The myth of Pacquiao vs Marquez III?

I find it hilarious when people try to claim that a fighter won in part to him being the aggressor. It's completely ignorant. There is no scoring criteria that gives a fighter credit for simply being the aggressor. There is a reason, "effective aggression' is one of the criteria. Marquez was able to get Pacquiao to open up so that he could counter him. That's a better example of effective aggression than Pacquiao simply coming foward, missing, and getting countered. Marquez landed the better, shots, showed the better defense, and controlled the fight(ring generalship). I had Marquez winning 8 rounds. The best, I thought, you couldv'e scored for Pacquiao was a draw.

 

Fair enough, but don't get pissy when people tell you the article is **** and written with a clear agenda.

And may God help those who mistakenly thought you wrote it. :-(

 

Well I can't defend lufc's sickening personal insult 'well that's stupid imo' tbh it's one of the worst 'direct, personal insults' i've ever seen on this place and to be fair if someone had said the same thing to me i'd react the same way you have (like an over emotional *******)

 

The myth of Pacquiao-Marquez III?

That Pacquiao won a MD.

 

A friend? speaks volumes about what being a ******* can do to your mental state when you'll pop off vulgarities at a friend for stating that he thinks one of your opinions is stupid.

It's a public forum champ, when you do some thick **** there's a good chance someone will call you out on it.

 

examiner.com is a poor example to use, its like going to wikipedia for facts

 

Its an article, dosent matter where its posted if its a bad one its a bad one if its good its good. Could be in the washington post or on the esb main page it is what it is

Just like with wiki if its a fact its a fact dosent matter where its posted

 

At any level of study, article writing etc, you are told when trying to make a point to avoid sites such as wiki, because anyone can sign up and edit it. The same goes with examiner.com, it is a site with an agenda, so to use that to make some pro-pacquiao arguement about the Marquez 3 fight is stupid. It gives no weight to the thread starters arguement and is therefore a poor thread.:thumbsup

 

Wikipedia is actually a good site to use for info as all the sources are listed at the bottom of the page so you can go and verify eveything yourself and if a source isn't listed then atleast you know that part of the entry is questionable.

 

Can everyone leave Popkins alone? The poor guy bought the careful matchmaking of Arum and believed that Pacquiao had improved massively in the past 2 years, he's now trying to come to terms with this not being the case.

Get off his back.

 

:rofl:happy