Comments Thread For: Marquez: Only a Close Win Could Have Made Pacquiao 5

[The Big Dunn]

How is nothing controversial about that? It was not the KO cold which was controversial, it was the fact Pacquaio was the one who was actually outboxing Marquez, which is not usually the case. Pacquaio was up 2 points (assuming the round ended), then take into consideration Marquez physical state, it was a controversial way of victory, because it leaves a what if moment clear in peoples minds.

Giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement. That is the definition of controversial. Now if everyone thought Marquez would knock Pacquaio out again in fight 5, you'd have no controversy, but you do, because as I see it people still give Pacquaio a strong chance of winning, because of how he performed in that fight - public disagreement - controversial.

John Tate v Mike Weaver 1978 or so. Weaver wins RD 1 then loses the next 13 rounds. In the 15th, he knocks Tate out cold. All these year later, I never knew I was watching a controversial fight.

I thought Hatton won round 1 and was winning rd 2 when he fought Manny. Should they rematch. because, after all, the fight is clearly controversial.

[T18Z]

Hundreds of fighters have outboxed their opponent and been knocked out while winning on the cards. There's nothing the least bit controversial about it. No incorrect interpretation of the rules, no shady decision, no cut that Pacquiao was stopped because of, no quick count or stoppage. He was knocked out cold. Not controversial at all.

Hundreds of fighters have been robbed too, just because it's happened numerous times doesn't make it non-controversial, the same applies. I linked you the definition, and applied it directly to the topic, you seem to think the term controversial is reserved for essentially illegal acts, robberies and cuts alone, when it isn't. Controversial implies a public disagreement, and there is clearly a public disagreement (as far as can be seen) on if Marquez could repeat his method of victory, and on Pacquaios chances of winning - it's that simple.

Also Dunn: die in a viscous fire.

[Phantomas]

It´s finished business as Pac´s shirt said that night.

[T18Z]

John Tate v Mike Weaver 1978 or so. Weaver wins RD 1 then loses the next 13 rounds. In the 15th, he knocks Tate out cold. All these year later, I never knew I was watching a controversial fight.

I thought Hatton won round 1 and was winning rd 2 when he fought Manny. Should they rematch. because, after all, the fight is clearly controversial.

If you would like other posters to use different words, specifically not controversial, then say so, but stop ignoring the definition of the word in favor of your view. By definition the scenario I said was controversial, now if you think a better word could be used, fine, go ahead, MY RESPONSE was to the person who said it wasn't controversial.

Here's some help:
Synonyms of controversial
debatable - contentious - moot - argumentative - arguable

[bojangles1987]

Hundreds of fighters have been robbed too, just because it's happened numerous times doesn't make it non-controversial, the same applies. I linked you the definition, and applied it directly to the topic, you seem to think the term controversial is reserved for essentially illegal acts, robberies and cuts alone, when it isn't. Controversial implies a public disagreement, and there is clearly a public disagreement (as far as can be seen) on if Marquez could repeat his method of victory, and on Pacquaios chances of winning - it's that simple.

Also Dunn: die in a viscous fire.

That doesn't make the result of Marquez-Pacquiao 4 controversial though. That makes the idea of a fifth fight controversial. If the controversy, the public disagreement, is about whether Marquez would do the same or Pacquiao would win a fifth fight, that doesn't make what already happened controversial.

Controversy over an official result should only come if there is something shady about the ref or judges, or some physical injury that forces an early stoppage like Vitali's injuries against Lewis and Byrd. Not if a fighter wins in a way that cannot be disputed or argued on that night.

[The Big Dunn]

Hundreds of fighters have been robbed too, just because it's happened numerous times doesn't make it non-controversial, the same applies. I linked you the definition, and applied it directly to the topic, you seem to think the term controversial is reserved for essentially illegal acts, robberies and cuts alone, when it isn't. Controversial implies a public disagreement, and there is clearly a public disagreement (as far as can be seen) on if Marquez could repeat his method of victory, and on Pacquaios chances of winning - it's that simple.

Also Dunn: die in a viscous fire.

Controversial implies a public disagreement, and there is clearly a public disagreement (as far as can be seen) on if Marquez could repeat his method of victory,

You can't be ****ing serious.

[Trebleclef05]

JMM is a little b**ch, but money talks so dont be surprised when he gives manny the rematch and then gets knocked the f**k out. He knows he won by a lucky knock out and thats why he doesnt want to fight again. a true champion isnt scared to put his belt on the line with anyone. Think about it.......if it would have been a close fight JMM would not have won anyway so its no wonder he would have signed on for a 5th. I know Bradley aint got punch but i sure hope he can outbox JMM. if JMM loses hes gonna want a rematch no doubt about it lol haha what a loser.

[solo20]

Hundreds of fighters have been robbed too, just because it's happened numerous times doesn't make it non-controversial, the same applies. I linked you the definition, and applied it directly to the topic, you seem to think the term controversial is reserved for essentially illegal acts, robberies and cuts alone, when it isn't. Controversial implies a public disagreement, and there is clearly a public disagreement (as far as can be seen) on if Marquez could repeat his method of victory, and on Pacquaios chances of winning - it's that simple.

Also Dunn: die in a viscous fire.

[The Big Dunn]

If you would like other posters to use different words, specifically not controversial, then say so, but stop ignoring the definition of the word in favor of your view. By definition the scenario I said was controversial, now if you think a better word could be used, fine, go ahead, MY RESPONSE was to the person who said it wasn't controversial.

Here's some help:
Synonyms of controversial
debatable - contentious - moot - argumentative - arguable

It isn't debatable that you are a ****sucking contentious idiot whose point is moot because you'd rather be an argumentative d!ckhead rather than admitting the truth- that Manny got KTFO and there was no controversy. This fact isn't arguable.

[bigcursedawg]

Marquez beat Manny in 2008, again in 2011, and then puts him to sleep in 2012. What else to people want him to do. The only thing left for Marquez to do is kill Pacquiao, he's just about covered all the bases at this point.