Some Incriminating JMM Pics!

Hey I got this straight from Maxboxing forums. These are some of the gayest photos I've seen! Now I know why Pacquiao threw the last 11 rounds, he was afraid of getting arrested for gay bashing!

All the pics here:

http://wbcjapan.hp.infoseek.co.jp/fuanmanuelmarquez.htm

This one takes the cake!
(IMG:http://wbcjapan.hp.infoseek.co.jp/juanborneo.jpg)

On a side note, here's the Chris John vs Juan Manuel Marquez fight video link...

http://www.onetruemedia.com/otm_site/view_shared?p=426880777e978053fc00e

Not the best quality but still watchable. Was he robbed or what?!

Yikes, what a flamer. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Nothing wrong with Marquez coming out of the closet.

No he is married

Some countries do allow same sex marriage.

"Some countries do allow same sex marriage."

Ah yes, Mexico. That bastion of progressivism to our South. A nation on the forefront of cutting edge legislation for equal rights for homosexuals.

Ghey or not aside, watch the fight and see how Marquez got ROBBED.

"Robbed is a bit of an overstatement"

LOL. John won no more than four rounds at best. Marquez was taking him to school.

Bad career move or not, that was a terrible decision.

Cliff Rold has just left hooked the correct. Shame on Dandy Dan Rafael and all the JMM haters/Pac nuthuggers who are saying that Marquez lost the fight.

from ringtalk.com:

"Turns out it was an incredibly questionable decision and, given the weight of pound for pound ratings on the sports marketing and cache, if Marquez didn't deserve to lose then he deserves his spot back on the lists that circulate. Like I said a few weeks ago, I can't defend Marquez for his bad business decisions and I don't find him exciting to watch, but if anyone can show me how a guy can out throw, outland, visibly hurt and dictate the pace of an entire fight and lose, I'd appreciate it. In the meantime, I can marginally swallow the old adage that fight scoring is 'subjective,' but only if the argument is coming from someone who saw the bout."

Dandy Dan Rafael gets caught:

from Cliff Rold of Ringtalk

MARQUEZ-JOHN CONTROVERSY NEARS BOILING POINT!

I can't be sure, but it is possible that myself and fellow Ring Talk scribe Jason Aniel are among the only writers anywhere outside of Indonesia who have actually seen the Juan Manuel Marquez-Chris John WBA featherweight title fight held during the first week of March. For certain we know that ESPN feature writer Dan Rafael has not yet. He admitted as much this week. Would that admission have come if fans, and our staff, had not raised the issue after seeing the fight? This fight is turning into a test case for the Internet age and the ability of individual sets of eyes to judge for themselves. The bubbling controversy over the fight exists almost entirely because of the rapid exchange of information. Twenty years ago, a gaffe like this would never have been caught.

"BIG DAN" RAFAEL BORE FALSE WITNESS!

Then again, it wasn't really an admission of a gaffe. It was more of an omission of past opinion. The weekend following the bout, Rafael gave Marquez and his management a lashing for their business decisions and wrote of John's performance in the fight that, "This win was no hometown decision for John. He took it to Marquez." His March ratings at 126 read "(John's) paper title is now for real after proving himself by dismantling longtime champ Juan Manuel Marquez." Just for clarification, dismantling is defined at dictionary.com as "To take apart; disassemble; tear down." Dan was telling his readers that John took apart a man he and most everyone else had in their top ten prior to the bout. Then the fight tape started finding its way out of Indonesia and we got this gem in ESPN's April featherweight rating of John: Says Rafael, caught like a cat with a mouse in his mouth, "Some say his title victory against Juan Manuel Marquez last month was legit, others say he got a gift. We're still waiting for the tape, so we can't say for sure." And this is the #1 writer for the "Worldwide Leader in Sports?"

DAN IN TOP RANK "SHILL" ROLE IS REAL BAD FOR FANS!

I have nothing personal against Dan Rafael. We all make honest mistakes. However, Dan holds a spot as perhaps the most known and read Boxing writer in the United States. That means his words and opinions matter. The weekend following Marquez-John, I let my readers know that I hadn't seen the bout and would reserve judgment. Rafael's rhetoric following the bout would easily lead the vast audience of readers afforded him by the "Worldwide Leader in Sports" to believe he'd seen the bout when he had not. One of the best fighters in the world lost his spot at 126, and that is something that needed to be verified. Especially true when there is a probability that your words will influence the perceptions of vast numbers of fans who don't have the means or time to seek out the bout that the hardcore fan community is exerting. Marquez dropped all the way to 19 in the "pound for pound" ratings from a top ten spot at ESPN based on this fight. Turns out it was an incredibly questionable decision and, given the weight of pound for pound ratings on the sports marketing and cache, if Marquez didn't deserve to lose then he deserves his spot back on the lists that circulate. Like I said a few weeks ago, I can't defend Marquez for his bad business decisions and I don't find him exciting to watch, but if anyone can show me how a guy can out throw, outland, visibly hurt and dictate the pace of an entire fight and lose, I'd appreciate it. In the meantime, I can marginally swallow the old adage that fight scoring is 'subjective,' but only if the argument is coming from someone who saw the bout. In short, Rafael owes Marquez, the fans, as well as his employer ESPN, an explanation or apology!

"Robbed is what happened to RJJ in the Olympics. JMM ashould have known that he needed to really beat down John in trouble in order to win."

LOL, he clearly got the better of John in almost every round. Have you seen the fight?

JMM clearly got jobbed. There was no way that John did enough to win the fight, even with the two questionable point deductions.

LOL at you being the arbiter of what constitutes a robbery.

"Yeah, you are SO much more qualified as an arbiter than Slick, no doubt."

I never said I was, I'm just wondering what makes him the arbiter of what a robbery is. He seems to think he has the standard defined, not me. Maybe you should re-read the thread before posting next time.

"Anybody know where I can get the fight so I can decide whether it was a robbery?"

The guy posted a link to the video on the thread.

JMM should become a spokesman for the gay community and encourage more gay men to pursue boxing.

The Fog of Internet Reports

By Richard McManus

I finally got a chance to see the Juan Manuel Marquez - Chris John scrap yesterday. Now, in this space last week I was critical of the way Marquez and his manager Nacho Beristain have handled their boxing affairs but I in no way implied or meant to imply that Marquez lost the fight the John. But, the fact is, a loss is a loss, and Marquez will have to work from it if he wants to get back on top.

However, I was critical of the fact that he was even in that position, having to fight John in his home country for a purse that was reportedly in the range of $32,500. Any way you look at it, it wasn't a desirable position to be in for one of the Top 10 Pound for Pound fighters in the world. Other managerial decisions like turning down the rematch with Manny Pacquiao and the $700,000 payday that would have reportedly come along with it have also raised red flags.

In my opinion, Marquez, a great champion with proven credentials and years of ring experience at the top of the sport should only be taking big fights or at least fights that will lead to big fights. He was hardly at a point in his career where he needed to fight a guy like Chris John in his home country of Indonesia, far away from the scrutiny and spotlight of the world boxing media and far away from the boxing capital of Las Vegas.

Upon viewing the fight all of my concerns and suspicions were confirmed and the thesis of my column last week has been strengthened. He never should have taken the fight.

Don't get me wrong the fight was no blowout on the part of Marquez and was not a major robbery. But it was a bad decision. Marquez clearly won the fight and on my unofficial scorecard I had Marquez by a margin of 115-111 or maybe to be more generous to John 114-112. That is including the 2 one-point deductions that were leveled against Marquez, reportedly for low blows.

I had Marquez winning at least 8 rounds. Without the deductions a reasonable score from my point of view could have been would have been 116-112 for Marquez (with the deductions 114-112 would have been reasonable).

I saw Marquez throwing far more punches, landing effective hooks, jabs, combinations and body punches, controlling the ring and hurting John on occasion. John did effectively dictate the pace of the fight for some of the rounds with his bouncy, active style and movement but rarely landed or even threw more than one punch at a time.

Immediately after the fight and continuing in the days afterward Internet reports and message board posts gave the scores of the fight 116-110, 117-111, 116-112 followed by the note that Marquez had points deducted in the 9th and 10th rounds for low blows. The possible implication being that Marquez down on the cards to John and losing the fight resorted to dirty tactics in an effort to level the playing field and salvage some sort of moral victory.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Here's how the low blows and point deductions unfolded:

In the 6th round Marquez hit John on the cup. It was a legitimate low punch but obviously unintentional as John was bouncing in and out of Marquez?s field all night and Marquez being known for his wide body hooks was bound to land one low sooner or later. So he was warned there.

In the 8th round Marquez was warned again for another wide body hook but this time the punch appeared to land on John's arm, maybe even as high as his shoulder, if it landed at all. In Spanish, Referee Guillermo Pineda Perez told Marquez, "One more and I take a point". Fair enough, even though the second warning was for an extremely questionable low punch.

In the 9th round Marquez landed a shot on John's belt line and even though John was not given any time to recover and was in fact rushed back into action a point was deducted. Referee Perez seemed all too eager to take the point from Marquez and the look on Marquez's face as he was paraded around the ring for the official point deduction was of a man that knew the fix was in or at least he looked a little uncomfortable. The point deduction in the 11th occurred under much the same circumstances and was for a punch that landed on the belt line of John's high riding trunks.

Now, this is where the internet reports of the fight not only fail to tell the truth they actually distort the truth making the reader believe the opposite of what actually happened. Reports made it sound as if Marquez "went dirty" ala Zab Judah. Not true. If anything it is the referee whose motives should be questioned.

The fact is that Marquez fought with renewed urgency after the point deductions. And while John may have boxed well depending on your point of view he also was on his bike an awful lot, especially in those last few rounds as Marquez landed several clean shots and even had John hurt at the end of the 11th.

Internet reports are great. In fact, the Internet, as most know is just about the only thing going in boxing coverage and boxing journalism these days. But, the internet did Juan Manuel Marquez a disservice by failing to accurately and correctly expose this fight for exactly what it was: An ESPN2 "Friday Night Fights" Special, aka, a hometown decision.