relevant or appropriate.

From the LAST post:


Understand yet? Your ability to argue is severely underdeveloped for someone so keen on doing it. Let's set the record straight *******: Juan Manuel Marquez did not have a mere "puncher's chance" to beat Pacquiao. He's not ****ing Randall Bailey.

Then why did you write 2x paragraphs full of silly nonsense about tennis and "a punchers chance"? How were either of those two subjects even relevant in a conversation discussing Marquez?

Stop back-tracking kid. Explain why you included the following dribble in a conversation about Marquez.....

" " For the record, Floyd himself has alluded to the old "puncher's chance". It's fairly well understood that it exists, and although I generally frown upon reducing it to such an unimpressive sounding phenomenon, it's worth noting that even one of the most technically skilled boxers in the world knows it's out there, and that it comes flying at him every time he steps into the ring "

Explain why you typed that rubbish, how was that even relevant ?

Then you can justify why you attempted to tie that punchers chance rubbish to Marquez.

Everyone has a "chance". In boxing, because it's different than other sports, it's probably pretty unlikely that a severely under-skilled fighter could defeat a much better fighter by accidentally "schooling" him all night. So a puncher's chance is one of the most reasonable to acknowledge exists. However, Paulie Malignaggi generally can be considered not to have one since he's so feather-fisted.

Explain to me why you included a paragraph of rubbish concerning "a punchers chance" in the middle of a conversation about Juan Manuel Marquez?

Or were you referring to Pacquiao ?

Obviously not, because he dont even have a punchers chance with Marquez.

The point is that dramatic **** happens in boxing. The whole point in watching is that unexpected **** like this can happen. Almost no one predicted JMM would literally knock Pacquiao the **** out to where he's lying face down on the canvas for two minutes. That's coming from me, someone who figured he would win but not like that.


You're just a denier of reality. How did Lukáš Rosol beat Nadal? He's definitely not a better tennis player. He was better that day, at the very most.

We're talking about two very evenly-matched but vastly different fighters. That's it. If you are seriously suggesting that Marquez, who was getting sparked before he turned it around, is somehow incapable of losing because the Universe has it written somewhere that he's just plain better, you're insane.

Marquez had never even knocked Manny down. Does that mean "Marquez can't even knock Manny down"? Clearly, no. Explain how your logic is any better than this.


Do you know what etcetera means?

Call mommy in to put your pants on, and then go downstairs. She's got your chocolate happy-faced pancakes all ready for you.

What the fuk were you thinking when you typed the following 2 paragraphs. Explain that to this forum please.....

There is a certain amount of luck in boxing, just as there is in really everything else that is competitive. The world's best poker player can lose to the world's second best, or fifth best, or 7th best. Nadal can lose to a player who was ranked 100th in the world, Lukáš Rosol. This doesn't mean Lukáš Rosol is better than Nadal, it means that things worked in his favor that day, or his style was beneficial to him in that matchup.

If a fighter has 0.01% chance of winning, yeah, he's effectively got "no chance" if we're talking like normal humans should. A punch can be "lucky", and Pacquiao could have gotten "lucky" earlier in an alternate universe. That we're not living in a perfect world where everything has a set outcome is my point, and that's what makes boxing in particular so fascinating. For the record, Floyd himself has alluded to the old "puncher's chance". It's fairly well understood that it exists, and although I generally frown upon reducing it to such an unimpressive sounding phenomenon, it's worth noting that even one of the most technically skilled boxers in the world knows it's out there, and that it comes flying at him every time he steps into the ring.

Fool, how were those two paragraphs even relevant, and how on earth could you direct that rubbish toward Marquez.

Please god, let the moronic pac-dribble stop.