For me, I can sum the fight up to two points why we shouldn't question the decision of the fight:
1. Two out of three judges called it a victory. One of them decided that it was a tie. Nobody decided it was Juan Manuel Marquez who won. So Marquez, why say that you have been robbed? In the first fight, judges were confused on who won, thus a tie. On the second fight, one judge saw that Marquez won. Thus, the split decision. This time, nobody saw Marquez win, and Pacquiao won by more than two points at least for the two judges. Need I say more? Why question the decision of three people who were as close to the fight as possible? I believe we have no right to question the judges' decisions, unless we were watching as close as them in the ring.
2. A counter-puncher challenger normally doesn't work. If you are the challenger, you should show that you are hungry for the championship, and not just wait for the champion to make a mistake. I agree that Marquez is a great fighter, but in this fight, he was cautious, he wasn't that hungry. He must have had a heavy lunch that dwindled his hunger for the title.
Juan Manuel Marquez is a great fighter, probably the best Manny Pacquiao has ever fought. It wasn't the most decisive of Manny's fights, but has indeed brought us another classic. In the end, Manny proved to be the more mature and better fighter, as how the judges saw it. As Dom Toretto put it in the first installment Fast and the Furious, " It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile; winning's winning." Better luck next time, Marquez. That is, if there is a next time.
No comments :
Post a Comment