Comments Thread For: Juan Manuel Marquez Says Retirement is Tempting

[samouraļ]

Stop crying b1tch. You and your pac-stain friends are welcome to sit around in your little hut excitedly discussing Pacquiao's great win over Marquez in the third fight..... I just feel sorry for all of the people who lost their water-bottles

Every single fighter who was interviewed said that Marquez won, including Khan and Chavez.

Ronnie Nathanielz and Ben Delgado said that Marquez won.

You had to be an ignorant fanboy to sc**** together 4 rounds for Pac in that fight, I struggled to give him 3..... that was a clear-cut decision, unless you had pac-jizz in your eyes.

Damn pumpkin, you really do love the rough stuff huh? With all the material I'm giving you, they'll have to use a power-hose to get you all cleaned up.

Hey moron, explain what you meant when you posted this dribble.....

" 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 "

Go into detail, and use big words, we all want to know what you meant.

What point were you trying to make when you posted that dribble in a conversation concerning Juan Manuel Marquez?

It's just about the existence of chance in boxing. You seem to want to argue that everything happens exactly the way it did because it had to, whereas I understand that there is a certain amount of chance that determines the outcomes of boxing matches. That's not to say Marquez doesn't deserve credit for the KO at all. The fact that he's such a great fighter helps his chances immensely, I'm merely saying that Pacquiao isn't going to get KO'd every time he steps in the ring with him. That's where the discussion of other sports came in.

Number one poker player in the world loses to number 3. Number one tennis player loses to number 100. You can take that to mean Marquez is number one (or if that offends you, Mayweather), it doesn't matter. I merely am making the point that there is room for more than one outcome. You take the insane view that there isn't: that Marquez and Pacquiao could fight 100 times, and because Marquez is better, he would win all 100 times. If I have to point out the insanity of this idea to you, I'd imagine you have to wear a helmet around the house.

To further clarify, I'm not saying Marquez has a puncher's chance to beat Pacquiao. If you read some of my other post-fight posts, in one I argued against a guy saying Pacquiao lost because "Marquez isn't a bum". Yeah, he's not only not a bum, he's a goddamned master. Having this long ****** argument trying to make me look like I think Marquez got lucky is completely missing my point. It's not my fault if I think more about things than you do, and appreciate more in-depth analysis of what goes on.

So, a couple for you: if Marquez and Pacquiao fight 100 times, does JMM win all 100?

That Marquez never knocked down or KO'd Pacquiao before, following your logic means he couldn't have done it. Did Saturday not really happen, or are you ready to stop letting me lawyer you and admit your logic is a contradiction in terms?

[stretchedout]

Damn pumpkin, you really do love the rough stuff huh? With all the material I'm giving you, they'll have to use a power-hose to get you all cleaned up.


It's just about the existence of chance in boxing. You seem to want to argue that everything happens exactly the way it did because it had to, whereas I understand that there is a certain amount of chance that determines the outcomes of boxing matches. That's not to say Marquez doesn't deserve credit for the KO at all. The fact that he's such a great fighter helps his chances immensely, I'm merely saying that Pacquiao isn't going to get KO'd every time he steps in the ring with him. That's where the discussion of other sports came in.

Number one poker player in the world loses to number 3. Number one tennis player loses to number 100. You can take that to mean Marquez is number one (or if that offends you, Mayweather), it doesn't matter. I merely am making the point that there is room for more than one outcome. You take the insane view that there isn't: that Marquez and Pacquiao could fight 100 times, and because Marquez is better, he would win all 100 times. If I have to point out the insanity of this idea to you, I'd imagine you have to wear a helmet around the house.

To further clarify, I'm not saying Marquez has a puncher's chance to beat Pacquiao. If you read some of my other post-fight posts, in one I argued against a guy saying Pacquiao lost because "Marquez isn't a bum". Yeah, he's not only not a bum, he's a goddamned master. Having this long ****** argument trying to make me look like I think Marquez got lucky is completely missing my point. It's not my fault if I think more about things than you do, and appreciate more in-depth analysis of what goes on.

So, a couple for you: if Marquez and Pacquiao fight 100 times, does JMM win all 100?

That Marquez never knocked down or KO'd Pacquiao before, following your logic means he couldn't have done it. Did Saturday not really happen, or are you ready to stop letting me lawyer you and admit your logic is a contradiction in terms?

Kid, for the THIRD time, stop whining like a b1tch, and answer the question....

What point were you trying to make when you posted the dribble below in a conversation concerning Juan Manuel Marquez?

" 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 "

How is that rubbish even slightly relevant ?

Explain to the forum the exact point that you were attempting to make.

[stretchedout]

Just another ignorant fanboy who has never laced em up in his life, attempting to peddle ridiculous pac dribble to an experienced boxing fan.

*** off kid, I'm sure you are that ADP02 idiot.

[samouraļ]

Kid, for the THIRD time, stop whining like a b1tch, and answer the question....

What point were you trying to make when you posted the dribble below in a conversation concerning Juan Manuel Marquez?

" 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 "

How is that rubbish even slightly relevant ?

Explain to the forum the exact point that you were attempting to make.

Its relevance is that JMM is being accused of landing a "lucky punch". The quote is regarding luck and chance in boxing. Period.

And the post above explains it you simpleton. What are you suggesting I meant? Tell me what you think I was suggesting and I'll set you straight with a simple "correct" or "wrong". I'll save you some time: if you're suggesting that I was driving at the idea that Marquez' only chance at winning was a puncher's chance, you're wrong. Obviously.

I'm not going to explain myself perfectly clearly 100 times and have you repost the same question simply because you're incapable of arguing with someone more intelligent than you and yet don't want to admit you lost.

Again, to you:

If Marquez and Pacquiao fight 100 times, does JMM win all 100?

That Marquez never knocked down or KO'd Pacquiao before, following your logic means he couldn't have done it. Did Saturday not really happen, or are you ready to stop letting me lawyer you and admit your logic is a contradiction in terms?

You're calling me out for accepting reality. You're calling me out because I don't think, as you do, that if they fought 100 times JMM would win 100/100 fights. You're living on another planet.

Here's a little trick for getting out of arguments you lost: just stop posting. Pretend you never saw my reply. Not many people will notice, and you can continue posting ******ed fanboy **** elsewhere whilst your mother bakes you fresh cookies every 30 ****ing minutes.

[samouraļ]

Just another ignorant fanboy who has never laced em up in his life, attempting to peddle ridiculous pac dribble to an experienced boxing fan.

*** off kid, I'm sure you are that ADP02 idiot.

Don't accuse me of being a fanboy when you are peddling the ridiculous idea that Juan Manuel Marquez would win 100/100 fights with Pacquiao because he's "got his number". You're riding his **** so hard my own ******* hurts.

My own personal opinion: out of 100 fights, JMM might win 60. Maybe 70, at most. I do think his style trumps Manny's most of the time, at least what Manny has tried in the past. Although Saturday he looked very fluid.

[stretchedout]

Its relevance is that JMM is being accused of landing a "lucky punch". The quote is regarding luck and chance in boxing. Period.

And the post above explains it you simpleton. What are you suggesting I meant? Tell me what you think I was suggesting and I'll set you straight with a simple "correct" or "wrong". I'll save you some time: if you're suggesting that I was driving at the idea that Marquez' only chance at winning was a puncher's chance, you're wrong. Obviously.

I'm not going to explain myself perfectly clearly 100 times and have you repost the same question simply because you're incapable of arguing with someone more intelligent than you and yet don't want to admit you lost.

Again, to you:


You're calling me out for accepting reality. You're calling me out because I don't think, as you do, that if they fought 100 times JMM would win 100/100 fights. You're living on another planet.

Here's a little trick for getting out of arguments you lost: just stop posting. Pretend you never saw my reply. Not many people will notice, and you can continue posting ******ed fanboy **** elsewhere whilst your mother bakes you fresh cookies every 30 ****ing minutes.

Sit down you arrogant little prat.

You sound like a mini-edgarg.

Both of you seriously over-rate yourselves.

Clown, your boy got stretched because Marquez has excellent timing and superb technique. Your numerous walls of dribble, and rambling stories about tennis and poker, also failed to address the fact that aside from being one of the best counter-punchers you will see, Marquez is also one of the best combination punchers of recent times.

Go and watch some vintage Marquez, because you dont seem to understand that he has mastered every punch in the book, and added a couple of his own. JMM has developed instincts and ring generalship that most fighters will never know, and one of those fighters happened to be standing across the ring from him last Saturday night.

BTW, in the 2 paragraphs above, did you notice something ?

Did you notice that they only mentioned one topic..... boxing !!

No silly percentages that were pulled from thin air, no ramblings about tennis and poker, no pointless questions or examples..... just boxing.

In case you hadn't noticed, you are in way over your head kid. You dont want to *** with me when it comes to boxing.

May I suggest that you take the following advice..... "just stop posting. Pretend you never saw my reply".... actually, I have a better idea..... you should just leave, because you clearly do not love the sport, you have no feel for the game whatsoever.

Your boy is done, and so are you.

When you started waffling about tennis and poker, and then posted a huge paragraph about " a lucky punch " whilst in the middle of a conversation about Juan Manuel Marquez - and then denied trying to insinuate the punch that destroyed Pacquiao was lucky - which means the fact that you decided to include that ridiculous paragraph into the conversation was completely pointless..... well, that made you look like an idiot.

Grow up kid, boxing is not a video-game.

And let me give you an example of one of your pointless, thoughtless, questions..... If Marquez and Pacquiao fight 100 times, does JMM win all 100?

If you had followed Pacquiao's career and had an understanding or passion for this sport you would know two things..... it is all about timing and the manipulation of advantages..... and you would also realise that there are many variables to match-making.

Age, weight, timing, contractual conditions, gloves, recent form, etc, etc.....

So..... outline all of the factors/conditions for each of these 100 fights, and I will consider replying to your pointless, thoughtless, question.

Actually, dont bother..... I wont reply, because you are done.

Once again, your boy got stretched because Marquez has excellent timing and superb technique..... and because he caught Pacquiao coming in.

Your boy is done, and so are you. Here, reminisce over this.....

[stretchedout]

Don't accuse me of being a fanboy when you are peddling the ridiculous idea that Juan Manuel Marquez would win 100/100 fights with Pacquiao because he's "got his number". You're riding his **** so hard my own ******* hurts.

My own personal opinion: out of 100 fights, JMM might win 60. Maybe 70, at most. I do think his style trumps Manny's most of the time, at least what Manny has tried in the past. Although Saturday he looked very fluid.

Grow up ****head.

Forget that ****** 100 analogy that you have childishly decided to latch onto.

Pacquiao has never beaten Marquez, because he cannot, end of story.

Grow up and deal with it kid.

Pacquiao cannot outbox Marquez, he cannot be overly-aggressive, he has never had a plan B, and he cannot make adjustments to his game.

Your boy is limited, Marquez is his nightmare, and you are done.

[samouraļ]

Sit down you arrogant little prat.

You sound like a mini-edgarg.

Both of you seriously over-rate yourselves.

Clown, your boy got stretched because Marquez has excellent timing and superb technique. Your numerous walls of dribble, and rambling stories about tennis and poker, also failed to address the fact that aside from being one of the best counter-punchers you will see, Marquez is also one of the best combination punchers of recent times.

Go and watch some vintage Marquez, because you dont seem to understand that he has mastered every punch in the book, and added a couple of his own. JMM has developed instincts and ring generalship that most fighters will never know, and one of those fighters happened to be standing across the ring from him last Saturday night.

BTW, in the 2 paragraphs above, did you notice something ?

Did you notice that they only mentioned one topic..... boxing !!

No silly percentages that were pulled from thin air, no ramblings about tennis and poker, no pointless questions or examples..... just boxing.

In case you hadn't noticed, you are in way over your head kid. You dont want to *** with me when it comes to boxing.

May I suggest that you take the following advice..... "just stop posting. Pretend you never saw my reply".... actually, I have a better idea..... you should just leave, because you clearly do not love the sport, you have no feel for the game whatsoever.

Your boy is done, and so are you.

When you started waffling about tennis and poker, and then posted a huge paragraph about " a lucky punch " whilst in the middle of a conversation about Juan Manuel Marquez - and then denied trying to insinuate the punch that destroyed Pacquiao was lucky - which means the fact that you decided to include that ridiculous paragraph into the conversation was completely pointless..... well, that made you look like an idiot.

Grow up kid, boxing is not a video-game.

And let me give you an example of one of your pointless, thoughtless, questions..... If Marquez and Pacquiao fight 100 times, does JMM win all 100?

If you had followed Pacquiao's career and had an understanding or passion for this sport you would know two things..... it is all about timing and the manipulation of advantages..... and you would also realise that there are many variables to match-making.

Age, weight, timing, contractual conditions, gloves, recent form, etc, etc.....

So..... outline all of the factors/conditions for each of these 100 fights, and I will consider replying to your pointless, thoughtless, question.

Actually, dont bother..... I wont reply, because you are done.

Once again, your boy got stretched because Marquez has excellent timing and superb technique..... and because he caught Pacquiao coming in.

Your boy is done, and so are you. Here, reminisce over this.....

Do you sit here and actually feel your brain limiting the depth of your thought, or do you not notice it? I'm fascinated by your case.

You don't seem to realize that every goddamned thing you said I could have said as well: that Marquez is a brilliant fighter. You have no argument and don't even seem to even understand where you are, who you're arguing against, or why you disagree with me. You are failing so hard that you have to go on this long rant about how great Marquez is, when I could have said it for you:


^That's a comment of mine *****. Does a year ago sound familiar?

You colossal ****tard, wow. I can't imagine how you're dealing with all of this ass-whipping. Has your head overheated yet?

And god damn, apparently I have to spoon-feed you even the easiest of questions, and make little airplane sounds to make you giggle as I shove the spoon into your little chubby face. Let's see how I can put this so even you can't possibly **** it up. Ugh:

Pretend there were 99 exact replicas of Pacquiao and 99 exact replicas of Marquez (jesus, why do you make me post **** like this just because you can't understand or respond to a basic premise you ****ing ******?). All 100 are primed and ready to go, and on one night, they all fought each other. How Many Marquez's would be victorious? All 100? For ****'s sake.

The fact that you thought I meant "what would happen if they fought until they were in the 70s, fighting once a year up to 100" makes you seriously, seriously clinically ******ed. I can diagnose you right here over the internet. I have the credentials, hell, everybody does.

[junior gong]

Just another ignorant fanboy who has never laced em up in his life, attempting to peddle ridiculous pac dribble to an experienced boxing fan.

*** off kid, I'm sure you are that ADP02 idiot.

I detect a bumsniffing floydiot alt. ^^^

[Alx.]

he had a good run and chased away his demons, guess he's tired of drinking piss too