boxing
Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > General Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-30-2011, 01:41 PM   #16
Jetmax
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,848
vCash: 335
Default Re: A neutral stance looking at Pac and Floyd

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjotatp4p View Post
Jet no cut offs was the original offer and that is the offer that Team Pacquiao accepted but backed out of. They also backed away from the 14 day offer that Floyd made to make the fight happen. Hell I would go back to my original offer too if I was Floyd after all the games Team Pacquiao played. Why did team Pacquiao accept the offer but backed out later? Why did they walk away from 14 days when it was offered to them? Answer that for me.
So you are saying Floyd took back the 14 days just out of spite?


I don't really know why Pacquiao walked away from 14 days the first time we can only speculate(There's actually a valid theory on this if you care to listen). Whatever the reason is does it matter? If Floyd didn't change the offer of 14 days the fight would have been done already. That's what I don't understand.
Jetmax is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-30-2011, 01:57 PM   #17
mrjotatp4p
THE ONE
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,437
vCash: 500
Default Re: A neutral stance looking at Pac and Floyd

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmax View Post
So you are saying Floyd took back the 14 days just out of spite?


I don't really know why Pacquiao walked away from 14 days the first time we can only speculate(There's actually a valid theory on this if you care to listen). Whatever the reason is does it matter? If Floyd didn't change the offer of 14 days the fight would have been done already. That's what I don't understand.
Dude pay attention. You say that if Floyd didn't change the 14 day offer the fight would have happened. Well Floyd went from no cut offs to 14 days to make the fight and Manny turned it down. **** Manny. He should have done 14 days when he was giving it. Also he agreed but then backed out of the original offer as well. To answer your question. FLOYD TOOK BACK THE 14 DAYS AND WENT BACK TO HIS ORIGINAL OFFER BC MANNY WALKED AWAY FROM THE DAMN 14 DAYS. Remember, Floyd said no more cut offs before and after the Mosley fight. Manny said well after Floyd beat Mosley that he would do 14 days.
mrjotatp4p is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 02:01 PM   #18
BeaverDan
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: North West England
Posts: 785
vCash: 75
Default Re: A neutral stance looking at Pac and Floyd

I'm completely neutral on this matter as in I don't have any reason to like one fighter over the other.

But I believe Pac or his team are the reason this fight hasn't happened. Floyd genuinly believes Pac is on something. I wouldn't want to fight a juiced up fighter.

Fact is, Floyd beats him 9 times out of 10 drugs or no drugs
BeaverDan is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 02:11 PM   #19
ajlc15
newbie
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 38
vCash: 500
Default Re: A neutral stance looking at Pac and Floyd

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeaverDan View Post
I'm completely neutral on this matter as in I don't have any reason to like one fighter over the other.

But I believe Pac or his team are the reason this fight hasn't happened. Floyd genuinly believes Pac is on something. I wouldn't want to fight a juiced up fighter.

Fact is, Floyd beats him 9 times out of 10 drugs or no drugs
And yet Floyd introduce the drug alibi a bit later though. He always insisted in the beginning that pacquiao was either too small, already been beaten, or was not calling him out when someone AKS pac if he would fight mayweather. He later introduce the drug alibi after the hatton fight....obviously brainwashed by his dad.

Suppose pac does drugs and obviously is hiding it....why the hell would you then **** up this $100 million fight by introducing this alibi despite the 9/10 chance of beating him....doesn't add up
ajlc15 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 02:13 PM   #20
mrjotatp4p
THE ONE
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,437
vCash: 500
Default Re: A neutral stance looking at Pac and Floyd

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnn View Post
i heard this before. i also like floyds chances in the fight. however, i believe he is the one stalling the fight.

do you have a quote where floyd said he wouldnt want fight a juiced up fighter, or its your own opinion?>
Sunn, how is Floyd holding up the fight when it is Manny who agreed to full testing the first time around but later backed away from that and wanted a cut off? It is Team Pacquiao who said they didn't want to test too close to the fight but then walked away from a 14 day cut off offer? It was Floyd who agreed to everything that Team Pacquiao asked for. So please explain how Floyd is the blame.
mrjotatp4p is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 02:18 PM   #21
mrjotatp4p
THE ONE
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,437
vCash: 500
Default Re: A neutral stance looking at Pac and Floyd

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajlc15 View Post
And yet Floyd introduce the drug alibi a bit later though. He always insisted in the beginning that pacquiao was either too small, already been beaten, or was not calling him out when someone AKS pac if he would fight mayweather. He later introduce the drug alibi after the hatton fight....obviously brainwashed by his dad.

Suppose pac does drugs and obviously is hiding it....why the hell would you then **** up this $100 million fight by introducing this alibi despite the 9/10 chance of beating him....doesn't add up
No he did not bring it up later. He wanted that from the start and there is proof of that. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQsHMN1B_bg&feature=related[/ame] 5:39
mrjotatp4p is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 02:20 PM   #22
mrjotatp4p
THE ONE
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,437
vCash: 500
Default Re: A neutral stance looking at Pac and Floyd

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajlc15 View Post
And yet Floyd introduce the drug alibi a bit later though. He always insisted in the beginning that pacquiao was either too small, already been beaten, or was not calling him out when someone AKS pac if he would fight mayweather. He later introduce the drug alibi after the hatton fight....obviously brainwashed by his dad.

Suppose pac does drugs and obviously is hiding it....why the hell would you then **** up this $100 million fight by introducing this alibi despite the 9/10 chance of beating him....doesn't add up
Oh and if Pac is on roids and it doesn't come out until later then the damage would already be done. Remember OSCAR wanted his loss to Mosley over turned but the commission couldn't bc Mosley never failed a drug test even though he admitted he was on EPO and The Clear.
mrjotatp4p is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 02:22 PM   #23
mrjotatp4p
THE ONE
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,437
vCash: 500
Default Re: A neutral stance looking at Pac and Floyd

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnn View Post
im not sure that you read my previous posts before, and im sure others have answered this already.
didnt pac said he gets affected getting blood drawn close to the fight, and also when under heavy training?>
Okay well if that is the case then why did his ass agree to full testing from the start when Floyd asked? He also got blood drawn while in training for Hatton and sparred and trained his ass off in 111 degree temp in the wild card for hours the very next day. There is proof of that as well!
mrjotatp4p is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 02:27 PM   #24
DBLOCK
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 768
vCash: 500
Default Re: A neutral stance looking at Pac and Floyd

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjotatp4p View Post
No he did not bring it up later. He wanted that from the start and there is proof of that. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 5:39
can't wait to see the response to this.
DBLOCK is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 02:30 PM   #25
bballchump11
2011 Poster of the Year
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: GA
Posts: 30,852
vCash: 75
Default Re: A neutral stance looking at Pac and Floyd

you not neutral
bballchump11 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 02:31 PM   #26
mrjotatp4p
THE ONE
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,437
vCash: 500
Default Re: A neutral stance looking at Pac and Floyd

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnn View Post
where did it say they agreed to full test, did the pac camp confirm this? do you have the copy of the contract?
Where have you been? Since you ask for it. Well here it is. Just one form of proof: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La7RAg1shM0&feature=related[/ame] 7 secs in. Let Roach tell you better than I can.
mrjotatp4p is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 02:33 PM   #27
anundecidedarm
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 402
vCash: 500
Default Re: A neutral stance looking at Pac and Floyd

I think Floyd is scared, not of Pac himself, but of losing the 0. Everything about Floyd revolves around that 0. The 0 is his pride, it's his marketability. Pac is the best fighter he would ever encounter, and has a good chance of losing. Imagine Floyd not being able to brag about being undefeated? Personally, I can't.
anundecidedarm is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 02:35 PM   #28
Leonard
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,102
vCash: 1147
Default Re: A neutral stance looking at Pac and Floyd

this will keep on recurring. let's just hope pac wins over jmm this coming november and follow the next negotiations between pac and floyd.

pac already said that blood testing is not an issue and that is the only remaining concern from floyd's standpoint. next neg will confirm who wants it and who doesn't.
Leonard is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 02:37 PM   #29
BeaverDan
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: North West England
Posts: 785
vCash: 75
Default Re: A neutral stance looking at Pac and Floyd

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnn View Post
i heard this before. i also like floyds chances in the fight. however, i believe he is the one stalling the fight.

do you have a quote where floyd said he wouldnt want fight a juiced up fighter, or its your own opinion?>
Well of course it's opinion who and why is at fault.

And of course Floyd wouldn't want to fight him if he thinks he's juicing. He's made that clear with his demands.
BeaverDan is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 02:37 PM   #30
mrjotatp4p
THE ONE
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,437
vCash: 500
Default Re: A neutral stance looking at Pac and Floyd

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard View Post
this will keep on recurring. let's just hope pac wins over jmm this coming november and follow the next negotiations between pac and floyd.

pac already said that blood testing is not an issue and that is the only remaining concern from floyd's standpoint. next neg will confirm who wants it and who doesn't.
I agree and hopefully they actually negotiate.
mrjotatp4p is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > General Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump






All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2015