Did Pacquiao not deserve at least 1 win against Marquez?

[BennyST]

1st for Pac, 2nd for Marquez every time.

[Jack Napier]

Pac clearly won the 1st 2 fights with piss drinker
the 1st was close on rds, but not on points due to the 3 KD's
2nd fight was even, but Pac stole it by a point via the 3rd rd KD
and the 3rd was a tossup, 6-6 or 7-5 either way at most
expectations skewed perception of what actually happened in fight 3
that was just an underdog doing better than the he was supposed to
no beef with anybody who thinks piss drinker edged a close one
but that "JMM dominated and was robbed" bullshit is laughable

[Strategic1]

PAC-JMM 1: 3 1st round knockdown were too much to come back from. Clear win for PAC. Errant scoring caused the draw as widely known. JMM came back with heart but the fact is scoring knockdown is part of boxing. JMM might've won most of the remaining rounds but not enough. PAC wins this.

PAC-JMM 2: Close fight. But based on the knockdown again, PAC wins. Workrate plus the 1 knockdown was the difference here. JMM being the challenger, doesn't help either.

PAC-JMM 3: Closest fight of them all. 50-50 fight. JMM landed more power punches. PAC had more activity and active workrate. JMM for strange reasons slowed down in the championship rounds. Again, JMM was the challenger and didn't do enough to win convincingly. Press row scored it very close. A draw here was more sensible than a PAC win. But at the same time, JMM didn't WIN this fight. Robbery, it was not. Only Mexicans and Floyd fans like to think that.

PAC-JMM 4: KO6.

JMM is the more technical, fundamental boxer. Probably has a slightly higher ring IQ and ability to adjust. But Pacquiao has the power, speed, awkwardness advantage (which allowed him to be more successful moving up in weights). In their primes, they were pretty even. I don't consider PAC-JMM 3 or 4 prime for either fighter. They were both past prime. JMM made progress in the 3rd and 4th fights, because PAC's wear and tear. PAC relies on his physical attributes more so than JMM. He slowed down just enough the last couple of years for JMM to time him.

JMM might've won 2 or 3 more rounds in the 42 rounds they fought. But PAC had those knockdowns.

Yes, I'm a PAC fan. But I think this is an objective look at the 2 fighters.

[2120]

PAC-JMM 1: 3 1st round knockdown were too much to come back from. Clear win for PAC. Errant scoring caused the draw as widely known. JMM came back with heart but the fact is scoring knockdown is part of boxing. JMM might've won most of the remaining rounds but not enough. PAC wins this.

PAC-JMM 2: Close fight. But based on the knockdown again, PAC wins. Workrate plus the 1 knockdown was the difference here. JMM being the challenger, doesn't help either.

PAC-JMM 3: Closest fight of them all. 50-50 fight. JMM landed more power punches. PAC had more activity and active workrate. JMM for strange reasons slowed down in the championship rounds. Again, JMM was the challenger and didn't do enough to win convincingly. Press row scored it very close. A draw here was more sensible than a PAC win. But at the same time, JMM didn't WIN this fight. Robbery, it was not. Only Mexicans like to think that.

PAC-JMM 4: KO6.

JMM is the more technical, fundamental boxer. Probably has a slightly higher ring IQ and ability to adjust. But Pacquiao has the power, speed, awkwardness advantage (which allowed him to be more successful moving up in weights). In their primes, they were pretty even. I don't consider PAC-JMM 3 or 4 prime for either fighter. They were both past prime. JMM made progress in the 3rd and 4th fights, because PAC's wear and tear. PAC relies on his physical attributes more so than JMM. He slowed down just enough the last couple of years for JMM to time him.

JMM might've won 2 or 3 more rounds in the 42 rounds they fought. But PAC had those knockdowns.

Yes, I'm a PAC fan. But I think this is an objective look at the 2 fighters.

Marquez won the 1st fight

the same judge that scored the first round 10-7 for pac also so scored the 6th round for pac. so he gave the point back. Their is no conceivable way that pac won the 6th round in the the first fight. Lets not forget that one judge had Marquez clearly winning the fight. So lets not act like it was impossible on the scorecards even with the 1st round Marquez couldnt have come back

Marquez won the 2nd

This is the closest fight of them all. you really can only have either guy winning by a point or a draw. I had Marquez winning by a point

Marquez won the 3rd fight clearly

There is no dis*****g this one. only people that say it was close are pac fans. reporters in england had Marquez winning clearly not just mexicans. most of pacs shots were blocked or the missed. jim lampley calling hard left hand from pac when they were landing at all. It is as clear as day Marquez won this fight. I had it 8 to 4 for Marquez and you can have it 7 to 5 if you are being generous to pac but its is a clear 7 to 8 rounds for Marquez and not the other way

[FeFist]

I thought he won the second fight. Only decision I take issue with is their third fight.

[bojangles1987]

Marquez won the 1st fight

the same judge that scored the first round 10-7 for pac also so scored the 6th round for pac. so he gave the point back. Their is no conceivable way that pac won the 6th round in the the first fight. Lets not forget that one judge had Marquez clearly winning the fight. So lets not act like it was impossible on the scorecards even with the 1st round Marquez couldnt have come back

Marquez won the 2nd

This is the closest fight of them all. you really can only have either guy winning by a point or a draw. I had Marquez winning by a point

Marquez won the 3rd fight clearly

There is no dis*****g this one. only people that say it was close are pac fans. reporters in england had Marquez winning clearly not just mexicans. most of pacs shots were blocked or the missed. jim lampley calling hard left hand from pac when they were landing at all. It is as clear as day Marquez won this fight. I had it 8 to 4 for Marquez and you can have it 7 to 5 if you are being generous to pac but its is a clear 7 to 8 rounds for Marquez and not the other way

Except the scores were split 50-50 on who won. So that's not the least bit true.

[UTEP]

I had Pac winning the first and Marquez winning the 2nd and 3rd.

[2120]

Except the scores were split 50-50 on who won. So that's not the least bit true.

actually the majority of press had Marquez winning the third and the second. i didnt say most press but the majority did ( a few more reporters had Marquez winning than having pac winning)


i dont know what it is for pac fights

maybe it is the handspeed or the commentators but most people for some reason can not see his punches not landing or being blocked

bradley vs pac the first fight. i had pac winning but that wasnt a total dominating win by pac but the perception was that he dominated but he didnt at all. it was a close fight. Look at round 7 compubox and hbo said that was pacs most dominating round but when they played the round back if you werent able to notice because of the commentary the first time around bradley won that round hands down

pac was missing a lot of punches through the whole fight

[solo20]

PAC-JMM 1: 3 1st round knockdown were too much to come back from. Clear win for PAC. Errant scoring caused the draw as widely known. JMM came back with heart but the fact is scoring knockdown is part of boxing. JMM might've won most of the remaining rounds but not enough. PAC wins this.

PAC-JMM 2: Close fight. But based on the knockdown again, PAC wins. Workrate plus the 1 knockdown was the difference here. JMM being the challenger, doesn't help either.

PAC-JMM 3: Closest fight of them all. 50-50 fight. JMM landed more power punches. PAC had more activity and active workrate. JMM for strange reasons slowed down in the championship rounds. Again, JMM was the challenger and didn't do enough to win convincingly. Press row scored it very close. A draw here was more sensible than a PAC win. But at the same time, JMM didn't WIN this fight. Robbery, it was not. Only Mexicans and Floyd fans like to think that.

PAC-JMM 4: KO6.

JMM is the more technical, fundamental boxer. Probably has a slightly higher ring IQ and ability to adjust. But Pacquiao has the power, speed, awkwardness advantage (which allowed him to be more successful moving up in weights). In their primes, they were pretty even. I don't consider PAC-JMM 3 or 4 prime for either fighter. They were both past prime. JMM made progress in the 3rd and 4th fights, because PAC's wear and tear. PAC relies on his physical attributes more so than JMM. He slowed down just enough the last couple of years for JMM to time him.

JMM might've won 2 or 3 more rounds in the 42 rounds they fought. But PAC had those knockdowns.

Yes, I'm a PAC fan. But I think this is an objective look at the 2 fighters.

funny how every clown forgets in the first fight Pac hit JMM while he was down and should have been disqualified or 1 point taken away. How very convenient everyone forgets about that but if it should have been JMM doing that to Pac all the Paccraps would have been crying about it all day
had JMM wining all 4

[Bushbaby]

Pacman won the second fight for sure. And I won't argue with him being given the 1st fight.