Did Pacquiao not deserve at least 1 win against Marquez?

[ladiesman217]

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

This is exactly how I saw the third fight. I don't have a problem with people who had JMM winning. But the "robbery" opinions are a product of the underdog power.

[Bushbaby]

Yes they were.

My bad 56-51 is the new 50/50. I always considered that to be Marquez ahead on the polls by conventional tallying of course.

[Sammy2g3]

PAC-JMM 1: 3 1st round knockdowns was the reason for the draw. Stil could've went either way. Pac deserved the win because a judge made an error in the first round.

PAC-JMM 2: Close fight. Pac got the knockdown, and again it could've went either way. Definitely not a robbery.

PAC-JMM 3: Another close fight. 50-50 fight. I think one of the biggest factors is that Marquez won 4 rounds big. That's one of the problems with boxing and the reason people love to call robberies. If a fighter wins 4 rounds big, then people automatically think they won the fight. The other 8 were up in the air. I scored it for Marquez, but it could've easily went 8-4 Pac.

PAC-JMM 4: Pac was winning the fight, but then went to sleep in the 6th round.

[bojangles1987]

My bad 56-51 is the new 50/50. I always considered that to be Marquez ahead on the polls by conventional tallying of course.

Wow.

Because 5 more people out of like 140 means calling it 50-50 is absurd, especially when people love to pretend that Marquez was robbed.

[racer59]

The hardest fight to score, round by round, was 2. I just can't see how anyone can say its a clear win for either guy.

I had JMM winning 1 and 3, closely.

[Bushbaby]

Wow.

Because 5 more people out of like 140 means calling it 50-50 is absurd, especially when people love to pretend that Marquez was robbed.

Didn't say none of the. Fact is however, that Marquez held the poll. Meaning, a draw, or a Marquez win, were greater than a Pacman win. That means 2/3rd of that poll included no less than a draw in Pacman's favor. As opposed to only 1/3rd pulling for a Pacman victory.

[B.U.R.N.E.R]

Marquez beat him 4 times. Knocking him out cold was just the icing on the cake.

Dude got sent to mars by a 40 year old fighter.

[-Antonio-]

I still say Pac won the first two fights. Lost the third close but clear 116-112.

[solo20]

PAC-JMM 1: 3 1st round knockdowns was the reason for the draw. Stil could've went either way. Pac deserved the win because a judge made an error in the first round.

PAC-JMM 2: Close fight. Pac got the knockdown, and again it could've went either way. Definitely not a robbery.

PAC-JMM 3: Another close fight. 50-50 fight. I think one of the biggest factors is that Marquez won 4 rounds big. That's one of the problems with boxing and the reason people love to call robberies. If a fighter wins 4 rounds big, then people automatically think they won the fight. The other 8 were up in the air. I scored it for Marquez, but it could've easily went 8-4 Pac.

PAC-JMM 4: Pac was winning the fight, but then went to sleep in the 6th round.

how convenient you didn't mention Pac illegal punch on JMM while he was down which the Ref should have disqualified Pac or have 1 point taken away
Again nobody talks about the Ref error in the first round

[ADP02]

People were starting to buy into Marquez's "I was robbed" .... but the truth is that Manny won close fights as the judges had them.

Marquez also thought that he was robbed with the Bradley fight. Not true there and not true with any of the first 3 with Manny. They 3 were close fights.