Now who's the leader of their generation: Pacquiao or Mayweather?

[janeschicken]

Originally Posted by Inquisitive

Pacquiao fans are insufferable. Their buffoonish behavior and constant excuse making makes it hard to separate the man, who's a spectacular fighter, from his idiot fans. Pacquiao hasn't faced better competition. He's faced the same competition, and has often faced them after Floyd's beaten them.

Don't you have another thread going in the lounge RIGHT NOW about how you don't know much about boxing and prefer MMA? Oh yes, you will make a perfect Flomo indeed.

[janeschicken]

Originally Posted by Inquisitive

Find Manny's fight record. Start at 2003 and go backwards. Speaks for itself.

How would you know which of his opponents are legitimate and which aren't, when in your own words..

Originally Posted by Inquisitive

Like most boxing viewers, I only watch boxing when there's a high-profile fight. If Mayweather or Pacquiao aren't headlining, then I couldn't care less about what's going on in the world of boxing. .

[Inquisitive]

Originally Posted by janeschicken

How would you know which of his opponents are legitimate and which aren't, when in your own words..

Edmund Enting Ignacio, Panomdej Ohyuthanakorn, Chokchai Chockvivat are world-beaters, brah. Future HOFs.

[janeschicken]

Originally Posted by Inquisitive

Edmund Enting Ignacio, Panomdej Ohyuthanakorn, Chokchai Chockvivat are world-beaters, brah. Future HOFs.

Really, though, don't you feel embarrassed to be even pretending any knowledge of who's who in the sport given when you wrote just above?

Fact of the matter is, all you've been doing is "boxrec-ing", which makes you a total disgrace.

[Inquisitive]

Originally Posted by janeschicken

Don't you have another thread going in the lounge RIGHT NOW about how you don't know much about boxing and prefer MMA? Oh yes, you will make a perfect Flomo indeed.

Means I'm unbiased and not emotionally invested and don't use childish, borderline-homophobic epithets to defend or demean fighters.

I prefer MMA, yes, but I'm aware of what's what in boxing.

[Montero]

Originally Posted by Asterion

Even though he has arguably lost the last three fights, Pacman still has the better resume.

But Mayweather is undefeated and would probably school Pac.

Who's the best of that generation?

It's still Pacquiao.

Look, it was MARQUEZ who knocked out Pacquiao, NOT Mayweather. A lot of you guys are acting as if Floyd crawled up inside of Juan's body and landed that right hand. Bottom line - Floyd never had the balls to fight Pacquiao (or Casamayor, Tszyu, Margarito, Williams, Martinez, a prime Cotto, etc) so his entire career is definied with "would have", "could have" and worst of all - "if".

In terms of ATG p4p rankings, accomlishments, etc - it's Pac>May

[Inquisitive]

Originally Posted by janeschicken

Really, though, don't you feel embarrassed to be even pretending any knowledge of who's who in the sport given when you wrote just above?

Fact of the matter is, all you've been doing is "boxrec-ing", which makes you a total disgrace.

Call it what you want, but at the end of the day, you know I'm right. It's often said that Floyd fought cans, but I don't see a litany of Atomweight bums on his record.

[boxeo#1]

Originally Posted by Whiskers

It’s hard to say because both fighters have brought something different to the table which has taken them to the top. Mayweather has his pure unrivalled boxing ability which has made him the favourite against nearly all of his opposition (past, present and future), and Pacquiao has the best resume in the sport with spectacular wins and the most fan friendly style out there. History will probably remember Pacquiao in a more positive light because underdogs who proved everyone wrong tend to be appreciated more. Mayweather is too skilled for his own good and unfortunately has never been giving the same opportunities Pacquiao has had to ‘shock’ the world. He’s always been the favourite and expected to win.

This is why I think comparing fighters' careers is comparing apples and oranges.

[alakran]

Originally Posted by saul_ir34

JMM or PBF.

How can you have Pac considered for that when he has lost 4 times against JMM. If JMM had gotten the nod those times he would be considered p4p number 1 or 2.

People acting like JMM has only beat Pac once...

official record has it 2-1-1 i agree it should be something like 3-1 though but thats not what it will say in the history books

[jeffjoiner]

It depends on how you define greatness.

Pac will always be the fighter who gave the fans exciting fights although he wasn't the greatest technically.

Mayweather will always be remembered as the most technically proficient fighter of his era, but his career, like Montero said, is a big "what if" when it comes to big fights.

Both were great in their own way. As a fan, I will watch Pac fights for years to come. If I'm a trainer, I'll have my students watch Mayweather, though.

[janeschicken]

Originally Posted by Inquisitive

Call it what you want, but at the end of the day, you know I'm right. It's often said that Floyd fought cans, but I don't see a litany of Atomweight bums on his record.

Tell me what Floyd's first legitimate win was on his record.. and how many fights in it was. This should be interesting, since according to you:

Originally Posted by Inquisitive

Like most boxing viewers, I only watch boxing when there's a high-profile fight. If Mayweather or Pacquiao aren't headlining, then I couldn't care less about what's going on in the world of boxing. .

[Inquisitive]

Originally Posted by Montero

It's still Pacquiao.

Look, it was MARQUEZ who knocked out Pacquiao, NOT Mayweather. A lot of you guys are acting as if Floyd crawled up inside of Juan's body and landed that right hand. Bottom line - Floyd never had the balls to fight Pacquiao (or Casamayor, Tszyu, Margarito, Williams, Martinez, a prime Cotto, etc) so his entire career is definied with "would have", "could have" and worst of all - "if".

In terms of ATG p4p rankings, accomlishments, etc - it's Pac>May

Pacquiao himself only fought two of the guys you named.

[Inquisitive]

Originally Posted by janeschicken

Tell me what Floyd's first legitimate win was on his record.. and how many fights in it was. This should be interesting, since according to you:

He started fighting legitimate opponents two years after turning pro.

[tliang1000]

Originally Posted by Montero

It's still Pacquiao.

Look, it was MARQUEZ who knocked out Pacquiao, NOT Mayweather. A lot of you guys are acting as if Floyd crawled up inside of Juan's body and landed that right hand. Bottom line - Floyd never had the balls to fight Pacquiao (or Casamayor, Tszyu, Margarito, Williams, Martinez, a prime Cotto, etc) so his entire career is definied with "would have", "could have" and worst of all - "if".

In terms of ATG p4p rankings, accomlishments, etc - it's Pac>May

who are these people that were "acting" as if it was Floyd. That is all dreamt up by insecure Pactards.

Floyd Fans doesn't need JMM to KO pac to think that Floyd would win against Pac. It wasn't their first Rodeo. Everytime Pac fights JMM he gets embrassed.

And you accusing Floyd scare of the list you provided is flat out low. To say Floyd is scare of Casamayor? you will throw any name in there and add Floyd scare won't u.

You should know that Oscar > Margo
You should know that it was Cotto, Kostya, Hamed, Casyamayor who didn't want to fight Floyd.

And i don't see you bitching about pac being scare of Williams and Martinez just shows how bias u r.

[bjl12]

Originally Posted by Asterion

Even though he has arguably lost the last three fights, Pacman still has the better resume.

But Mayweather is undefeated and would probably school Pac.

Floyd's resume is better.

Floyd was on top of the sport before Pac and now after Pac.

/thread