The Manny Pacquiao Train Keeps Chugging Along—God Forbid, Right Up to Malacañang’s Doorstep?

by Mark Lorenzana

I used to cover Manny Pacquiao a lot back when I was still writing seriously about boxing and mixed martial arts for Interaksyon, for a couple of boxing websites, and for my now-defunct fight blog. This was before Pacquiao entered politics for the first time, running for a seat in the Philippine house of representatives in the May 2007 legislative election, aiming to represent the first district of South Cotabato province.

Pacquiao was eventually defeated in the election by then-incumbent representative Darlene Antonino-Custodio, who said, “More than anything, I think people weren’t prepared to lose him as their boxing icon.”

I remember, back then, Pacquiao was extremely disappointed about the loss and chalked it up to his lack of a college degree at that time (he has since earned his degree in political science, graduating from the University of Makati last year). But I agree with Antonino-Custodio: I believe that Pacquiao’s fans didn’t want to see him swallowed up and corrupted by politics.

Before running for congress, Pacquiao had already avenged his loss to Erik Morales, both by stoppage. He had already upset Marco Antonio Barrera and had fought Juan Manuel Marquez to a draw in a barnburner of a fight that saw Pacquiao drop Marquez three times in the first round. Pacquiao’s stock was going up, and the future was bright for him, boxing-wise. Why try to derail that by entering politics?

Pacquiao’s fans heaved a huge sigh of relief when their idol lost in the 2007 elections, but it was short-lived. Manny eventually won a congressional seat, but this time in Sarangani, the hometown of his wife, Jinkee. Now he is a senator, having won a seat in the Philippine senate in 2016.

In my short-lived career as a boxing writer, I had to write about Pacquiao a lot, not only because he was one of the hottest commodities in the sport—he’s eventually become boxing’s only eight-division champion—but also because my boss in one of the boxing websites I was writing for demanded that I write about Pacquiao 24/7, even though I wanted to write about other fighters, about other fights. This led me to quit my job there, but that’s another story.

The point here is, as much as his fans never wanted Pacquiao to enter politics—this blogger included—he has shown that he could actually juggle being a politician and being a boxer well (or maybe not: Pacquiao is actually the top absentee in the senate). Could he have reached even greater heights as purely a boxer instead of as a boxer-slash-politician? Hard to say. Pacquiao, both in and out of the ring, thrives on chaos: inside the ring he’s a whirling dervish of energy, his in-and-out, side-to-side movement and the nonstop pumping of his fists having brought him much success in his boxing career; outside the ring his love for chaos—evidenced by a huge entourage of hangers-on (which have included unsavory political allies) and the unbelievable ability to juggle, as well, not only sports (including basketball; he was once a playing coach for the Philippine Basketball Association) and politics, but also show business (he has made a couple movies and hosted several TV shows)—has brought him, ironically, much peace of mind. Sure, some have argued that a couple of Pacquiao’s losses here and there could have been the result of the Pacman stretching himself thin, but in the end it’s only speculation.

Especially since, in the course of his last three fights, Pacquiao has strung up three straight wins—a stoppage victory against Lucas Matthysse and two impressive distance victories against Adrien Broner and Keith Thurman, where Pacquiao even scored a knockdown early in the fight against the latter—since losing his fight against Jeff Horn in Australia. Pacquiao’s recent resurgence isn’t something new, even at the ripe age of forty-one, as bouncing back from a loss has been a trademark throughout his career: after his first loss early in his career to fellow Filipino Rustico Torrecampo, Pacquiao won fifteen straight; after getting stopped in Thailand back in 1999 and losing his WBC world flyweight title, he managed to string thirteen victories; after losing a hard-fought decision to Morales, Pacquiao managed to string another fifteen-fight winning streak.

But it remains to be seen whether Pacquiao will continue fighting, especially since the sports world right now—apart from the odd live Ultimate Fighting Championship events held every few weeks—is at a standstill.

But Pacquiao being Pacquiao, he can’t seem to find solace from the limelight. Just recently he figured in a couple of news items: one, Freddie Roach throwing out there that Manny could possibly fight middleweight champion Gennady Golovkin and two, Bob Arum saying that Manny could possibly run as president of the Philippines in 2022.

Speculation, of course, but God forbid that both push through—especially the second. We all know that Pacquiao won’t be a good president. Don’t believe F. Sionil Jose.

(Photo by Bleacher Report via)

It’s Easier Said Than Done, But Why It’s Always Better to Just Go for the Damn Knockout Every Time

by Mark Lorenzana

This year alone we’ve seen several controversial decisions in boxing: Jeff Horn winning an upset over Manny Pacquiao in Australia, Wisaksil Wangek Rungvisai dealing the once-invincible Roman “Chocolatito” Gonzalez his first loss (and his second, via knockout, in the rematch but that’s another story—or blog post), and Saul Canelo Alvarez and Gennady Golovkin settling for a draw (after an exciting fight that lived up to its expectations as one of the most must-see bouts of 2017 between two of the best middleweight fighters in the game today).

But that’s the thing, and there goes the rub: the reality is, boxing is a very difficult sport to judge, as everything is subject to one’s own personal interpretation (add to that the fact that personal biases also come into play).

For instance, I remember back when Manny Pacquiao fought Tim Bradley for the first time; I scored that fight a close victory for Bradley and in the immediate aftermath posted my thoughts on social media. I was horrified and aghast, however, when I saw the reactions on social media/blog posts from boxing analysts immediately after the fight—they claimed that Pacquiao, indeed, should have won.

Majority of the boxing writers saw Pacquiao winning that bout, with only a couple of scribes giving the nod to Bradley, one of whom is highly respected veteran boxing journalist and author Thomas Hauser. To be honest, it made me feel a little better that a writer of Hauser’s caliber got it “wrong.” I was still contributing to boxing websites at that time and was even a resident boxing/MMA writer in one of the sports websites in the Philippines when that happened (and also ran, on the side, an award-nominated sports blog that is now since defunct), so I was understandably upset. I immediately put out a blog post explaining what happened and why I thought Bradley won that fight and admitted that it was an off night for me, scoring-wise. Regardless, the “damage” was already done—both to my nonexistent credibility as an unknown boxing/MMA “analyst” and to my ego as a “writer.”

So let me ask you: in a fight between a defensive-minded counterpuncher and an aggressive brawler or boxer-puncher, which style are you going to favor? Are you going to lean toward that aggressive, come-forward fighter who throws many punches, more punches than the defensive fighter, even if those punches miss a lot and hit nothing but air and/or the opponent’s arms or gloves? Or are you going to lean toward the counterpuncher, especially if he lands the cleaner blows, even though he doesn’t throw as much as his more aggressive opponent?

Take the Manny Pacquiao-Floyd Mayweather fight. I know quite a few knowledgeable boxing fans from the Philippines who believed that Pacquiao should have won that fight, even though he wasn’t the unstoppable whirlwind of years ago who humiliated Oscar de la Hoya, one-punch-kayoed Ricky Hatton, TKO’d Miguel Cotto, punished the bigger and stronger Antonio Margarito in the course of 12 brutal rounds (and broke his orbital bone), made Sugar Shane Mosley and Joshua Clottey forget about their own offense just to survive, and broke Juan Manuel Marquez’s nose in the last fight of their epic four-fight saga before getting knocked out himself because of his recklessness. Pacquiao had stalked Mayweather the entire fight, and Mayweather being Mayweather fought a brilliant defensive fight for 12 rounds, landing the cleaner shots even though he threw fewer punches. I scored that fight for Mayweather, who unsurprisingly won via unanimous decision. Immediately after the fight, when Pacquiao was interviewed in the ring by HBO’s Max Kellerman, Manny said he thought he won the fight, to Kellerman’s surprise. Freddie Roach, for his part, was more diplomatic but hinted that his fighter indeed lost the fight.

With the Pacquiao-Horn fight, I gave Pacquiao the nod by two rounds, as I felt that it was indeed a close fight but that the Filipino did enough to retain his belt. Immediately after the fight, though, there were howls of protests that Pacquiao should have won a wide decision (I didn’t understand that, though, as, like I said, I felt that it was a close fight). Bob Arum, for his part, thought that it could have gone either way (although it’s understandable for Arum to feel that way because he promotes both fighters); and Freddie Roach, although he said he thought that Pacquiao should have won, never protested the decision vehemently and even went so far as to suggest that Manny’s retirement isn’t that far off, perhaps believing that his prized pupil could have done more but was hampered by the physical deterioration in the ring brought about by age (after all, when was the last time Pacquiao looked like the relentless dynamo of yesteryears that gobbled up his opponents?), his senate “responsibilities” that limited his training and his sparring, and the comforts of the high life that almost always affects a boxer’s hunger to train and to destroy his opponent (a problem that Roach has actually harped on for several years now, what with Pacquiao’s penchant for letting the judges decide the outcome of his bouts, with his killer instinct seemingly evaporating into thin air after his impressive TKO win over Miguel Cotto an eternity ago). The point is, perhaps the judges in the Pacquiao-Horn fight felt that the latter’s aggressiveness and, yes, his seemingly “dirty” tactics helped neutralize the former’s once-impressive offensive attacks—indeed, aside from a ninth round where Horn was close to hitting the canvas, Pacquiao for the most part was often stymied by the bigger, stronger, and “dirtier” fighter who didn’t mind taking a page out of the MMA stylebook and repeatedly used his forearms, shoulders, head, and even his elbows to his advantage.

With the Rungvisai-Chocolatito fight, I scored the fight for Chocolatito but also admitted to myself that the Nicaraguan, one of my favorite fighters of recent years, didn’t look as sharp as he had been, especially when he was still campaigning in the lower weights and blasting all comers, making a case for himself as one of the best pound-for-pound fighters in the world. In that fight, the bigger and stronger Rungvisai never let Gonzalez intimidate him and, like Horn, decided to make it hard for Chocolatito by resorting to borderline illegal tactics to frustrate the Nicaraguan. And, to the judges at least, it worked—they thought the Thai did enough that night to wrest the titles away from Gonzalez. Perhaps the judges thought that Gonzalez, being the brilliant fighter that he was, should have been his always-impressive self and that anything less than Chocolatito blasting away Rungvisai was not enough for him to retain his belts? Was Chocolatito unfairly judged because of the lofty standards that he set for himself and that, because he failed to live up to these standards, the opponent was judged “good” enough and therefore deserving enough of the win?

With the Canelo-Golovkin fight, I thought that Canelo won by a couple of rounds although I don’t think that a draw is unreasonable, as well as a scorecard that awarded Golovkin a win by two or three rounds, because the fight I saw was a close fight wherein GGG was the aggressor throughout but with Canelo banking on his better boxing skills, much-improved movement, and superb counterpunching to land the cleaner blows. (I have a problem with Adalaide Byrd’s card, though, that only saw Golovkin winning two rounds; it’s a fucking travesty that deserves its own separate blog post). With that said, a lot of people also saw Golovkin winning by a wide margin, because of the way they perceive how a fighter should fight in order to win: go forward and attack, attack, attack. This is not a wrong way of seeing things, as it is also not wrong to favor the fighter who, although is backpedaling and moving and counterpunching, lands the cleaner blows and is perceived to be outboxing his opponent. Personally, I thought Golovkin missed a lot and wasted a lot of punches.

Boxing decisions will continue to be controversial as long as the judges themselves have their own perception of what a winning fighter should do in order to deserve the nod. After all, we all have our own way of seeing things (and not seeing things, for that matter)—even the most seasoned boxing judge, who’s had hundreds of title fights under his/her belt.

But Juan Manuel Marquez knew the perfect remedy for that, though, after being on the short end of the stick three times against Manny Pacquiao—just go for the damn knockout.

Pinoy Fight Scribe: Pacquiao retirement after Bradley fight a good idea

(This piece appeared in InterAKTV on February 21, 2012.)

by Mark Lorenzana

Manny Pacquiao turns 34 this year.

As a boxer, he has logged a lot of miles: since turning pro in 1995, he has figured in a total of 59 fights, which translates into 353 rounds boxed. Just recently, Pacquiao had hinted that he might walk away from the sport after his upcoming fight with Timothy Bradley on June 9.

According to the Retired Boxers Foundation, the average age of retirement for a professional boxer is in the mid-30s. Some boxers, especially those who lose a lot of fights early in their career, decide to hang up their gloves at a young age while others hang on and continue fighting until their 40s. Right now, Pacquiao is at the optimal retirement age for boxers.

This is not the first time, though, that Pacquiao has hinted at retirement. Three years ago, Pacquiao announced that he would retire at the end of 2009 as he unveiled his plans to run for Congress. Then in 2010, after defeating Joshua Clottey, Pacquiao hinted that he might talk to his family about his possible retirement that year. The year after that, in 2011, there were talks once again that Pacquiao might call it quits after his fight with Sugar Shane Mosley.

Those previous retirement talks never really amounted to anything, so die-hard Pacquiao fans can at least take solace in the knowledge that nothing is set in stone yet, and that there’s a big possibility that Pacquiao might change his mind.

But here’s the thing: after Bradley, who’s next for Pacquiao? Floyd Mayweather Jr.? He won’t step in the ring with Pacquiao until he feels that Manny is too old and too shot. That fight will never happen in a million years. Juan Manuel Marquez? He has Pacquiao’s number, but Marquez will never ever get the benefit of the doubt against the judges because of his counterpunching style. The surest way for Marquez to beat Pacquiao is by a knockout, but it’s been three fights already, and he hasn’t floored the Pacman even once. Besides, Marquez already said that he will retire at the end of this year even if the fourth fight with Pacquiao doesn’t happen.

In other words, if a fight against Mayweather or Marquez can’t be made, who else could be a meaningful opponent for Pacquiao? A severely dehydrated Sergio Martinez? The high-risk/low-reward Lamont Peterson? Miguel Cotto again? Why?

So yes, Pacquiao retiring after the Bradley fight is perhaps the most logical decision that the reigning pound-for-pound boxer and future hall-of-famer can make at the twilight of his brilliant career. In boxing, it’s always a good idea to quit while you’re ahead, and not until you’ve been squeezed dry by your greedy promoter.

* * *

Speaking of the undefeated Timothy Bradley, the reigning WBO light welterweight champion, how might he fare against Manny Pacquiao?

Juan Manuel Marquez had an interesting thing to say about the matchup: “Even though Bradley is a great boxer, and he has skills, he needs the power. He [doesn’t] have that power. Pacquiao has the speed and Pacquiao has the power. The difference in this fight is power. The difference will be the power punches that Pacquiao has.”

I agree wholeheartedly with Marquez’s assessment. In my last column, I wrote: “Timothy Bradley is young, undefeated, a good boxer with decent-enough skills, someone who has defeated quality opponents. Problem is, Pacquiao tends to make mincemeat out of offensive-minded fighters who take the fight to him, especially someone smaller and who has no power punch.”

I stand by what I wrote. To reiterate, the difference will be the power. It’s just common sense, really: Bradley doesn’t punch that hard, and Pacquiao has a world-class chin. If you cannot make Pacquiao respect your power, what’s gonna stop him from coming in and raining down blows on you until you scream “uncle” or until you get pounded out or until your cornerman throws in the towel, whichever comes first?

And here’s a little-known fact about Pacquiao that might seem trivial but I think is worth noting anyway: since Pacquiao won his first world title as a flyweight by beating Chatchai Sasakul in Thailand fourteen years ago, he has knocked out every single opponent he faced when he either lost or scored a draw in his previous bout.

Cases in point: Pacquiao knocked out Reynante Jamili in two rounds after losing to Medgoen Singsurat, Pacquiao stopped Jorge Eliecer Julio in round two after he settled for a draw against the late Agapito Sanchez, Pacquiao scored a fourth-round knockout against Fahsan 3K Battery after he drew with Marquez in their first fight, and Pacquiao annihilated the tough Hector Velasquez within six rounds after he lost his first fight against Erik Morales.

Pacquiao is coming off a close win against Juan Manuel Marquez, a fight that could have gone either way, a fight that boxing pundits thought should have been awarded to Marquez. Pacquiao’s performance against Marquez has been criticized, and who’s to say that the Pacman isn’t itching to bounce back and score an impressive win? Technically, Pacquiao didn’t lose his third fight with Marquez, but who’s to say that he won’t want to bounce back with an emphatic performance?

In his poem “The Hollow Men,” T. S. Eliot wrote, “This is the way the world ends / Not with a bang but a whimper.”

On the contrary, going back to the earlier point at the beginning of this column about Pacquiao’s possible retirement, if this is indeed where the Pacman’s legendary career ends, he’d most certainly want to end it with a bang, not a whimper.

That said, be afraid for Timothy Bradley. Be very, very afraid.

Pinoy Fight Scribe: Breaking down Pacquiao-Bradley, Mayweather Cotto

(This piece appeared in InterAKTV on February 10, 2011.)

by Mark Lorenzana

WBO welterweight champion Manny Pacquiao and WBC welterweight titlist Floyd Mayweather Jr. are, undoubtedly, the two biggest attractions in the sport of boxing today. Both fighters possess speed, power, ring smarts, and tough chins — attributes that have catapulted them to superstardom.

Both boxers also possess varying fighting styles that, needless to say, promises an intriguing and mouth-watering matchup: Pacquiao’s relentless, unorthodox, and blitzkrieg offensive attack against Mayweather’s outstanding defensive skills and counterpunching prowess.

This matchup is a boxing fan’s dream come true: one of the game’s best boxer-punchers in Pacquiao fighting one of the game’s best counterpunching stylists in Mayweather.

The problem, though, is that they aren’t fighting each other anytime soon.

It’s official: Pacquiao has signed to fight undefeated Timothy “Desert Storm” Bradley on June 9. The report comes on the heels of the recent announcement by Mayweather that he will be facing Puerto Rico’s Miguel Cotto for the latter’s WBA super welterweight strap on Cinco de Mayo.

So what could we expect from the two matchups?

Manny Pacquiao vs. Timothy Bradley

After Pacquiao struggled against Juan Manuel Marquez in their third fight, a close bout that Pacquiao won by majority decision, the consensus — both spoken and unspoken — around Boxlandia was that Mayweather was next for Pacquiao. But when feeble attempts at negotiations to make the dream fight fizzled out, several prospective opponents for Pacquiao cropped up overnight: Marquez, Cotto, Bradley, and even Lamont Peterson.

Marquez was out of the running as a potential opponent for Pacquiao soon after he voiced out several demands before a fourth fight could happen, demands that Top Rank head honcho Bob Arum deemed too unreasonable, even crazy: a venue other than Las Vegas, neutral judges, and a bigger purse. But Marquez was probably out of the running as a potential opponent for Pacquiao as early as the end of the third fight when everyone realized that the Mexican was the perfect foil for Pacquiao. Marquez will, most probably, fight another rumored Pacquiao opponent, Lamont Peterson in mid July.

Cotto was the initial pick by Pacquiao, but the Puerto Rican made it clear that he wouldn’t fight below 150 pounds. Cotto has campaigned at 154 lbs. for his past three fights already, and Pacquiao wanted the fight at a lower weight. It seems that the weight played a huge factor in Cotto’s decision to choose Mayweather, especially since the latter agreed to move up in weight to challenge Cotto.

Timothy Bradley is young, undefeated, a good boxer with decent-enough skills, someone who has defeated quality opponents. But Bradley is not exactly a power puncher and is going up in weight to fight Pacquiao, a fighter who has been campaigning as a full-fledged welterweight for a total of five fights now. Pacquiao has dominated naturally bigger guys like Oscar De La Hoya, Cotto, Margarito, Joshua Clottey, and Shane Mosley and has only shown difficulties against defensive counterpunchers like Marquez. Bradley is not a defensive counterpuncher, is smaller, and will take the fight to Pacquiao. Problem is, Pacquiao tends to make mincemeat out of offensive-minded fighters who take the fight to him, especially someone smaller and who has no power punch.

Floyd Mayweather vs. Miguel Cotto

A curious thing about this fight is that Mayweather has been avoiding Cotto for the longest time. This was when Cotto was still in his prime, when he was still undefeated, before he was beaten to a bloody pulp by Antonio Margarito and Pacquiao. Just recently, Mayweather dismissed Cotto as a potential opponent, saying he wouldn’t fight any of “Pacquiao’s leftovers.” Until now, that is.

Cotto may be the naturally bigger man, but he is not the same fighter many years ago that Mayweather had been ducking. Mayweather, being the shrewd, cagey boxer/businessman that he is, won’t risk his undefeated record. He took the fight because he knows that he can—and will—beat this version of Cotto.

So here’s the sad part: there is still no guarantee that Pacquiao and Mayweather will immediately fight each other after they beat each of their respective opponents. Who knows? Maybe they will eventually come to their senses many, many years from now, when they are both too old and too infirm and too shot. But will boxing fans still care?

Ah, to be passionate devotees of a niche sport whose two biggest attractions possess egos as huge as the fat paychecks that they command.

Pacquiao’s win over Marquez raises more questions than answers

(This piece appeared in InterAKTV on November 15, 2011.)

by Mark Lorenzana

“I clearly won the fight.”

It’s hard to tell if Manny Pacquiao said that with real conviction during the postfight interview after another grueling fight with Juan Manuel Marquez. After 36 brutal rounds, the only clear thing is that Pacquiao seems to have found the perfect foil in Marquez. “Marquez has Manny’s number,” Pacquiao trainer Freddie Roach said after the third fight. Not a lot of people will disagree with that assessment.

The trilogy has, so far, yielded one draw and two wins for Pacquiao. The third bout was supposed to be the most decisive of all three battles, but the outcome only managed to raise more questions than answers.

Did Juan Manuel Marquez hurt Pacquiao?

Does Juan Manuel Marquez, someone who has fought at the welterweight limit only a couple of times in his career, punch harder than full-fledged welterweights like Antonio Margarito and Miguel Cotto?

When Pacquiao fought Margarito and Cotto, he took both those guys’ best shots, even egging them on to punch him in the body so that he could taste their power. This drew the consternation of Freddie Roach, but it was all good because Pacquiao never really buckled under the onslaught. The Pacquiao against Cotto and Margarito was far more accurate than the one against Marquez because Manny seemed more confident and at ease when he fought those two bigger guys—he let his hands go freely and wasn’t afraid to engage.

Against Marquez, Pacquiao seemed nervous and tentative, he missed a lot, and most of his punches were short and didn’t connect because he wasn’t close enough to hit his target—Pacquiao seemed afraid to engage. Again, does Juan Manuel Marquez punch harder than naturally bigger men like Margarito and Cotto?

What was Pacquiao’s game plan going into the fight?

Freddie Roach said part of the strategy was to avoid Marquez’s right hand. “Manny’s a left-hander and if you’re fighting a right-hander like Marquez, you don’t slide to his right because he’s going to hit you every time,” said Roach. But Pacquiao repeatedly slid right directly into Marquez’s straight hand, and naturally, he got hit every time.

Another plan, according to Roach, was to go to the body early, something that could have slowed the 38-year-old Marquez down. But Pacquiao went to the body sporadically and essentially headhunted most of the fight, with little success.

For some strange reason, Pacquiao deviated from the game plan. Did he do it on purpose, or were there other factors that kept him from doing what he needed to do to win the fight in more convincing fashion?

Did Pacquiao overthink Marquez?

Former heavyweight champion George Foreman, who also worked briefly as a boxing analyst for HBO, always said during broadcasts that a fighter shouldn’t overanalyze his opponent’s style. His advice? Just fight.

In the first two bouts against Marquez, that was what Pacquiao did—he just fought. And because of that he was able to knock down Marquez four times. In those instances, Pacquiao just let his hands go and peppered the Mexican with punches from weird angles. Marquez didn’t know where the punches were coming from, so he eventually got hit with solid shots and went down several times.

Also, Pacquiao has a wider repertoire of punches now, so why didn’t he throw more hooks and uppercuts instead of just throwing spartan 1-2 combinations all night? Before the fight, Evander Holyfield said that all Pacquiao needs to do to win is to be himself. Against Juan Manuel Marquez, does Pacquiao find it hard to be his explosive, unpredictable self?

After three close fights where Pacquiao was very, very lucky to escape with a draw and a couple of close wins, it certainly seems to appear that way.

What should Marquez do for him to win against Pacquiao?

The first couple of fights were very close and could have gone either way, but in the third one Marquez looked to be more in control and landed the more telling blows.

Of course the Pacquiao aggression was there as usual, but it was not effective aggression. Against David Diaz, Oscar De La Hoya, Ricky Hatton, Miguel Cotto, Antonio Margarito, Joshua Clottey, and Sugar Shane Mosley, Pacquiao showed effective aggression; in this fight he seemed lost and out of sync. Perhaps this was the reason why, as Time Magazine’s Gary Andrew Poole said, “No one on press row had Pacquiao winning, and only a few had him stealing a draw.”

Marquez’s “problem” (if we can call it a problem) is that he is a counterpuncher, and a lot have argued that this is precisely why he can’t win in the eyes of the judges—in close fights, judges tend to favor (fairly or unfairly, you be the judge) the more aggressive fighter even if the more defensive fighter lands the cleaner shots. What’s ironic in this case is that it’s precisely this counterpunching style that has made Marquez very difficult to solve for Pacquiao.

Needless to say, if Marquez employed a more aggressive style against the Filipino, he would be playing right into Pacquiao’s hands and would be deposited in the canvas in no time. In this case, Marquez finds himself in a quandary: fight smart and lose in the eyes of the judges or fight aggressively and get knocked out.

It’s a no-win situation for him, and you can’t help but feel sorry for the guy and all the hard work he always puts in. This is a painful case of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” for Juan Manuel Marquez.

Is Pacquiao slowing down?

Was Pacquiao’s less-than-stellar performance a sign that he is finally slowing down and that his skills are eroding, or is it just purely because of Marquez’s style, a style that has given Pacquiao fits for three fights now? Pacquiao has supposedly suffered cramps again, which may be a sign that his body is not what it used to be. At 32, Pacquiao is not exactly a spring chicken, and there are a lot of fighters (especially offensive pressure fighters) who have appeared to age overnight. The next fight against another opponent (preferably one who will take the fight to Pacquiao) will, hopefully, answer that question.

Will there be a fourth fight?

Yes, perhaps. That is, if Pacquiao is still up to it.