Still not getting over Pac-JMM III

JMM didn't expose Pac at all. He just confirmed that he is a hard style matchup for Pac. Norton did the same to Ali even if it was a different era with different circumstances and different fighters. Styles make fights. All JMM did was show that once again. Same as Norton did in his fights against Ali.

 

Sometimes what people don't need to do, they end up doing and Man they do it a lot :-( the pilipino boogeyman has these die hard *******s fans crying so endless..

The few that remain that is, because the ******* level has dropped since Marquez raped your hero, I assume they went to a corner and died, Pilipino boogeyman aided in their suicide and to that I toast, the few that remain are so ****ing ******ed coming up with these endless excuses to justify in their peanut brain that their hero did in fact deserve the win, it makes the regular *******s look like Geniuses compared to the **** that is the OP.

Carry on with your delusions the asterisk and embarrassment of that gifted win will always haunt your hero and the pilipino's for eternity :thumbsup the Pilipino boggeyman scores again...

Peace.

 

Marquez exposed Pacquiaos flaws.

 

I understand perfectly well what you're saying, I'm simply asserting that while some of the more zealous Pacquiao fans are willing to bring punch stats into the discussion, they do so only when it suits their argument. Just the same as they're arguing that facial damage is a foolproof indicator of who won and who lost. Similarly, when they argue that a challenger should have to force the fight, should be making an extra effort to win rounds, or some other such similar BS. Bottom line is; those guys are tiresome.

 

A close fight cant be a robbery, and all 3 fights were close. I wont disagree with anyone that had JMM winning but to call it a robbery is ridiculous.

I would bet money that if JMM was the star and favorite to win, that peoples perception of the fight would have changed.

 

And with that single post you should now log off the forum and castrate yourself with a pair of rusty shears so as not to pollute the gene pool further.

 

Pac exposed many of Marquez' flaws as well.

 

Based on the standard criteria for judging, Marquez won the fight, IMO (and, evidently, the opinion of the majority--who were polled--as well).

 

****ing ridiculous lol

 

you are judging and attributing a winner to the fight as a whole, when in fact each round needs to be judged separately.

you're the second person to make that mistake in just a few posts in this thread. It's a very common mistake.

also, "After all the name of the game is boxing not slugging!" is not a judging criteria

 

And that is what made the fight so easy to score. JMM won more convincing rounds than Pac did.

 

doesn't matter who won more convincing rounds, what matters is who won more rounds period. If fighter A wins more rounds than fighter B, but fighter B wins more convincing rounds... Fighter A still wins the fight... even though it might seem like he didn't.

Each round won is worth an extra point, whether it's convincing or not.

 

NO **** that goes without saying.atsch

You are a very pedantic poster.

 

:huh

I'm not making any mistakes. :nono Marquez was better in those 4 categories in more of the (individual) rds than Pac was...from the observation of most educated fans, professional boxers, and boxing media. I understand how a fight is scored.

Not sure if you really read my previous post before responding. But, thanks for playing.