Pacquiao-Marquez 3? The Fights That Were & The Fight That Will Be

By Boxing News - 08/16/2010 - Comments

Image: Pacquiao-Marquez 3? The Fights That Were & The Fight That Will BeBy Steve Lewis: Renewed talks about Manny Pacquiao vs. Floyd Mayweather have surfaced again in light of Don King’s recent involvement with Team Mayweather. Top Rank boss Bob Arum and Pacquiao trainer Freddie Roach have both expressed that Don King might just be the man to get Mayweather to sign on the dotted line.

But barring any changes of heart on Mayweather’s part, the fight tentatively penciled in for Pacquiao is the one against former welterweight titlist, Antonio Margarito, targeted for Nov. 13, 2010, site to be determined. Though that deal is not yet set in stone, there have been some grumblings about potentially rewarding a caught cheater with a mega-fight with Mega Manny.

Critics of the proposed Pacquiao-Margarito fight, such as ESPN’s Dan Rafael, have expressed their preference for a Pacquiao-Juan Manuel Marquez rematch instead.

Supporters of a Pacquiao-Marquez rematch often cite to their two previous encounters, where the first ended in a disputed draw, and the second ending in a split decision in Pacquiao’s favor. They cite to the difficulty imposed by Marquez on Pacquiao, and that Marquez may have arguably won both bouts. They also cite to Marquez’s recent victories over former lightweight top dog, Juan Diaz.

However, it needs to be emphasized that there is a huge difference between the featherweight & jr. lightweight version of Manny Pacquiao from a few years ago versus the present welterweight version that we now see. During Pacquiao’s campaign at 126 & 130 lbs., he was generally regarded as a one-dimensional, left-hand heavy, forward charging brawler.

Now, the current version we have seen of Pacquiao is a more multi-dimensional, two-handed punching boxer with improved foot and head movement. Heavy reliance on the left hand has been complemented by an equally lethal right. The hard forward charges that leave him open and off-balanced have been replaced by a more tactical dart-in, dart-out and side-to-side movement.

Now contrast that with 126/130 lb. version of Juan Manuel Marquez with the one that fights over the lightweight limit. It has been shown that Marquez is not as effective in the higher weight classes. Unlike Pacquiao, Marquez is unable to retain his power and mobility in the heavier ranks. Even in the lightweight division, Marquez does not have the same effectiveness that he had at featherweight and jr. lightweight. During his first clash with Juan Diaz, Marquez got tagged several times. Fortunately for Marquez, Diaz is a volume puncher, not a power puncher. Had it been a power puncher in there with him, Marquez may have gotten knocked out (or at least down). Marquez managed to survive when Diaz started to wilt after sustaining cuts (as Diaz has been known to do when he spills his own blood, as was seen in his fights against Marquez and Nate Campbell).

Some will still say that Marquez is a slick counter-puncher, whose style is designed to give a person like Pacquiao fits, as evidenced by their first two encounters, which they will argue were won by Marquez.

Those fights were close! And it’s quite amusing to see how some treat those fights like it was a big highway robbery, reminiscent of Joel Casamayor vs. Jose Armando Santa Cruz. In that particular fight, Casamayor vs. Santa Cruz, NO ONE…and I absolutely mean NO ONE…other than 2 of the 3 judges who scored that fight, saw Casamayor winning. The consensus was that Santa Cruz was robbed! You can throw in Oscar De La Hoya vs. Felix Sturm in that same mix also. You won’t get much of a mixed opinion there.

But you cannot say the same for Pacquiao-Marquez I and II, as you have reputable people arguing both sides, meaning that it was not totally out of the realm of possibility to go one way or the other. Take Pacquaio-Marquez I, for instance. HBO’s Harold Lederman and Larry Merchant, who were calling the fight, had Pacquiao winning in their scorecards. Even head commentator, Jim Lampley, commented right before Michael Buffer could give the official scores that we were likely to hear an announcement for a Pacquiao victory. Of course, it turned out to be a 3-way draw, on the account of judge Burt Clements’ admittedly erroneous 10-7 scoring of the first round for Pacquiao, rather than a 10-6 that the other judges gave for having knocked Marquez down 3 times (which would have given Pacquiao a majority decision).

I personally scored that fight 114-111 for Pacquiao. The only rounds that gave me trouble in deciding a clear cut victor were rounds 10 and 12. I ended up giving Round 10 to Pacquiao, and Round 12 to Marquez. But even if I had given Round 10 to Marquez, Pacquiao would have still led by a score of 113-112.

People who saw the first Pacquiao-Marquez fight as a “robbery” were probably swayed too much by the “dramatic comeback” of Marquez. They got caught up in the emotions that someone who got floored 3 times in the first round could come back and make a competitive fight out of the remainder of the bout. Chants of “Si, se puede!” (“Yes, we can!” or “Yes, it’s possible!”) could be heard from the Mexican crowd. A chant of “Si, se puede” would connote that the person they are cheering for is behind and is making a charge forward. No one would chant “Si, se puede” if that person was way ahead and was highly favored to emerge as the victor. The fact that Marquez came oh-so-close after what seemed like a total wipeout earlier on gave the audience a false sense of entitlement to a victory. Yes, it would have been a nice fairytale ending, but points are points. At the end of the day, with 3 knockdowns credited to Pacquiao, Marquez essentially negated 3 rounds that would have gone to him (since each knockdown results in an extra point being deducted from the one that gets knocked down).

The notion that Marquez won rounds 2 through 12 is a bit outlandish. To credit Pacquiao with only one round for the entire fight would be intellectually dishonest. I comfortably scored rounds 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, and 10 for Pacquiao, with the first round being 10-6. Again, only rounds 10 and 12 posed a challenge for me.

As for Pacquiao-Marquez II, that too was a close fight that could have arguably gone either way. Many at ringside saw it for Marquez, but there was a significant contingent that saw it for Pacquaio, too, which meant that a Pacquiao victory was not totally beyond the realm of possibility, unlike the aforementioned Joel Casamayor verdict.

HBO’s Harold Lederman scored the fight 115-112 for Pacquiao, the same score I gave, the only difference being that Lederman gave the 11th round to Marquez and the 12th to Pacquiao, whereas I gave the reverse.

Larry Merchant, on the other hand, had the fight even after the 11th round (6 rounds to 5 for Marquez, but with 1 point subtracted from the 3rd round knockdown). So depending on how he scored the final round, which he did not reveal, it could have gone either way. In fact, he jokingly remarks, “Let’s just call it a draw.”

Jim Lampley did not explicitly mention who he thought won the fight, but as the 11th round was winding down, perhaps his words could give a hint. He said:

“Unless he (Marquez) won this round, and that’s iffy, Marquez is slipping in that area where he may need a knockout to beat Manny Pacquiao.”

Yes, yes. I have also heard all the criticisms hurled at the HBO broadcast team, particularly at Lederman and his ability to score fights. Now I understand that scoring fights is not an exact science. It is very subjective and open to interpretation. It calls on the judge to put forth value judgments based on what they perceive as important factors in their mind (such as accuracy, aggressiveness, busyness, effectiveness, etc.).

One thing that I will say about Lederman, who has been a longtime judge prior to his role as HBO’s “unofficial judge,” is that he, unlike the 3 judges at ringside, has the benefit of watching the fight on the monitor and seeing the slow-mo replays. The judges at ringside can only view the fight from their respective angles. So if the action is taking place at a bad angle from where one judge is sitting, he or she might miss some crucial moments or “points.” That’s why it is not uncommon to have varying scores among the 3 judges for a particular round. But Lederman has no bad angles, because he can see the action on the monitor if he cannot see the action from his vantage point.

Another often-made point I hear, particularly in regards to the second fight, was that CompuBox numbers showed that Marquez landed more overall punches and even landed more power punches than Pacquiao did. Thus, they conclude that Marquez should have won.

First, yes, Marquez landed more. However, Pacquiao threw more. He was the busier fighter, and most of the time, was the aggressor in the fight. This goes back once again to value judgments that judges must make when scoring a fight. Some judges value defense and accuracy more, while some prefer the busier, aggressive fighter over the one who just sits back and waits to counter-punch.

Now, just as important, if not more so, is the actual way in which bouts are scored. To remind those who are uninitiated in the rules of boxing, bouts are scored on a 10-point must system. That means boxing is scored on a round by round basis, the winner getting 10 points, the loser getting 9 (or less if he is thoroughly dominated or suffers a knockdown, or gets penalized for a violation). Essentially, the judges, in a 12-round championship fight, are scoring 12 separate mini-fights, then they tally all those results at the end to determine a victor.

So what does all that mean? Well, it means that fights are not scored cumulatively. It is judged on a round by round basis. You do not carry over points onto the next round. You start from scratch and judge a round anew. There is no “extra credit” carry-overs. But people like to look at the CompuBox numbers, which are CUMULATIVE statistics, and cite to that as if a fight was scored cumulatively, when it is not.

Look at it this way: the NBA Championship Finals is a best of 7 series. Whoever wins 4 games first wins the title. Each game is played separately. What you do not do is take all the points from the previous games and add them up to your total for the following game. No. Once Game 2 starts, all the points and statistics from Game 1 are irrelevant. You start from scratch to determine the winner of Game 2. So hypothetically, if the Lakers “squeak out” 4 close games against the Boston Celtics, they win the title, regardless if the Celtics blew the Lakers out of the water in the 3 other games. It’s best of 7! No carry-over of points onto the next game. You cannot say, “Well for Game 1, Boston beat L.A. by 30 points, but we only really need one extra point for the victory, so we will just carry over the extra 29 points to Game 2, which might be helpful in case Game 2 is a close one.”

Yet, boxing fans sometimes do that with boxing! They say, “Well, CompuBox shows Marquez landed more!” Well, it doesn’t tell you how spread out those punches were. Did the bulk of it come in one round? Or was it evenly dispersed throughout the fight? That’s what the fans sometimes forget to consider.

To simplify the math, let’s just say Pacquiao and Marquez were in a hypothetical 3 round match-up. Now this will be an over-simplified example, as there are lots of various factors involved, but for purposes of illustration, let us just look at punches landed, since that is what most people point to when citing to CompuBox numbers.

Round 1, Marquez lands 100 to Pacquiao’s 8. Marquez is awarded Round 1 with a 10-9 score.

Round 2, Pacquiao just edges Marquez, landing 25 to Marquez’s 20. Close one, but Pacquiao is awarded Round 2 with a 10-9 score.

Round 3, final round, Pacquiao squeaks by, 12 landed to Marquez’s 11. Pacquiao wins that round 10-9.

CompuBox will read the following: Marquez lands 131 total punches (100 + 20 + 11) to Pacquiao’s 45 (8 + 25 + 12). Meathead fan will say, “Hey! Marquez blew out Pacquiao! Marquez wins!”

But again, fights are not scored cumulatively. They are judged on a round by round basis. So given that criteria, Pacquiao wins the hypothetical fight 2 rounds to 1, with a score of 29 to 28. And therein lies the bellyaches and the calls of highway robbery, often times from fans who do not understand how bouts are scored. Yes, each round is scored subjectively, but the process of the 10-point must system is laid out in the rules.

Incidentally, if you scored the first round of the hypothetical fight 10-8 for Marquez, that is fine. It would result in a 28-28 draw, despite Marquez landing more punches overall. But hopefully, one can see how a person can land more, but still lose (or draw) on points. Recent case in point: Devon Alexander vs. Andreas Kotelnik and Chad Dawson vs. Jean Pascal. Kotelnick and Dawson landed more, according to CompuBox, but still lost their respective fights. It goes to other factors like aggressiveness, busyness (work rate), effectiveness of punches, and how spread out those scored punches were.

I have no problem with people who argue that Marquez should have won both close decisions, because it could have gone either way. But what I do have a problem with are those who suggest that the draw and the Pacquiao split decision victory were highway robberies. Where you can argue it both ways, that is no highway robbery. But where there are no arguments for the other side, then you have a highway robbery.

So we now go back to the topic of a rematch. Obviously, Pacquiao is done with the lower weight divisions. So if Marquez wants a rematch, he will need to venture up above the lightweight ranks. And we already discussed the difference between those two at the lower weights and at the higher weights. Given that, it is hard to envision a competitive fight between Pacquiao and Marquez at welterweight (or even at jr. welterweight). Pacquiao would have an easier time with Marquez this time around.

So let’s just hope Don King can pull the deal off, and that we get to see the fight that everyone really wants to see.



Comments are closed.