Pacquiao-Marquez III: It's On!

[picc84]

For a purported novice, you seem to grasp boxing's basics better than a lot of the people who claim to be experts of the sport. Aggressiveness means NOTHING if it isn't effective.

Manny's style is to come forward and bull-rush his opponent. If you are just going to blindly give him any semi-close rounds based on his fighting style, he is going to be incredibly difficult to beat. I mean, in nearly every big fight, there are going to be some close rounds, even if a guy is out-classed.

You can't just say, "well, that round was close... I give it to Pac because he was coming forward!" Marquez INVITES boxers to come forward. That is exactly what he wants. He waits for boxers to attack and he counters.

If I were to ask any remotely unbiased viewer who was more effective at carrying out their gameplan in that fight, Pacquiao or Marquez, the answer is as easy as it gets.

Marquez controlled the distance all fight. He landed the cleaner punches all fight long. He kept Pacquiao off-balance all fight long. He kept Pacquiao frustrated all fight long. He took very few flush shots for the entire fight.

That fight was really a textbook performance by JMM considering his fighting style and gameplan against Pacquiao. For Pacquiao, it was a messy, sloppy, just bad performance during which he was largely ineffective and desperate.

If people are giving him rounds in light of all of that just because he was 'aggressive'... Well, I have a big problem with that rationale.

To be honest, it sounds like you and I are much more on the same page than some others (Kellerman included, who is the only one I respect on that HBO broadcast).

Yep.

Hearing Kellerman say he had the fight a draw is what really made me sit back. I listen to his radio show a lot and agree with the majority of things he says, and in fact he said he thought Marquez won the first two fights, so I didn't think he was coming from any point of bias toward Manny here.

I still don't know how to explain his remarks, and of course its fine for people to disagree on things, but after seeing the fight I was very, very confused remembering that he said it was a draw, when I don't know how anyone could have thought it was even close, and he's usually so on point.

To answer your question directly, though... The rounds that Marquez won were as clear as day. He was making Pacquiao look really bad and hitting him with hard, clean shots while Pac was flailing away wildly. To me, that encompassed maybe five rounds of the 12.

The closer rounds are largely decided upon which style you prefer... The more precise counter-puncher or the bull-rushing wildcard. It is my opinion that you needed to give Pacquiao EVERY close round in order to give him the win, which is ridiculous to me. You really could make an argument that Marquez won every round.

See, i thought he made him look bad in every round, and some rounds Pac just managed to give some back to him. Which was 2...maybe 3 if you want to stretch it and include round 12, which I saw the opposite of what i'd heard before, and to me it looked like Manny was resigned to his fate and Marquez was the confident puncher.

However, even in those 2-3 rounds (6, 10) I can't get past the fact that nothing he did affected Marquez at all.

If you are in a streetfight, and you hit a guy with absolutely nothing happening to him, nobody is impressed by that. If you throw punches and hit air, consistently, and throw punches that land but do absolutely nothing, consistently, you get "ooh's" and "aah's"....against you.

This is where I thought I may have a disconnect with the boxing rules. I don't understand awarding points for aggression if it is ineffective, even if some of the punches land. From where i'm coming, off the schoolyards or in the streets or what have you, if anything these are marks against you.

As opposed to Marquez, who was moving Manny with all his punches, knocking him into the ropes, knocking him off-balance, snapping his head back, making him stumble, etc.

Now, I wouldn't make that argument. I did think Pacquiao won several rounds during the two times that I have watched the fight, mainly because there were times that Marquez didn't throw quite enough for me to give him those rounds. But, there wasn't a single round that Pacquiao won decisively.

Thats another thing I wasn't considering, if you didn't think Marquez was attacking enough to earn a round, thats probably something boxing experts look for and integrate into their scorecards.

I'd say my own scoring method was based more off feel, and in just about every round I didn't feel Marquez was in any danger, and Manny always was, with the exception of round 1. In that respect, I didn't feel there was any reason to say Pacquiao won any rounds, he just didn't clearly lose. Felt like giving him credit for something that he didn't earn. Hence the draws I scored in the rounds where he didn't just get the sh!t beat out of him.

But your comment does help me understand a bit more how the judging could have given certain rounds to Manny, even if I had him with none.

Pacquiao is still very much a brawler and not much of a boxer. He relies heavily on his athleticism and very little on technical skills. With the exception of a few guys like Roy Jones Jr., I almost always like the guys that are technically sound over the guys that simply attempt to brawl.

As for Pacquiao, in my estimation, he has been the beneficiary of some extraordinary match-making since he last fought Marquez. For the last few years, everyone was screaming that he had become a different fighter and that his skill level was many levels higher than it once was and that he was now a guy with equal power in both hands.

The truth is, from my vantage point, that facing guys like Diaz, Hatton, Cotto, Margarito, Clottey, old DLH and old SSM, made him look like a different guy than the person we saw twice against Marquez. I'm not saying that he didn't improve somewhat on his technical skills or his right hand, but his opponents and superb match-making by Top Rank allowed him to build this aura of invincibility when, in reality, he has always been and will always be a guy that struggles against great defensive counter-punchers (who are also elite).

He hops in and out of range. He does really funky things with his footwork. He throws strange combinations from absurd angles.

When it works, it is going to look dynamic and unstoppable. When it doesn't, it is going to look sloppy and just really bad, the way it did during much of last Saturday night.

There is nothing that Pacquiao does that you could tell a young fighter that is just stepping into the game, "go do it like Pacquiao." It is totally unique and it is based almost entirely on his natural ability.

That makes for a fighter that is incredibly interesting to watch and it also makes for a guy that is going to fall off the cliff when his reflexes and athleticism starts to slip... Much like RJJ. When Pac's athleticism starts to go, it is going to be ugly.

Overall, you sound like a guy that prefers the classic boxing, technically sound, skilled fighter... Much like me. And, Pacquiao isn't that. He never has been and never will be.

Well, most of that coincides with my thought process during/after the fight, when my buddy and I were talking about it.

He has seen much more of Pacquaio than I have, and I said to him the same thing I said to you, that it looks like he just rushes in on you off-balance, uncoordinated, with flurries of punches, hoping to catch you with something. He watched the entire fights with Cotto/Margarito, and I asked if the two of them were just not very good....b/c at that point I couldn't wrap my head around the guy I was watching (Pac) being the best p4p fighter in the game, or even near the top.

Clearly athleticism is very important and allows you to get away with a lot, but I saw a lot of RJJ back in the day....and even though he relied on his speed and reflexes a lot, I never got the same sense of un-coordination and just being out of control that I did watching Manny saturday night. In fact I feel very comfortable saying Roy was a much more technically skilled boxer, and this was a guy who would go entire rounds with his hands down and head sticking out forward.

[Dizzle-2k7]

now pacman is scared of floyd? this is all so ridiculous.

boxing needs some sort of governing council that decides fights and makes them happen ala dana white for UFC

boxing has grown into this "high n mighty" bullshlt when its really a dying sport

[RedBlackAttack]

I don't want to sit here and act holier than thou, because I call it wrong in the boxing world the same as anyone who goes out on limbs occasionally. However, I've been saying for a couple of years now that Bob Arum is, far and away, the biggest obstacle to Mayweather-Pacquiao getting done. I've also said that it is obvious to anyone that looks hard enough that Arum has no interest in splitting the pot with anyone, which is why he has Pacquiao fighting in-house every time out since he became an international superstar.

Frankly, I don't think Arum ever truly wanted the fight to happen... At least, not yet. He is enjoying keeping Pac in-house with his current unbeatable persona and near assurance of a million PPV buys regardless of who he fights.

A loss to the guy that many feel is the best in the sport and that persona takes a serious hit. Plus, Arum despises Mayweather and his camp. If I had to lay the blame on one person (although, there are other factors involved, clearly), it wouldn't be Pacquiao, or Mayweather... It would be Arum.

If Pacquiao was with GBP, this fight would have happened a year ago.

Arum is a money-hungry, lying SOB.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=221880



Now, the truth is finally beginning to be revealed after media smokescreen after smokescreen.

Arum is an absolute snake... The worst thing to happen to boxing in a long, long time...






According to Camp Pacquiao:

Alex Ariza: "Arum is a greedy pig... Bob is the one interfering."

http://www.fighthype.com/pages/conte...bf85c1eaa3cc4f