Pacquiao is not only much greater than Marquez, but a much better fighter too.

Hear me out. This is not a hate thread, I very much like and respect Juan Manuel Marquez and would support him vs any other fighter. However, I object to people stating he is Pacquiao's equal in terms of ability and/or anything else, and will attempt to back this up with reasons.

Just because JMM has (in my opinion) the best technique for throwing combinations in boxing right now, does not mean that his all-round game is equally sublime. It isn't, and this one extreme strength should not mask his deficiencies as a fighter.


Reason 1

The difference between the quality of their resumes is VAST, it's not even remotely close.

This content is protected

This content is protected

Stoppage

This content is protected

(prime) Decision

This content is protected

(past-prime)
Decision

This content is protected

(prime) TKO

This content is protected

(past-prime/shot)
Stoppage

This content is protected

(prime/past-prime) TKO

This content is protected

(prime)
Stoppage

This content is protected

(past-prime) TD

This content is protected

(prime)
KO

This content is protected

(prime) Decision

This content is protected

(prime)

Pacquiao's prime losses: Marquez's prime losses:

Decision Morales (prime/past-prime) Decision Pacquiao (prime)
Decision C John (prime)
(I don't count Mayweather, it was an engineered mismatch)


Reason 2

Consider the list of fighters that Marquez has had tough fights with:

- When JMM was 26, he was lost a unanimous decision to Freddie Norwood

- He lost to Chris John after he'd already risen to star status after the 1st Pacquiao fight

- By my card, JMM was very lucky to get the decision at all vs a clearly past-prime Marco Antonio Barrera, the wide nature of the cards in that fight were a joke IMO, and would've been closer had the referee not been a cretin. This was the same Barrera that Pacquiao had dominated and beaten with ease in his previous fight, and a shadow of the Barrera that Pacquiao completely dominated and destroyed years earlier. Barrera outjabbed and outboxed JMM for periods in that fight in a way he never managed at any time vs Pacquiao

- While JMM was getting beaten in the early rounds by Juan Diaz, having a close fight until the stoppage with a borderline shot Joel Casamayor, and getting dropped heavily by Michael Katsidis, Pacquiao was barely losing a round while blowing away not only bigger but better opposition such as Miguel Cotto, Ricky Hatton, Antonio Margarito, Joshua Clottey and Oscar De La Hoya. JMM performed well to win those fights, but they were tough fights, or at least fights with some real tough spots for him to get through. JMM was not so far ahead of these guys that he was capable of making the fights look easy. Pacquiao was facing harder opponents, yet made it look ridiculously easy. This is the crux of the matter for me, in a discussion of ability.


- Comparatively, Pacquiao suffered his first defeat when he was a skinny 18 year old without proper Western-calibre coaching and training. He suffered his second defeat while still extremely green (aged 20) and so dangerously weight-drained that he jumped THREE weight classes for his very next fight. Since then, who has given him a hard fight?? Two HOF-class fighters, Juan Manuel Marquez and Erik Morales (who he did go 3-1-1 against, after all). Agapito Sanchez's dirty tactics were also troubling a 22-year-old Pacquiao, but the fight had to be stopped before it could be resolved. Why did Pac at 26 not lose to someone like Freddie Norwood? Why did he not, after rising into the p4p charts, lose to someone like Chris John? Because he was much better than that.


I ask you:

- How would fights go between the versions of Casamayor, Diaz and Katsidis that had wars with Marquez and the versions of Cotto, Hatton, Margarito and Clottey that Pacquiao demolished? IMO, ALL of Pac's opponents beat all three.

- How would fights go between Pacquiao and Casamayor, Diaz and Katsidis? Utter destruction, obviously. Send in the bodybags.

- How would fights go between Marquez and Cotto, Hatton, Margarito and Clottey? IMO, JMM only has a chance against Hatton, none of the rest. I'd probably favour him to beat Hatton in a war, stopping him late, but the rest would beat Dinamita I think.



Reason 3

By my cards, JMM didn't win either fight vs Pacquiao.

The first fight was technically a Pacquiao victory anyway, it was only given as a draw because one judge was for some reason not familiar with the standard scoring of multi-knockdown rounds.

I had it 115-112 Pacquiao.

The second fight was closer on the cards IMO, I had it 114-114. One draw doesn't equate to the fighters being similar in terms of ability though, Ricardo Mayorga wasn't the equal of Vernon Forrest yet he stopped him once then beat him again, same with Marco Antonio Barrera and Junior Jones.

The difference in ability between Pacquiao and Marquez is obviously not as wide as with Forrest-Mayorga and Barrera-Jones, but the point is that an opponent who is a stylistic difficulty for a fighter does not in itself mean they are equal in terms of ability.

And throw in the fact that I believe Pacquiao has improved as a fighter since their fight in early 2008 (much improved use of right-hand, better footwork/movement), and the gap will be wider between them on Saturday.



Concluding...

I could go on about how Pac has vastly superior weight-jumping (112-150 vs 126-135) and superior longevity at world level (MP 1st world title win 1998, JMM 1st world title win 2003), but I have bored you all enough.

Just because their fights were close does not mean they are close in terms of ability, they aren't.

The difference between Pac and JMM is similar to the difference between Ali (ATG) and Frazier (HOF) - both great fighters who had close fights, but one guy proved in his other fights to be the significantly better fighter and so have by far the greater career.

This content is protected

:bbb:bbb:bbb

 

Rather than break things down into convenient areas, the award for what matters - effectiveness- goes to Pacquiao by a very clear margin, which is my point. Their respective careers and performances prove this.

 

The fight is close now, my objectivity has evaporated, time to pull some ****ing rank!!

 

I'm not interested in questions like this. It's the same logic as those who argue who would win "if they were the same size" between Ricardo Lopez and Wladimir Klitschko. If you change ANYTHING about a fighter, you change him in a thousand different ways, and so the question itself is null and void. Pacquiao without speed and power would fight completely differently because he'd have to, same as a 240lbs 6ft 7in Ricardo Lopez would fight completely differently from the real version.

I'm interested in reality, nothing else. :good

 

Good post.