Pacquiao vs. Marquez: Why Decision Loss Would Still Be a Win for Dinamita
Defeating Manny Pacquiao would surely put the exclamation point on Juan Manuel Marquez's excellent career. There's no denying how badly Dinamita wants to come out the victor this time around after feeling cheated in all three previous bouts against Pac-Man.
But let’s face it, winning is a long shot for the 39-year-old. He’s going up against Pacquiao in the wake of a controversial decision loss to Timothy Bradley.
Like Marquez’s previous disputed losses to Pacquiao, it will serve as a huge motivator for Pac-Man to come out and silence his critics.
Both fighters obviously have something very important to them up for grabs in this fourth installment of their rivalry.
Marquez has fought well in the previous fights, arguably better than Pacquiao at times. The controversial decision that favored Pac-Man last November is still fresh in Dinamita’s mind.
But can his passion from that loss translate to boxing success in the ring?
Pac-Man has a clear-cut advantage over Marquez due to his combination of elite hand speed and relentless pressure.
While Dinamita can certainly work out of those assaults with his refined counter punch skills, his age and ability to escape the onslaught will definitely be a factor in this one.
Last year may have been Marquez’s last true chance to get the better of his rival. Escaping this time with a loss by decision isn’t the worst thing that could happen.
However, despite the odds, no true competitor will prepare with the notion they are not able to win. Marquez is full of heart and will bring everything he has to Las Vegas on December 9.
Losing may not be Dinamita's first choice, but keeping it close and respectable is the most likely and best outcome.
Still, anything can happen because Marquez has nothing to lose. Maybe he will catch Pacquiao off guard and will walk away with a huge statement victory.
That’s why they lace up the gloves and step into the ring.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?