So who won? Pac or JMM?

Do you think there is anything JMM can do that Floyd can't do better?

 

LOL

and don't forget the foot cramps!

 

mexican shirt is hedging

pacquiao may have slowed a bit, but it is mostly due to facing a guy who isnt just a target for once.

 

Fight fire with fire for one.

 

This is a copy and paste from my post in REED's thread.

So yeah, while I think that in some ways Floyd is a bigger, faster Marquez, there are crucial differences.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

 

Nah, I said the same thing after Mosley.

He had managed to retain his speed amazingly at 147, but it seems like age 32 he's started to really slow down a bit.

Hatton is faster than any other fighter Manny has faced at 140+ and yet Manny looked blazing fast in that fight, made Hatton look like he was fighting in slow motion. Compare the Pacquiao from Mosley or Marquez with the Hatton one, the difference in speed is significant.

I think Manny has also lost a bit of his warrior instinct. The reason Marquez 1 was the only one he won clearly IMO was because he attacked Marquez more fearlessly.

He'd have to do that Vs Floyd, be fast, ferocious and unpredictable, more like Barrera or Marquez 1 fights, if he waits around too much he'll just get potshotted.

 

When have you seen Floyd hurt and not seen him pay it back in spades?

 

You know what I think is funny? That Pac fans who have at least somewhat of a grasp on reality are now saying "OK so Mayweather Jr might beat Pacquiao, but it's just BECAUSE OF STYLES. STYLES MAKE FIGHTS!! Pacquiao is still the greatest fighter EVAR!!!!!!!!"

If Pacquiao beat Floyd, nobody would make that idiotic excuse. And that's because Floyd is a complete fighter, capable of dealing with and adjusting to any style, and that's what we expect of him. The tacit admission is that Pacquiao is not a complete fighter, thus he gets a pass for losing.

 

I don't quite follow. Last I heard Manny was going to Showtime. Why would Hbo commentators go out of their way to portray the fight in favor of Manny? Fact is,they didn't.

 

I've been a massive JMM fan for years. I thought he drew the first and was robbed the second one.

I actually had Pacquiao winning close this third fight. I just could not believe Nacho telling JMM that he was winning the fight in the later rounds. :jaw:
JMM should no better regardless of what his corner told him. I just think some rounds Pacquiao won by just being busier. Nothing special just fought more. Especially at the end when I expected JMM to close the 12th with a bang.


I have to admit I had no idea how many people had JMM clearly winning this fight. Even Phillipinos say he won. It's weird. I guess I have to watch the fight again.

I really feel like I'm in the minority being a JMM fan having Manny winning. :scratcher:

 

There's an option missing in the original poll : Floyd Mayweather.

 

I think without question Pacquiao won rounds 1-4 and round 12. There's little debate when it comes to these round. So my question to those screaming robbery is: you don't think Pacquiao won a single round 5-11? That's simply ridiculous.

Those calling this a robbery should take a step back and realize they're simply enamored by how well JMM performed, relative to expectations. But that that does not mean he won the fight.

Thing is, JMM's fights against Pacquiao have all been heroic performances on his part. Every single fight between the two has followed the same pattern of Pacquiao going after JMM, throwing most of the punches, and JMM standing in there bravely, not succumbing to Pacquiao's onslaught, and getting in clean licks of his own, using Pacquiao's own aggression against him. It's heroic! It's as if JMM is in there fending off an attack on his family, standing firm. And it's impressive, especially compared to performances from Pacquiao's other opponents.

But the simple fact is, this was not a winning recipe in the first and second fight, and so it should be no surprise that it wasn't in the third either.

 

You're wrong there padna.

I gave the 2nd to marquez...clearly.

 

What was your final score, overall then?

So you gave Pacquiao, 1,3,4 and 12. And had him winning how many of rounds, 5-11?

 

I can't remember the specific rounds...but I scored it 114-114.

 

Ok. Then there's no argument. Given you scored it a draw, I'm guessing you didn't think the decision was a robbery. That was my main point - that this was not a robbery - not by a long-shot.

The 12th round having been scored for JMM by one of the judges has me scratching my head, and indicates corruption, and this should be investigated. Even Manny should be outraged by this. I know Arum made a stink about the 12th round having been scored for ODH in the Trinidad/ODH fight.

 

Correct.

I didn't think it was a robbery. It could have gone either way from my perspective. 7-5 in either direction or a draw would have been acceptable scorecards for me.

Marquez inflicted more damage though...and so if the fight was scored as a WHOLE...I would have said Marquez won a close one. But round by round...even fight.

 

On what basis do you claim that Marquez did more damage? His face was certainly more beat up than Pacquiao's.

You could've thought JMM landed the cleaner shots, overall. But I don't buy the idea that he did more damage. If anyone wins that contest, it was Pacquiao who landed many more punches than JMM, in both categories.

 

<hr style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size="1"> I thought Pac edged it out. I think there was a tendency to give Marquez more credit for what he was doing since the success he had was unexpected. But Manny was landing a little more through most of it and forced the action.

Personally, I was impressed with Manny's boxing ability, I thought he was able to match Marquez at his own game for the first time in the trilogy, hence the slightly reduced action. The technical improvement from the fight fight is pretty striking. Great fight & exhibition of footwork from both guys


BTW - does anyone else feel like Manny has grown in HEIGHT since the first fight? Just an optical illusion?

 

Good post, I agree on all counts. People are getting a bit overexcited with the robbery stuff.

I thought Pacquiao deserved it for the same reason you did, just that little bit busier. It's kind of the story of Marquez's career actually, he has a bit TOO much of a counterpuncher mentality, and often does "just enough" to win a round, or in many cases, not quite enough to win a round.

That's why as amazing as a fighter as he is, his fights are often closer than they should be (Barrera being one example).

And yes, this was far more of a technical match. Ironically he won the first fight clearer (mainly due to the knockdowns) by being more wild and unpredictable.

He's definitely improved technically, but at the same time slowed down significantly. Despite the technical improvements I have to say he looked pretty unimpressive.

 

True, I can't believe he's 5'6

 

Some people say 5'5, but yeah, he does look taller. Look at the weigh ins between the first fight and this fight, in the first he was clearly shorter than Marquez, now they look more or less the same height.

 

The only thing I don't get about the "busier" argument is that professional boxing is scored on clean punching. I'd say it was fairly obvious Marquez landed the cleaner punchers.

"Busy" doesn't mean anything to me.

if a guy throws seven punches and one lands, then the other guy throws four punches and two clean shots lands...the guy who won the exchange is the guy who landed the cleaner punches.

It's really that simple to me.

Ok so manny threw more punches down the stretch which means he missed more shots down the stretch.

 

HGH man, HGH!

 

Manny landed more punches without a doubt, not just threw more. I also thought he landed harder punches, look at their respective faces after the fight (bearing in mind neither guy is that easy to mark up).

Marquez landed more eye catching punches because they were all counters.

 

Marquez also controlled the action. There was a reason Manny wasn't always pressing and aggressive, because those counters made him think twice about rushing in.

I thought Marquez won. I had it 115-113.

Fights aren't won on faces marked up. Manny barely got touched by Clottey but his face looked worse than Clottey's when the night was over (if I remember correctly). Since when has that been a criteria for who wins the fight?

 

It isn't Musze, but in this fight it's fairly telling. In fights 1 and 2 they both looked marked. Look at Manny's face after the fight, he looked like he'd barely been hit.

I agree Marquez controlled the pace/action, and I don't even have a problem with thinking Marquez won, I can see that.

All I'm saying is Manny DID land more punches, and I also feel he landed the harder - albeit less eye catching - punches.

That's why I scored it for 7 to 5 for Pacquiao.

 

:atu: @look at their faces. pacquiaos mouth was all busted up.

marquez landed the cleaner shots, as well as the harder shots. marquez also won more rounds

 

In fairness unpredictability only really paid for one round in the first fight. Generally he's been punished for getting rash across 35 rounds, I'm sure he felt like patience was a necessity. So hard to tell how much he's slowed down - chasing his last two opponents definitely hasn't suited him. Not saying it hasn't happened just that it's difficult to separate those things out.