Do you consider Juan Manuel Marquez to be an ATG

These are two examples of the same kind of post-fight hysteria. It will level off to giving Marquez reasonable credit and Pacquiao reasonable blame. Not, Marquez might be the GOAT Mexican and Pacquiao is not one of the greatest. People make too much out of single fights, and they always have. Single fights never tell the full story of any great fighter's career and this is far from being any different.

 

When the search engine comes in after the W/E I need to quote everyone who said they'd rate him over Morales/MAB if he won tonight. I rated him over them before this.

Yes rating him as the Greatest Mexican of All Time is a massive accolade but I think he now becomes worthy of discussion in that bracket. He's been the best from 126-135 and now beat Pacquaio imo 3 times. I don't think Chavez could beat Pacquaio. Bare in mind he's 38 years old and just gone up 2 divisions to beat most people's P4P no1

 

Seven rounds to five for Norton, I don't know how that hype job Ali got the SD over him. I suppose now there will be no rematch, because they know Ali can't beat Norton fair and square and they'll probably feed him to George and send his Muslim Fraud ass packing on a vicious kayo. I knew he was never one of the greatest, even though he's certainly very good. Frankly, it's time to admit that Norton is better than Louis who wouldn't have beaten Ali and possibly the best CHRISTIAN heavyweight of all time.

 

Marquez now has 2 fights that the majority consider to be robberies and another where many thought he won. The 116-112 scorecard is indefensible, meaning the fix was in and we can discard the official scorecards, much like we'd discard the official verdict of Lennox-Holyfield. The reactions of the 2 fighters at the end told the whole story. Marquez lifted his arms, Manny looked dejected and went to his corner to pray, not celebrating like he usually does. Roach said 'you need a KO to win'. Khan thought Marquez was well up on the cards. That's Manny and his people who didn't really believe they won

And Yes I saw your posts and something along the lines of 'missed punches counting as effective aggression', if there isn't much action, the 'effective' part of the criteria can't be ignored. Merely coming forward and not landing is never a reason to give rounds. That's not effective aggression. Didn't you say you hadn't scored it round by round at the time too?

Clean punching - number of clean punches and how clean they are

Effective aggressiveness - who is the more aggressive and who's landing the harder more damaging blows. You can't have effective aggression if you miss. Marquez's typically more damaging blows are effective aggression though

Defense - Marquez was certainly doing the better job of making Pacquiao miss

Ring generalship - who is controlling where the action happens, it can be an aggressor but in this fight Marquez seemed to be the boxer controlling range

 

Please explain; a judge is there to judge, you may agree/disagree with them, but unless you can show evidence to prove otherwise the assumption must be the judge is honest.

Otherwise your statement suggests boxing in its current form does not work, and we need to get rid of judges, and just have no decisions. As the official verdict is pointless, as it will not be respected.

As for the question on the thread, Marquez is a very very good fighter. But Greatness should be limited to the finest 40 or so fighters who have laced up gloves, I do not think Marquez is at that level.

 

I would actually have a problem with it. ...I bet you're surprised.

 

So what are you asking Santa to bring you this year TBOOZE? The evidence is in the 8-4 scorecard. The evidence is that the hometown or cash cow in boxing usually get unfair decisions. Boxing is corrupt, the judges are employed by the promoter who have a vested interest in the outcome of the fight. That in itself is not a fair and impartial set up

 

I would agree Pacquaio was doing better in the later rounds when he picked it up, whether that was enough to win them, well he was countered for his troubles and made to miss so I don't think so

 

For the same reason I would have a problem with Ken Norton above Lennox Lewis, even though you could argue he beat Ali three times and those three victories trump Lewis' top three victories. I'm a fan of Ken's, but who really does rate him above Lewis that isn't biased against Lewis?

As far as bodies of work, I can't say I feel Marquez's carries the same historical weight as the other two. :conf I did a thread once asking if Norton was truly great or just very good and enjoyed a perfect stylistic match-up against a true ATG better. Now, I think Marquez is great but should he truly be rated above Barrera and Morales or did he just happen to match up far better against the beast than the other two? Should we read so much into that as to rate him higher? I'm not making that leap, at the moment, although, I always figured H2H those three are of very similar quality and there isn't much to separate any of them.