In the strictest sense of the word, it could be classified as a robbery since the guy who actually won the fight didn’t get his hand raised.
I’m not one of those people who believes that a challenger has to take the title from the champ. One point is enough for a title change in my books and, since my personal scorecard read 115-113 for Marquez, I felt that Juan Manuel should’ve left the MGM Grand with the belt and the satisfaction of having avenged similarly close, widely disputed decisions in 2004 and 2008.
However, what happened at the MGM Grand certainly can’t be classified as a robbery in the Paul Williams-Erislandy Lara sense of the word. It was just a case of the money fighter, pop culture icon, and beloved Mr. Everything getting the benefit of the doubt whenever it was possible to give him that benefit.
Realistically, eight of the twelve rounds could’ve gone either way. The fight was that close.
Those that argue that Marquez should’ve pumped up the offense or that trainer, Nacho Beristain should’ve advised his fighter to let loose and be more aggressive are missing a major point. Marquez was as effective as he was because he controlled the pace of the bout and refused to fight the fight at Pacquiao’s usual frenetic pace. A more aggressive Marquez, who is by nature a controlled counter-puncher, would’ve played into Pacquiao’s strengths.
Of course, this controlled, steady pace opened up the distinct possibility that, short of an absolutely stellar set of judges with balls the size of snow tires, Marquez would likely come up short in yet another close contest.
