Middleweight beltholder Peter Quillin could soon defend his WBO title against promotional stablemate Danny Jacobs.
Dougie's Monday mailbag
Page 2 of 3
FROM A RABID PACQUIAO FAN
Hi Dougie! Just had to post this right after the fight. I’m a rabid Pacquiao fan and think he's one of the all-time greats, BUT he lost this fight to Juan Manuel Marquez!!!
I’m just so disappointed in the result, especially for Manny since this result has the potential to irreparably tarnish his record! There is no way except to have a rematch in May and let's find out who the better fighter is.
BUT on this night, Marquez was CLEARLY the better fighter! PLEASE post this on your blog! Thanks!!!! -- Vince
Consider it done, Vince.
I did not think Marquez was a clear winner and I don’t want to see a fourth match in May.
But it’s nice to see a self-proclaimed Pac-maniac give JMM the credit he‘s deserved for years.
I was rooting for the lightweight champ, who I consider to be a great fighter despite losing to both Mayweather and Pacquiao -- two future hall of famers I do not consider great (not yet anyway).
3 STRIKES AND YOU’RE OUT!
Hello Doug! I'll get straight to the point, Marquez has fought Pacquiao three times and has yet to lose one!!!
What the hell does the guy have to do to get a decision?! Of the six losses he now has only one has been clear and the rest utter BS!! I'm sure not everyone will agree with me but I'm sure the majority of people will. Marquez clearly the 2nd best Mexican of all time.
And why the f**k is it OK for nicknames like Mexicutioner or Mexican Assassin to be used? That’s bulls**t racism!!!! Ahhhh!!!! Viva Mexico! That is all and hope all is well. -- Adrian H, Milwaukee, WI
All is as well as it can be given the fact that yet another big pay-per-view main event ended in controversy.
Good point about “The Mexicutioner” nickname. Those kind of nicknames were somewhat common in boxing back in the day, but they have no place in any sport (or any part of society) now. Can you imagine if another race or nationality was targeted by a fighter’s nickname. Do you think anyone would tolerate a Caucasian fighter whose nickname attacked African-American opponents? What if Joe Calzaghe started going by “The Black Bitch-Slapper” sometime after beating Charles Brewer or Byron Mitchell? It just would not happen today.
I should point out (something you should already know, which is) Pacquiao has been on record about 1000 times saying that he does not like nor endorse that “Mexicutioner” nickname.
I agree that Marquez has yet to lose to Pacquiao (at least decisively). I don’t agree that Marquez is the second best Mexican fighter of all time, but I think he’s in the top 10 (which is saying a lot).
Now, if you haven’t calmed down since Saturday night, do us all a favor and drink a few Mexican beers (may I suggest Tecate -- that‘s what I‘m drinking) and mellow out.
THAT WASN’T SPORT
Doug, that was an insane decision. Please forgive my language, but this isn't f_____ WWE, this is a sport. There should be no scripted result. This sport is in serious, serious trouble.
In the little highlight clips at the end of the fight, they couldn't even find a clip of Pacman landing cleanly on JMM. You know, sometimes these results are open to interpretation, but there's simply no excuse for any of those ridiculous scores, not even the 114-114 in my mind. What worries me most is that in the back of our minds, no matter how much we hate to even ponder the very notion, we know that the outcome was fixed. Michael Buffer might as well have announced "Bob Arum scores the contest....." and read the scores. I know things can look different at ringside, but it's funny that millions upon millions of viewers can see a fight going one way and three people can see it go another. As Arum said to Mario Lopez, who must have been kicking himself for not asking Manny if he felt he was 'saved by the bell', "We're going to break all pay per view records in a rematch in May."
I know you'll be inundated with e-mails chastizing Pacquaio, the result etc, but Pacquiao is not at fault. He's a wonderful champion who lost to another wonderful champion. He retired to his corner after the final bell and it was clear from the look of blatant resignation on his face that he knew he lost the fight. I think it was at the end of round 7 when Freddie Roach warned him "We're losing". Well I sure as hell didn't see the remarkable turnaround that resulted in him winning the fight 116-112, did you?
A word on Marquez; That man is a boxing legend. He put in an astonishing display of well-timed punching and movement that virtually defied his 38 years. He had Pacman off balance from round 1. I'm the same as everybody else, I predicted Manny to stop him/Nacho to throw in the towel in round 6 or 7. Instead he should be walking away as the WBO welterweight champion of the world at 38 years of age. The man's a phenomenon. Take care. -- Gav., Ireland
Marquez is absolutely a phenomenon. Even though he did not get the decision, I believe what he did on Saturday is one of the greatest performances by a boxer over the age of 35. I think it was more impressive than Roberto Duran’s decision over Iran Barkley to win the WBC middleweight belt in 1989 and on par with Jersey Joe Walcott’s KO of Ezzard Charles to win the heavyweight championship in 1951. It was just as impressive as Bernard Hopkins’ light heavyweight title regaining win over Jean Pascal in May. Marquez isn’t as old as Hopkins but he was in with a far better fighter.
Bottom line: with or without the WBO welterweight belt, Marquez is a real champion, one who could have fought in any era. And as I stated earlier in this mailbag, I think in recent years he’s separated himself from his pound-for-pound peers and established himself as great fighter.
Here’s why: he fights all the top fighters in and around his division, and like the late Joe Frazier, he gives his all in every contest. The man ducks nobody. He doesn’t draw lines in the sand and come up with lame-ass reasons why not to fight his equals (ala Mayweather), he doesn’t leave everything up to his promoter (as his chief rival Pacquiao does) and he isn’t leery of going up more than one division in search of a challenge or big fight (like Sergio Martinez).
Having said that, I don’t think the decision was out of line and I don’t believe Arum influenced the judges in any way. I do, however, believe that Pacquiao received the benefit of the doubt in most of the close rounds.
That happens when certain fighters reach star or superstar status in our crazy sport. Everything the star does becomes exaggerated in the eyes of officials and many of the ringsiders who make their living in boxing (who may -- consciously or subconsciously -- be thinking about the potential big-money bouts those fighters could be part of in the near future).
Muhammad Ali got that benefit of the doubt in more than a few of his title bouts late in his second title reign (his decisions over Jimmy Young and Ken Norton in their rubbermatch come to mind). So did Sugar Ray Leonard, who many, to this day, feel lost to Marvin Hagler. The man is my boyhood idol and even I thought he lost to Thomas Hearns in their 1989 rematch, which was somehow ruled a split draw. Oscar De La Hoya probably received more credit from the judges (and television commentators) in his close points victories over Pernell Whitaker and Ike Quartey, and even his split-decision loss to Mayweather (no way did he win that fight). Hell, I think Mayweather has received the benefit of the doubt a couple times, most notably his first fight with Jose Luis Castillo (which for the record, I thought he won by a point from ringside), but also on one of the cards in his unanimous decision over Zab Judah (Glen Hamada needs to be smacked hard for that awful 119-109 score).