Why is Pacquiao Marquez I not considered a clear win for Pacquiao?

Laughable!

If a fighter clearly won 2:59 of a round and the fighter losing the round stunned his opponent with one punch, that just doesn't cut it.
In such a case even if the fighter losing the round dropped the other fighter, I'd lean to score such a round even.
The knockdown evens the round after clearly having lost all of it.

 

I am not 12 lol. It is just a fact. I assume he is one of the fanboys I am talking about and that's why that comment hurt his feelings

 

No, but even a 12 year old could notice that is the truth

 

Wasn't there an error on one of the judges cards regarding knockdowns, which would of had Pacquiao winning?

 

LOL!
There's a hole in the bucket dear Liza!

 

Marquez has good pop in his shots, but so does MAB. Power wasn't the difference maker in Marquez having success against Pacquiao and MAB not.

A lot of people don't want to give credit where its due. Marquez is just a more complete fighter than is MAB.
A complete two fisted fighter with the versatility to excel at short, medium, and long range.
You ad to that Marquez was excellent against southpaws in that he possessed the ability that MAB did not to land a right hand with mustard behind it.

MAB possessed good power, but he was mostly a jab and hook type of fighter. A lot more dimensions to Marquez' game than that of MAB's.
Against MAB, Pacquiao mainly had to guard against MAB's left hand. Pacquiao had to guard against both Marquez' hands, plus a wider range of types of punches Marquez was capable of.

 

Roach coached Pacquiao well in regards to taking a fighters left hand away.
Pacquiao who didn't have the best right hand at the time, used it to block and parry MAB's incoming with it and then shoot his own straight left.
He defended with the right hand and castigated with the left.
Pacquiao did the exact same think to left hand happy Oscar Delahoya and again to the happy left hooking Ricky Hatton and Miguel Cotto.

 

When right after Pacquiao beat MAB the first time, Murad Muhammad then Paquiao's promoter inked Paquiao's next fight to be against Marquez. Freddie Roach voiced his displeasure of that fight being signed to the media.
Roach noted, of the three featherweights, MAB, Morales, and Marquez, he'd send Marquez to the end of the line to fight Pacquiao simply because he considered Marquez better and a bigger threat to Pacquiao than the other two.

Freddie Roach knew it even back then that Marquez was all-around the best featherweight around. Even better than his own fighter. Roach thrashed Murad Muhhamad in the media for signing him to fight Marquez, stating Muhammad didn't have Paquiao's best interest in mind.

Its not stated often enough, opposing promoters to top level fighters stayed clear of Juan Manuel Marquez.
Just to much to risk with Marquez not being a big enough name to risk it against.

Juan Manuel Marquez lucked out in getting that first Paquiao fight in that Murad Muhumad was looking to make the most money in the short term knowing he likely only had a short term grasp on Pacquiao.

 

Throwing punches doesn't mean anything. Landing punches are all that count. If you throw and miss, the other guy gains on defence and you gain nothing.

If I throw 5 punches and land 5 punches and you throw 20 punches and land 5 punches - all other things being equal, I win the round. Because I was more effective in my aggression and I was better defensively. This is a fact of scoring which is not really up for debate.

 

Not as simple as you describe. The quality and effectiveness of the punches have to be seen and judged.
If all of your 5 punches are of the flick or pushed variety that dont deter my forward progress nor make me think twice about throwing punches, then those 5 out of 5 punches weren't really effective were they?

What if every one of my 5 out of 20 connects snapped your head back?
Maybe thats why you only threw 5 punches. My 5 connects snapping your head back had you leary of taking a risk to throw any more punches, much less throw meaningful effective punches.

You see each scenario is different. Its got to be viewed to be judged.

 

Which is why I said all else being equal.

 

True, you did say that, but you still have to see it to judge it.
I know you were setting an example to make a point, but off your example, I'd be hesitant to give a fighter a round who only attempted to throw 5 punches.
More often than not a fighter throwing so little punches is in fear of something and that's not being a ring general.