Pacquiao vs. Marquez Post Fight: Pac-Man's Comments Point Towards 5th Fight
Despite being absolutely floored on Saturday night, Manny Pacquio isn't done with Juan Manuel Marquez.
He made that pretty clear during his post-fight comments (via ESPN):
"If you give us a chance, we'll fight again," Pacquiao said. "I was just starting to feel confident and then I got careless."
"I thought I was getting him in the last couple of rounds but I got hit by a strong punch," Pacquiao said. "I never expected that punch."
"I got hit by a punch I didn't see."
Unfortunately for most boxing fans, a fifth fight makes sense as long these two keep drawing viewers and money, which they inevitably will after this barnburner of a fight. As long as Mayweather and Pacquiao never get a deal done—which is really never going to happen now. And as long as the fights continue to be evenly matched.
You might have only seen this and be wondering how the fight could even come close to being described as evenly matched.
But when it comes down to it, both boxers were getting in their shots. Marquez knocked down Pac-Man in the third round. Pac-Man knocked down Marquez in the fifth.
While both were intent on ending the fight early, it was Pacquiao who was seemingly in control (via ESPN Stats & Info):
Manny Pacquiao: out-landed Juan Manuel Marquez, 94-52, in total punches, 68-41 in power punches— ESPN Stats & Info (@ESPNStatsInfo) December 9, 2012
Juan Manuel Marquez: landed only 21 percent of his punches in his knockout win over Manny Pacquiao— ESPN Stats & Info (@ESPNStatsInfo) December 9, 2012
Now think back to the first three matches. Pacquiao went 2-0-1 in those fights, but a case for Marquez can be made in at least two of them.
Dinamita may have won the most recent battle, but the war between these two hasn't come close to being settled.
There are other boxers waiting in the wings who we would much rather watch battle Pacquiao and Marquez, but it sounds as though Pac-Man—along with trainer Freddie Roach—has his sights set on one man.
For the fifth time.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?