Arum: Marquez next for Pacquiao.

First topic message reminder :

The Mosley fight still has to play but Arum is already planing Pacquiao's next bout.

The fight will complete an thrilling trilogy, when Juan Manual Marquez step into the ring for a 3rd time.

There first fight was an epic battle Pacquiao knocking down Marquez 3 times in the first round only for Marquez to come back with the help of mistake by one of the judges to claim a draw.

The rematch was 4 years in the waiting but is was worth the wait, a great technical battle, his speed chess, Pacquiao put Marquez down again only the once but much more heavier knockdown that the previous ones.

The fight swayed back and forth and in the end Pacquiao sneaked a SD.

Since then they have both move up the weights, and had some impressive victories so what can we expect from the 3rd and probably final fight from these two greats.

Many of you were calling for this fight, and with Marquez being a free agent it should be easy to negotiate and will probably happen in November.

Pacquiao just has to get through Mosley now and the trilogy can be complete.


http://www.boxingscene.com/pacquiao-vs-marquez-likely-next-manny-says-arum--38132

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:We have 9 threads on Groves vs DeGale and it's still a month away but these get merged?

Why should one poster be allowed to keep regurgitating the same nonsense? Do you want to go back to the old days of 606 when we had 5 articles on Pacquiao from the same nuisance each day?

Is true, I just think the moderation is by username not repetitiveness.

I can't speak for azania, who merged this thread, but I can certainly reassure everybody that I attempt to be even handed in moderation.

It's not so easy as you might think, trying to keep the peace, and instead of sniping perhaps it would be better to remember that if everybody played the game the mods wouldn't need to involve themselves at all.

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:We have 9 threads on Groves vs DeGale and it's still a month away but these get merged?

Why should one poster be allowed to keep regurgitating the same nonsense? Do you want to go back to the old days of 606 when we had 5 articles on Pacquiao from the same nuisance each day?

Is true, I just think the moderation is by username not repetitiveness.

In this instance though each is synonymous with the other.

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:We have 9 threads on Groves vs DeGale and it's still a month away but these get merged?

Why should one poster be allowed to keep regurgitating the same nonsense? Do you want to go back to the old days of 606 when we had 5 articles on Pacquiao from the same nuisance each day?

Is true, I just think the moderation is by username not repetitiveness.

Don't you know the admins mod this place, they just have Windy, Azania and Oxxy in place to keep me in check

HumanWindmill wrote:It's not so easy as you might think, trying to keep the peace, and instead of sniping perhaps it would be better to remember that if everybody played the game the mods wouldn't need to involve themselves at all.

I don't believe I do anything to break the peace.

.

D4thincarnation wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:We have 9 threads on Groves vs DeGale and it's still a month away but these get merged?

Why should one poster be allowed to keep regurgitating the same nonsense? Do you want to go back to the old days of 606 when we had 5 articles on Pacquiao from the same nuisance each day?

Is true, I just think the moderation is by username not repetitiveness.

Don't you know the admins mod this place, they just have Windy, Azania and Oxxy in place to keep me in check

If only it were that simple, D4.

We're starting to regret ever mentioning the 'report' button to Coxy!

D4thincarnation: Jutras was in his 70s at the time his eyesight was failing and is not a judge anymore called it for Marquez.
----------
How do you know his eyesight was failing - are you his bloody optician or something? Seems to me he had perfect vision - maybe not 20/20 but certainly 10-1-1.

Back to my original second question:

The Marquez vs Pacquiao, can anyone really say Marquez outclassed Pacquiao or that he was robbed in that fight, because these are some of the phrases that get banded around, but in reality did that really happen.

If you believe so, explain why you saw it that way.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:We have 9 threads on Groves vs DeGale and it's still a month away but these get merged?

Why should one poster be allowed to keep regurgitating the same nonsense? Do you want to go back to the old days of 606 when we had 5 articles on Pacquiao from the same nuisance each day?

Is true, I just think the moderation is by username not repetitiveness.

In this instance though each is synonymous with the other.

Can you back up what you said about this fight. I have provided you with the fight and the scorecards, the punch stats.

Do you really think Marquez was robbed and he outclassed/outboxed Pacquiao?

People have, about 5000 times. This is about as interesting as creosoting a fence.

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:It's not so easy as you might think, trying to keep the peace, and instead of sniping perhaps it would be better to remember that if everybody played the game the mods wouldn't need to involve themselves at all.

I don't believe I do anything to break the peace.

So the comment that ' moderation is by username ' isn't sniping, then ?

I like to discuss boxing, also, but when these spats break out I spend valuable time trying to build bridges and I DO NOT moderate by username.

Period.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:D4thincarnation: Jutras was in his 70s at the time his eyesight was failing and is not a judge anymore called it for Marquez.
----------
How do you his eyesight was failing - are you his bloody optician or something? Seems to me he had perfect vision - maybe not 20/20 but certainly 10-1-1.

Do you really think that how the rounds went?

Who won the 2nd round?

You didn't merge it did you? Therefore the comment probably wasn't aimed at you. I think you do a decent job in general. I just want to talk boxing not what some user said in the past.

Coxy,

Those scorecards in the 2nd Pac-Marquez fight are so close it's not exactly highway robbery that Pac got the nod. I think I had it 7-5 Marquez, plus the KD, so 114-113 Marquez, but you could make arguments for plenty of rounds going either way.

Gents,

EVERYONE here has the right to report posts that they feel are either duplicate posts or abusive in any way, shape or form.

It's up to the Admin's OR Moderators to decide whether the report is warranted and then act upon it. In this case, Azania has merged 2 therads and he has mine and the rest of the admins 100% support.

If ANYONE has a problem with this i would much prefer it if you took it up with us privately rather than continually airing things on the boards.

Thanks,

KB

This is just ridiculous. What happened to that ceasefire? It has to work both ways, and to have someone simply ignoring facts and statistics which don't support their own view is draining me of the will to live. This new criticism of a judge based solely on the man's age is preposterous. I'm sure if that judge had given an anomalous score in favour of Pacquiao we'd be hearing how Judge Jutras was a credit to the sport in providing accurate unbiased scoring throughout a long career.

If nothing else the insinuations about the guy's ability to judge a fight are practically actionable.

I simply don't understand how people can go around saying 10-1-1 and that Pacquiao was out boxed and outclassed in this fight.

The myth start by a joke/jibe, it gets used so much that some people believe it and then used it in debate not as a joke/jibe but they really believe in it.

BALTIMORA wrote:This is just ridiculous. What happened to that ceasefire? It has to work both ways, and to have someone simply ignoring facts and statistics which don't support their own view is draining me of the will to live. This new criticism of a judge based solely on the man's age is preposterous. I'm sure if that judge had given an anomalous score in favour of Pacquiao we'd be hearing how Judge Jutras was a credit to the sport in providing accurate unbiased scoring throughout a long career.

If nothing else the insinuations about the guy's ability to judge a fight is practically actionable.

I sense a Andy Gray moment

wow_junky wrote:Coxy,

Those scorecards in the 2nd Pac-Marquez fight are so close it's not exactly highway robbery that Pac got the nod. I think I had it 7-5 Marquez, plus the KD, so 114-113 Marquez, but you could make arguments for plenty of rounds going either way.

Unfortunately coxy and other have nothing to back up their claim that Marquez was robbed in the first fight and that he out boxed and out classed Pacquiao, thats why this is a boxing myth.

And my only intention was to dispel this myth show the facts give people an opportunity to watch the fight again and see that this was a close fight and if anyone won it, it was Pacquiao.

I decided to merge the threads for the simple reason being that it was a continuation of this thread. Proves I was correct as it is now flowing smoothly.

Carry on bickering lads.

azania wrote:I decided to merge the threads for the simple reason being that it was a continuation of this thread. Proves I was correct as it is now flowing smoothly.

Carry on bickering lads.

Have you seen the fight?

What rounds did you give to Marquez?

I get disturbed by the humping smilie.

Seriously, i'm gonna have nightmares about 1 giant yellow blob getting smashed senseless from behind by another yellow blob.

"Unfortunately coxy and other have nothing to back up their claim that Marquez was robbed in the first fight"

Erm, one judge scored it even (which means Marquez won more rounds from round 2 onwards) and one scored it for Marquez which means he pretty much won every round.

The proof and point is backed up by that. And i can't find the press row scores due to vigirously knocking one out about a long weekend.

coxy0001 wrote:I get disturbed by the humping smilie.

Seriously, i'm gonna have nightmares about 1 giant yellow blob getting smashed senseless from behind by another yellow blob.

"Unfortunately coxy and other have nothing to back up their claim that Marquez was robbed in the first fight"

Erm, one judge scored it even (which means Marquez won more rounds from round 2 onwards) and one scored it for Marquez which means he pretty much won every round.

The proof and point is backed up by that. And i can't find the press row scores due to vigirously knocking one out about a long weekend.

That judge made a mistake and he should have scored the fight for Pacquiao.

Both of them?

Gents,

Two more points....

1) Don't diss the hump smiley.

2) Marquez > Pacquiao.

Thanks,

KB

1) Don't diss the hump smiley.

If i have to go see a sleep doctor i'm sending you the bill!!

King Beer wrote:Gents,

Two more points....

1) Don't diss the hump smiley.

2) Marquez > Pacquiao.

Thanks,

KB

Oh Christ, it would appear that Windy is the only moderator with half a clue about boxing here.

Fists of Fury wrote:

King Beer wrote:Gents,

Two more points....

1) Don't diss the hump smiley.

2) Marquez > Pacquiao.

Thanks,

KB

Oh Christ, it would appear that Windy is the only moderator with half a clue about boxing here.

And probably the only one who can read sarcasm!

Phew, I certainly hope it was sarcasm, KB

Only Point 2 was sarcasm.

Point 1 we are deadly serious about...

I love that smiley, so I'm cool with that ;-)

I'm a bit worried about it's use between red blooded males on a boxing forum....

Fists of Fury wrote:I love that smiley, so I'm cool with that ;-)

Good man!

coxy0001 wrote:I'm a bit worried about it's use between red blooded males on a boxing forum....

No need to feel insecure Coxy....
C'mere

ha, just imagining Coxy legging it out of his office.

The use of that smiley is slightly disturbing when referencing another male poster indeed. And it is most definitely Cuddle, the 'giver' looks far happier than the poor chap getting pounded senseless.

I've got a "yellow blob getting humped senseless by another yellow blob" syndrome i think

coxy0001 wrote:I've got a "yellow blob getting humped senseless by another yellow blob" syndrome i think

Don't mention yellow blobs.

Azania will start harping on about Marciano, again.

>

Glad to see we can stick to the topic

Might have to have a serious debate about the humping yellow blobs next week to address the issue.

D4thincarnation wrote:Glad to see we can stick to the topic

Apologies, D4.

coxy0001 wrote:Might have to have a serious debate about the humping yellow blobs next week to address the issue.

At last a topic you are an expert in.

HumanWindmill wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:I've got a "yellow blob getting humped senseless by another yellow blob" syndrome i think

Don't mention yellow blobs.

Azania will start harping on about Marciano, again.

Yellow blobs, has Samuel Peter got a chinese twin!! (sorry)

Good to see a boxer joint highest paid in sports:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6391145

Scottrf wrote:Good to see a boxer joint highest paid in sports:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6391145

Pacquiao is the joint highest earner in sport. It show the coverage he has brought to the sport. And Arum has him on a unfair deal as well

Not sure how you get there D4....

Because in 2010:

Mayweather Jr: $60,250,000
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/specials/fortunate50-2010/index.html

Pacquiao: $38,000,000
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/specials/fortunate50-2010/index.20.html

Seems you can't help making stuff up. By the small matter of over $22m

Which is quite alot to tell lies over

The sports illustrated report includes his 2009 fight.

And they wouldn't have done the same for Pacquiao?

"Financial year"?