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

[nathan_nall]

In the 2nd grade, Derek Beatty and I played the first of many hands of "Go Fish" and that s.o.b. beat me every time. One day... a Tuesday if I recall... I finally beat him. Wouldn't you know I never played him again? I wouldn't go near a deck of cards... If I never went near a deck of cards, I could always wag my finger and say "nah nah nah nah nah nah... I beat you"... which I still do to this day.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

In the 2nd grade, Derek Beatty and I played the first of many hands of "Go Fish" and that s.o.b. beat me every time. One day... a Tuesday if I recall... I finally beat him. Wouldn't you know I never played him again? I wouldn't go near a deck of cards... If I never went near a deck of cards, I could always wag my finger and say "nah nah nah nah nah nah... I beat you"... which I still do to this day.

Bad analogy.

What you should have said is that you played Derek Beatty every day and each game was so close, that nobody could decide a winner. Then one day, you just destroyed him with no controversy.

Then you decided (and rightfully so) that you won the trilogy with a great win. No need to keep playing over and over when you won.

[T18Z]

Bad analogy.

What you should have said is that you played Derek Beatty every day and each game was so close, that nobody could decide a winner. Then one day, you just destroyed him with no controversy.

Then you decided (and rightfully so) that you won the trilogy with a great win. No need to keep playing over and over when you won.

No controversy? You mean Marquez down on the scorecards, close to be knocked out previously and Pacquaio landing 55% OF HIS POWER SHOTS in the previous 2 rounds? That's definitely controversy, don't try to argue different.

You also don't win a triology by winning in a spectacular way, if you lose 3 close fights, you still lost 3 close fights, imagine fighting 100 times, and 99 of them you lost, and 1 you win via KO, it doesn't make the 99 loses ignored... only ignorant posters erase Pacquaios wins over Marquez.

3-0-1 is the score, Pacquaio wins the trilogy, let's leave it there.

[SceneSpectator!]

When JMM wins big against Pac, I have big respect to him! That respect should forever if JMM retired right after that fight for reason of his age, and no one could question him. But if he chose to be active and he refuse fighting Pac for 5th time for reason he was satisfied with his big win, is simply cheap word! Win is good but another big win will top then all but JMM apprehensive that this won’t happen to him. But to tell he will cherish that victory for life and will not let Pac to re-take it, will forfeit all my respect to him! Because that tantamount as fear of losing because only him knows how high or low the level of his competition to Pac, and this a clear admittance that his win was a fluke! If he is confident enough that he could dispose Pac because he is better than him, then there’s no reason not to fight him for the 5th time, and a big win for him for a 5th time will finally close their book of competitions! Just one more win JMM, and that’s all we are asking! But to decline a 5th fight with variety of excuses will explain everything he fears to Pac!

[bojangles1987]

No controversy? You mean Marquez down on the scorecards, close to be knocked out previously and Pacquaio landing 55% OF HIS POWER SHOTS in the previous 2 rounds? That's definitely controversy, don't try to argue different.

If Pacquiao had been stopped on a cut this scenario would be controversial. He was knocked out cold. Absolutely nothing controversial about a fighter down on the scorecards knocking his opponent out.

[T18Z]

If Pacquiao had been stopped on a cut this scenario would be controversial. He was knocked out cold. Absolutely nothing controversial about a fighter down on the scorecards knocking his opponent out.

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.

[bojangles1987]

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.

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.

[ailicec]

3 years more of waiting IF Marquez grants Pac thr rematch.

So if Marquez knockouts Pacquiao in the last 2 seconds of the 1st fight in the 1st round delusional Pac fans will say that Marquez was on his way to getting knocked out after he was knocked down 3 times and was profusely bleeding from the nose. WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THEN!!!!!! EXPLAIN the difference? Can't, I didn't think so. THANK YOU!!

[The Big Dunn]

Bad analogy.

What you should have said is that you played Derek Beatty every day and each game was so close, that nobody could decide a winner. Then one day, you just destroyed him with no controversy.

Then you decided (and rightfully so) that you won the trilogy with a great win. No need to keep playing over and over when you won.

you should of added before you beat him he only decided to play with you again after miguel Beatty refused to play go fiish with him using a deck with only 45 cards.

[The Big Dunn]

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.

NSB-where a fighter that loses by KO-a KO in which he is out cold for 5-10 minutes-and the resut is called controversial.