Lomachenko vs Juan M. Marquez

Fairness is about treating people with equal rules and standards. I'm applying equal treatment here. Both Morales and Marquez fought Pac in his prime. Only Morales beat him. To consider this fact must surely be interpreted as "fair".

And Marquezs style is perfectly tailored for Pacquiao. Could you address that?

 

Marquez won how many rounds against Pac in their first fight? Those 3 flash KDs were the anomaly in that match.

 

Pacquiao was the champion and the man. That's what happened after he KO'ed Barrera. At that point he was recognized as the man. It's in the British broadcast right before the first bell rings. "Pacquiao is regarded as The man".

You know as well as I do, a fighter doesn't get to play keep away from the champ and then cry robbery after the fight. You must throw hands and put the fight on him to take his claim to the throne from him. This is how it's always been and is supposed to be. Marquez up until the 4th fight never had the intention of taking the belt from Pacquiao. He never fought a manly fight. He fought a relatively conservative and low output fight which would inevitably be close on the cards. It didn't go his way. Such is the way when you're meekly trying to relieve the champ of his belt. You don't gently lift the title off the champion. You throw hands.

Emmanuel Steward said the same thing after the 3rd fight where Marquez didn't get the decision. Marquez wasn't in there coming to take the title.

 

Loma beats Marquez. Especially if Loma is the champ. Marquez does not look to invade and conquer. He looks to snipe with bow and arrow and then peek his head out around the corner and see if the castle is ready to fall yet. That's how he fought.

Which is why he was on the losing end of so many controversial decisions. He didn't take it to the opponent. Pacquiao, John, Norwood, etc. This is how he fought.

 

He did actually fight on the back foot vs Salido. It's also a fight I thought he won.

 

He was forced onto the back foot, and he was infinitely less effective there (his superior motor took over late and he was able to do his thing more). It's why he lost the fight.

 

He wasn't really forced, since he spent rounds at a time on the back-foot then the next on the front-foot. He fought what worked, which is what he'd do here imo.

Salido's success was being dirty and going to the body constantly, Marquez doesn't have the style to replicate that. If Loma wants to fight going backwards he can.

 

He was forced onto the back foot by the size and strength and intense, educated (veteran) pressure of Salido. Which is exactly what needs to happen to make him fight that way, as I stated in my post. It didn't work, he was losing the fight and distinctly uncomfortable with the role he was forced to take. Whenever Salido offered him respite, Lomachenko availed himself of the opportunity to fight his fight, and that's where he enjoyed success.

You didn't read my post properly. My point was that Marquez wouldn't have to go looking for Loma. They both favor center ring engagement. Loma doesn't like to be on the back foot, wouldn't take that role out of choice, and Marquez isn't inclined or able to put him there.

 

So, any who disagree must hang our heads and back off?

You're entitled to the opinion that Loma beats Marquez. But I need to find your arguments persuasive before I start to believe. There are only so many posts a guy can quote, only so many hours in a day to spend arguing over unchangeable opinions, which is why I passed over your post #4, because it seemed pointless to engage a man who has his mind adamantly made all the way up. For the same reason, I attempted to cut the discussion short after your initial response to my post.

You chose to take issue with that initial post, not so much because you wanted to make conversation, or provide me with food for thought or compelling nuances that might sway me, but more because you wish to impose your brick wall upon the discussion. For some reason, it bothers you to see anyone make an argument for Juan (anyone would think I'd suggested that Frankie Randall would have beaten JCC if they'd ever met, or that Manny Pacquiao could have come all the way from tinyweight to beat career welters). So here we are, at a distinct impasse.

Your argument against my initial missive is a.) that Juan is distinctly the least of the Amigos, b.) that Manny is tailor made for Juan, ergo Juan must be some kind of deficient for requiring forty-two rounds to get a result against him. You know there's a lot of substance you've skipped over.

More than just disagreeing with those arguments, they don't have much to do with persuading me that Loma beats Juan or that Juan has no real shot at beating Loma.

You dig both Manny and Loma. You're willing to sacrifice a smidge of kudos for one to embolden the other. That's what I got from your arguments.

On the other hand, I was never even a Marquez fan. I know what he brings to the table, though, and I'm willing to acknowledge it by giving him the kudos he deserves, even at the expense of beloved favorites.

So that's your entire argument for ranking Morales above Juan? He got steamrolled twice by Manny, too.

Now, as a hardcore Erik Morales fan, I could make as comprehensive an argument as anyone to excuse him of Pacquiao II and III, but you might have a whole other bone to pick with that, because I'll be deducting a lot of credit from two of Manny's most touted victories.

In any case, there's a little more to be discussed in regard to the Three Amigos argument than Morales earning a close decision over Pac while Marquez was forced to settle for a draw.

It could be argued that Juan won more rounds in Pacquiao I than Erik did. Problem is, he had the worst possible first round. It's the way the cookie crumbles.

I already did. Pacquiao is tailor made for nobody. He's a handful for everybody. Even the Mayweather bout was ultimately a pretty close affair, putting aside the silly 10-2, 9-3 scorecards some observers were turning in.

I dunno, there's a contradiction in observing that a guy took forty-two rounds to obtain a favorable result against another man and then stating that the man was tailor made for him.

There were things about Manny that Juan could exploit. There were things about Juan that Manny could exploit. This is why they had four fights of high competitive value.

Maybe you could articulate why you think Manny is so tailor made for him. Because Juan didn't have to go looking for him? Because he's aggressive? Because he offers opportunities?

All clichés aside, you're supposed to win a title by outpointing or (T)KO'ing the titleholder. With that said, and taking the bouts in isolation, I have no problem with Manny getting the decision in II and III, nor with the first bout being scored a draw. That was never my argument. (Although, you do start to feel that Pacquiao is enjoying some political rub of the green after three bouts).

Some, and they're not all Marquez or Mayweather groupies by any means, believe that Marquez was stiffed in fight III. I'm not one of those people. I can see a case for Manny. In fact, I recall scoring the fight for him (I haven't watched it since).

So, my issue is not with the decisions going Manny's way, more with you citing a single common opponent in the careers of Marquez and Morales and using such a fine margin as the ultimate yardstick in estimating which man should be ranked higher in P4P ATG discussions, when you know you're having to overlook lot of substance in doing so.

I quote you here, "Marquez never fought a manly fight." Not manly? Meek? What on earth are you trying to sell me as fair comment?

Marquez fought Manny in I, II and III as Marquez is wont to fight. If anything, he was too bold in the opening round of their rivalry, which was pointed out by numerous observers contemporaneously.

When you describe Marquez as meek and describe his performances as unmanly, it suggests a bias. It does not suggest fairness.

 

@navigator

The reason I called Marquez a stylistic nightmare for Pacquiao is because all his strengths are essential to fighting Pacquiao. He's known for right hand power, counter punching an a great gas tank. All 3 are things that is kryptonite for Pacquiao's style.

Marquez in my opinion built too much of his legacy off the Pacquiao fights. Granted if he had schooled Pacquiao and beaten the tar out of him multiple times I could understand it. If the fights were one sided I could see it. The problem is Marquez had fights with Pacquiao that you know, 50/50 even.

And then you look at his fights against Norwood, John, Bradley (allow some excuse for age here), etc. And you notice Marquez and his fans are always bitching about being on the wrong side of decisions.

I feel he's been awarded too much credit for beating a past prime Pacquiao and too much credit for going even with a prime Pacquiao and a rather weak resume outside of that compared to his contemporaries. And additionally, not enough spotlight on his fights with Norwood, John, etc.

There is now among boxing hipsters this mythical, almost unimpeachable god like status given to Marquez by the classicists and the stuck up purists. And I don't think it's justified.

My 2 cents. Now I think he will lose to Loma. You don't think he will. We have both said why we think that. As far as that goes I don't have much else to say because I said what I needed to say. And like you said, it could go round and round to infinity.

Good response. It was long and detailed.

 

I love JMM, and have been riding his bandwagon since he was totally obscure - but yes, this.

 

I could see a Loma win, but not by stoppage or one sided beat down

 

I've never bought into the idea that Manny is susceptible to this or that per se. I strongly believe in the idea that stylists make fights, as opposed to the cliché of styles make fights. It's why I was nonplussed to see people picking Chris Algieri over Manny on account of him owning a pair of legs, for example. There's a lot more needs to be going on than just a good right hand or sorta fleet feet or whatever is perceived to be Manny's hamartia at the time. It isn't any old rangy, athletic potshotter who can beat Marquez, for that matter. Floyd and Tim doing it is different from Algieri being able to pull it off. When I say that Juan is suspectible to those tactics, I'm talking about them being enacted at a certain level by guys who possess specific compounds of attributes. If you say that Manny is tailor made for Juan on account of Juan possessing a good right hand and being a counterpuncher, you have to be thinking that Juan is operating on a high enough level for those things to matter, no? So what makes him different to any other counterpuncher with a right hand?


I don't know if I'm a hipster, I'm not too concerned if anyone thinks I am. To be honest, I find some people here incredibly asinine in various ways and traits. I don't name and shame or pick fights and feuds, because I don't care to spend my life in internet beefs with people who don't mean anything to me. Maybe if I was still 17, I'd find some entertainment value in it, but those days are long gone. We're here to discuss boxing. I'd like to see an openness in threads about Usyk and Loma and some other guys. I'd like to see the forum move past the kind of extremely partisan, entrenched fanbase vs. fanbase, demographic vs. demographic numbskullery it's been so predisposed to in the past and which bleeds into myriad tenuously connected threads (which isn't to say we can't have favorites and celebrate them).

I could post about hypothetical bouts in which I favor Usyk and Loma and the critical feedback would be minimal. I've only ever encountered defensive replies when I feel they would lose a hypothetical bout.

This is my second online home in terms of boxing discussion, after my previous hangout went offline for good (a smaller community of guys who were knowingly/comically partisan but jocular and very knowledgeable with it). I have browsed a number of other forums. I note that they all tend to have their own orthodoxies. I selected this one because its good discussions seemed to be worth it, but it could be that this is not the place to find respite from orthodoxies and intellectual authoritarianism. I'm not inclined to search high and low for something that may not exist, however. So, I suppose I will persist until I grow too weary or else I get motivated to continue with my own writing off the forum.

 

Marquez would stop Lomachenko.

 

LOL

JMM is a 5 Div titleist and out of those five only the Welter belt he took from Pac(although it can easily be argued that he won the Feather and Super Feather belts) . So Pac's name on Marquez's resume is only frosting. You can argue that Pac put Marquez on easy street pretty much the way DLH did Pac, but to dismiss Marquez's legacy sans Pac is simple hate or ignorance.