boxing will never forget that ko!! before the ko this era was gonna be remembered as floyd and pacs era. the fact that the majority of the media had marquez winning the first 3 fights was an after thought because it didn't fit the narrative but that ko changed everything. when sport historians remember pac that ko will always be brought up. been marquez fan since i was 13 now 34. what career its been.
Can you support this statement with sources please?
The experts of the WBO rewatched the fight of Pac vs Horn and they said that the real winner still being Horn.
So?
Your argument is pathetic.
All the world knows that the third fight was a robbery.
Is totally ****** what you said.
So, Bradley won clearly vs Marquez but Marquez vs Pacquiao was not clear?
When both fights were too similar.
I think that the words of Marquez vs Bradley were because all the robberies in his career: Norwood, John, third fight vs Pacquiao.
And? All the fighters did the same.
Fu.ckin Pacquiao still saying that he won he fight vs Floyd and all the first 3 fights vs Marquez. The fight vs horn, etc.
Floyd said that he was robbed in the semifinals of the Olympic games.
Robberies were John, Norwood and Pacquiao 3.
Was pretty clear.
Not an argument kid, not even my opinion. I'm talking about facts. Logic says, if 40% saw Marquez winning, 37% saw Pacquiao winning and 23% saw a draw, we're talking about a close fight.
As a comparison, Pacquiao-Bradley 1, out of 125 unofficial scorecards, 121 (97%) scored the fight for Pacquiao, 3 (2%) scored the fight for Bradley and 1 (1%) scored a draw.
THAT'S A ROBBERY. Like I said, my "pathetic" comment is based on facts. Unlike yours my friend.
About the "experts" who rewatch #PacquiaoHorn, watch closely their resume and don't let your hate on Pacquiao make you blind. I don't think they know more of the sport than Lennox Lewis or Hopkins who agree the fight was a robbery.
Funnily enough. Pacquiao ran into a worse version of Marquez, while Marquez ran into a better version of him. Pacquiao fought Marquez when he became very flat footed. Pacquiao is an extreme talent, and I love him. So I dont want people to think i'm trying to crap on a legend..but if he had fought the earlier version of Marquez that was able to bounce around on his toes, he would have either been K.O'd or lost a lop sided decision. For some reason, Marquez became more flat footed.
Can you support this statement with sources please?
I like how these clowns keep on saying "Most media thinks MArquez won all 4" when given to the polls and official scorecards of other boxing peers, most actually had Pacquiao winnig with a toss up for the 3rd fight.
Not an argument kid, not even my opinion. I'm talking about facts. Logic says, if 40% saw Marquez winning, 37% saw Pacquiao winning and 23% saw a draw, we're talking about a close fight.
As a comparison, Pacquiao-Bradley 1, out of 125 unofficial scorecards, 121 (97%) scored the fight for Pacquiao, 3 (2%) scored the fight for Bradley and 1 (1%) scored a draw.
THAT'S A ROBBERY. Like I said, my "pathetic" comment is based on facts. Unlike yours my friend.
About the "experts" who rewatch #PacquiaoHorn, watch closely their resume and don't let your hate on Pacquiao make you blind. I don't think they know more of the sport than Lennox Lewis or Hopkins who agree the fight was a robbery.
Well.
Lamazon is better than most of the press and he said that Marquez won.
So. The WBO opinion doesn't count but the opinion of the press yes. Hahaha.
All the ****** press said that Gonzalez was robbed vs Sor Rungvisai and it was a very close fight.
Comment