Dear Juan Manuel Marquez

tarugojones · Nov 14, 2011

PowerPuncher said: ↑

Dear MICHAEL D. SELLERS,

please STFU you don't SHIIIIIIIT about BAXING your ******* **** muncher

Yours Respectfully
Powerpuncher
Click to expand...

Here are the punch statistics:
Pacquiao - Marquez
578 TOTAL PUNCHES 436
176 TOTAL PUNCHES CONN 138
304 JABS THROWN 182
58 JABS CONN. 38
274 POWER PUN THROWN 254
117 POWER PUN CONN. 100
AVERAGE PER ROUND: Pacquiao landed 17 per round from 49 thrown, Marquez 11 from 36 thrown.

numbers don't lie.:deal

Abdullah · Nov 14, 2011

Manny won another close one......get the f*ck over it, you crybabies. I have been watching and scoring fights for most of my life and I will tell you this, Pacquiao-Marquez III was a close fight and no matter who you had it for, it should have been close. There was NO screwjob! No robbery! I had Pacquiao winning 116-113. If you had it a draw or a close one for Juan Manuel then fine! Just don't call it a f*cking robbery. Most of you idiots don't even know how to score a boxing match.

Brownies · Nov 14, 2011

I saw a different fight than the OP. I agree that constant agression is candy to the judge's eye and I always try to score fights according to that, because they don't have the great camera angles and replays we are getting nowadays. This is why I scored the Williams-Lara fight a draw, even though I would agree that Lara schooled that ass.

But Pacquiao-Marquez III was not Williams-Lara. Lara threw that beautiful counter straight left (same as Martinez) over and over, but never followed with combinations after stunning Williams. He won in everyone's eyes, but lost the fight because of it. Marquez also countered Pac over and over, but he followed with combinations a lot of times and he put him on the back foot (which is when Pacquiao stops throwing) quite a few times.

It's more of a robbery than the Williams-Lara fight, no doubt in my eyes.

Edit : By the way, I was rooting for Pacquiao.

Spitfire7 · Nov 14, 2011

davebenoit said: ↑

Dear Juan Manuel Marquez

NOVEMBER 13, 2011

MICHAEL D. SELLERS

Dear Juan Manuel Marquez,

First, congratulations on an excellent performance against Manny Pacquiao on November 12. You demonstrated that more than any other fighter, you have figured out the Pacquiao puzzle. You deserve great credit for that.

In your post fight interview you said you were robbed, and that you might retire. That’s understandable in the heat of the moment right after the fight, but after you’ve had a chance to reflect on it, I hope you will elect to continue. It is clear you have the skills and physical ability, and Bernard Hopkins has certainly taught us that 38 is not as old as we thought it was. Your performance against Manny reinforces that.

If you elect to continue fighting, and in particular if you elect to challenge Manny Pacquiao to a fourth fight, I would respectfully suggest that you need to be aware of some realities about judges scoring. Had you been more fully concious and accepting of them this time, you might have won the fight by pushing yourself harder in the later rounds when the fight still hung in the balance. True, by pushing yourself you would be exposing yourself to more risk — even to a possible knockout, but that is always the way of it when you are the challenger attempting to take the belt away from the champion.

The judges in Nevada are charged to look for a) clean, effective punching, b) effective aggression, c) ring generalship, and d) defense. A study of how US (and most other) judges score over the last 10 years shows that in a close fight, the judges almost always favor the fighter who presses the action and is perceived as the aggressor in the fight. Being the aggressor almost always generates a higher punch output, and even if the punches aren’t completely clean, the judges reward the attacking style which, even if it doesn’t result in clean punches, does expose the aggressor to greater risk than his opponent–something that the judges evidently feel should be rewarded. Your reliance on counterpunching, while it may produce cleaner landed shots, will always put you at a disadvantage with judges in a close fight if you rely heavily on the counterpunching style and do not act as the aggressor.

To state the equation very clearly: The very act of launching an attack against a composed, skillful opponent whose guard is up is a risky manuever which exposes the attacker. By taking that risk and launching that attack, the attacker gains favor in the eyes of the judges, and even if his punches don’t land as cleanly as your counterpunches, he gets credit for a) forcing the action and being the aggressor, b) taking the risk associated with attacking a skilled, waiting opponent.

In your first two fights with Manny Pacquiao, while you were oriented toward counterpunching, you also launched offensive attacks and in both of those fights you had a higher volume of punches that Pacquiao; a higher landed punch total; and a higher number of solid, compelling punches. But in those fights — he knocked you down four times. There is no doubt that if you had not been knocked down, you would have won both those fights because all of the other statistics were in your favor.

But this is not true of your most recent fight. In that fight Pacquiao had a higher volume of attacks; higher volume of punches; higher number of landed punches; higher number of landed powershots. Your counters were effective and in some cases dramatic — but by its very nature, your counterpunch oriented approach will impress the fans (and your trainer, evidently), but not the judges — at least it won’ t impress them enough to offset the advantages that Pacquiao is gaining from his constantly being the aggressor; constantly exposing himself to risk by launching attacks against a waiting opponent; and in doing so generating an overall impression that he’s moving forward while you’re moving backwards; he’s getting off more punches (hence taking more risk); he’s landing more punches even if they’re not as clean (after all he’s punching a waiting opponent, not an exposed one).

Also, if I may offer one other piece of advice. In each of these fights, your Hall of Fame trainer Mr. Berestain has repeatedly told you in the corner between rounds that you are winning the fight. By now, given your highly intelligent nature, you must realize that no matter what Mr. Berestain says, you must keep fighting as if you are not ahead. You are the challenger; the underdog; and you are using a counterpunching style that puts you at a disadvantage with judges. You must never assume you are ahead. In the fight on November 12, if you had gone into the “championship rounds” with the attitude that you must win these rounds, the outcome of the fight might have been different.

Sincerely,

A Fight Fan who appreciates what you bring to the sport
Click to expand...

An excellent and objective take on the whole fight, true and well-put.

However, objectivity, excellence, and simple common-sense truth will never be enough to stop nor silence whiners and sour-grapers, nor will it stop the tears from falling and warping their vision of reality.

The rest on the other hand move on and ahead and keep winning in everything and in life. :good

Log in or Sign up

Dear Juan Manuel Marquez

tarugojones Boxing Junkie Full Member

Abdullah Boxing Junkie banned

Brownies Well-Known Member Full Member

Spitfire7 Gadfly Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Dear Juan Manuel Marquez

tarugojones Boxing Junkie Full Member

Abdullah Boxing Junkie banned

Brownies Well-Known Member Full Member

Spitfire7 Gadfly Full Member