Originally Posted by badassQatari
no, those resume looks impressive at every letter , more especially considering that packy started fighting at 106.
barrera. 2003, everyone was saying this fight was not winnable but he went on beating the shit of the #3 P4P best fighter that time. and also, barrera was very much at his prime back then. you dont get too many 'shot' fighter moving up in weight and beating the hell out that division king do you?
JMM. pac was robbed on the the first fight big time. ask the judge. fact. jmm fought a dehydrated packy and still lost the fight clearly. another fact.
morales. morales beat a half blind pac on the first time, but got destroyed totally twice after that. fact. morales was still at his prime on the second and on the slide on the third fight. even the morales version of pac3 was good enough to beat just anybody other than pac at 130 back then.
diaz, a very dangerous big puncher. prime.
hoya, everybody was saying this is a suicide fight for pac. fact.
hatton. 140 king, king, KING!. a very dangerous slick fighter.
cotto, margo, mosley, considering that packy started off as 106 fighter, the mere fact that he fights at a world class level at 140 is an accomplishment by itself. and oh, they say pac was dominating and destroying them all.
I'll give you another FACT, ODLH dropped from 162 to 145 at 35 years of age in just a matter of days. Shot, too old and dehydrated that they had to rehydrate Oscar after the fight with medical means. Just because some people thought pacman shouldn't have taken the fight does not make his "victory" over and old Oscar such a huge victory.
Diaz - and overrated fighter who isn't as good as some people like you think
Hatton - "KING"?
another overrated fighter who was giving his last licks
Barrera - shot way too many wars including TWO grueling wars with Morales
Morales - shot including he had fought his trilogy with Barrera by the time he fought Pacman(and still managed to school Pac the first time)
Marquez - beat Pacquiao two times, Marquez was robbed BOTH times, a judge scored one round 10-7 instead of 10-6 for Pacman, so what? Marquez was robbed because the judges didn't score more rounds for Marquez like they should have. Pacquiao won only one round after the first at best. The fact that you cling to what the third judge scored makes you so uneducated about this fight.
Study Pacquiao's career over the last few years, he has cherry picked A LOT.
No matter what things you try to bring up most of these fighters were either overrated(good but not that good) or shot by the time Pacquiao got to fight them. And just because you overuse the word "fact" after every sentence does not make them facts. Go look up fact before you over use the word wrongfully.