 |
| Still unfinished |
November 12, 2011 (13th Manila Time), the 3rd meeting between the only 8-Division champion Manny Pacquiao and 3-Division Mexican warrior Juan Manuel Marquez has concluded. This, however, did not answer the questions that have been lingering for the past 2 wars that they've fought. I personally think the fight was won by Marquez simply because he landed clearer and crisper punches. Now don't go on hatin' on me, I am a Pac-fan all the way but most of all am also a Boxing fan. I try to look at fights objectively and my personal results is opposite the actual. Now, a win is a win and I'm sure Pacquiao will take that win and so would I as a Filipino and a Pac-fan, which made me take the time to analyze where I could have been wrong in scoring that fight. I have come up with a few reasons and hopefully I get some feedback from people who have seen the fight. I want to know what they think of the list and the fight itself.
Reasons why Marquez lost the fight to Pacquiao.
- Marquez kept on waiting for Pac to make his move. This is mainly because he is a very good counter-puncher and unless Manny attacks, there's nothing to counter. He needs to be the aggressor simply because he is the challenger.
- In relation to number 1, Pacman being the champion is the one dictating the fight tempo. Again, Marquez is the challenger and he cannot simply wait for the belt to drop on to his lap but rather take it from the champ.
- Marquez was back-pedalling most of the latter rounds, probably because Nacho Beristain told his fighter that he was actually leading on points. Big, big mistake on the part of his trainer to get the fighter's hope too high.
- There were too many rounds that were "too-close-to-call". In cases like this, even though the judges can actually give a 10-10 score for a round, most of the time they simply give it to the aggressor.
Unfortunately, the unfinished business remained unfinished for these two warriors.
2 comments:
i was also at a quandary how jmm could have lost. however, after some contemplation, i am ready to concede that mp could have "TECHNICALLY" won. by technical i meant not the stupid punch stats bec an statistics student can easily point out that the punch stats was representative of the whole fight and is not disaggregated by rounds which is how boxing is scored. a simple illustration is that one fighter can throw (hits and misses alike) a barrage of punches for 4 rounds and win those 4 rounds but barely throw punches in the other 8 rounds compared to the other fighter who have a more normal distribution of punches between rounds throughout the fight and who may actually win the said eight rounds. in the end, the losing fighter may actually be ahead in terms of punch stats. that is why to use said stats as justification for an mp win is technically flawed. it is also impt to point out that while mp out-punched jmm, he did so just barely. a 20-30 punch difference is not a lot if you spread it over 12 rounds.
so why did mp win? i believe mp got all the toss-up rounds. in my opinion, there were 8 of those rounds. however, the other 4 rounds particularly rounds 5-8 were all won decisively by jmm. thus the so-called "subtleties" of the fight wherein many felt that jmm won. jmm dominated mp during the rounds that he won while mp barely squeked past jmm in the rounds that were "gifted" to him owing to his stature as champion. that is why i can now "TECHNICALLY" concede that mp won the fight. but to score it 116-112 for mp is just plain wrong. there is also a very strong case to be made that jmm won round 2 so at the very least the score should have been, at worst, 115-113 for mp.
while i "TECHNICALLY" concede that mp won the fight, i still believe jmm is the "BETTER FIGHTER" and should have rightfully won. i can think of 2 reasons why:
1) contrary to all the BS written, mp never dictated the tempo of the fight. mp was essentially fighting jmm's game. jmm thoroughly dictated the tempo and how the fight was fought from start to finish. it was very clear especially towards the latter rounds that mp wanted to engage jmm in a slugfest. but he just couldn't get a barrage of punches to get thru because jmm's right jabs and uppercuts kept hitting its mark. and that was the story the whole match. mp couldn't impose his will on jmm the whole fight but not for lack of trying because he did. and also not because jmm kept on backpedalling the wjole match ala-cotto. he was backpedalling and waiting for mp to reach in and when mp finally reached in, he'll just close the gap and hit mp with clear and crisp punches.
2) all this BS about we just didn't mp punches bec they were too fast? nah. it's bec they were neither solid punches nor were they as clean and crisp as jmm. many were actually slap punches to the body and shoulders thus the "perception" of many who saw the match live that mp lost. i'm pretty certain that if a selection of clean and clear punches to the head will be made, there will be not much to go for mp.
was actually saddened when i heard the announcement that mp won. maybe i should have felt relieved that our hero dodge a bullet. was still quietly processing what just happened when i heard mp say that "i clearly won the fight". he may have actually felt that he won but to say that he clearly won it, that's too much. i believe mp should have been more gracious in "victory". mp may have TECHNICALLY won the fight but i believe in my heart that jmm was the much better fighter that night. this from a mp fan who just happens to be a bit objective than others. :)
I definitely agree that JMM won that fight. What I hate is that when "pac-tards" see that there are Filipinos that actually believe that JMM won, the see it as being un-patriotic. They don't understand the difference between being a fanatic and simply being objective.
Post a Comment