Will you give Pacquiao credit if he beats Thurman, and vice versa?

Hope he wins and then retires for good no need to keep fighting.

 

Agreed

 

Minor fact.

 

Beating Pac wouldn't escalate him past Spence or Thurman because Pac sidestepped both of those gents.

 

Floyd sidestepped a lot of guys coming up didn’t change a thing.

 

Not an opinion, declared covered up facts.

Fact he was caught with IV.

Just because there’s no judge because mayweather has bought NSAC and usada don’t mean ****.

This is like saying Evander Holyfield wasn’t on drugs despite the overwhelming evidence.

Read and weep:
https://www.sbnation.com/longform/2015/9/9/9271811/can-boxing-trust-usada

https://www.boxnation.com/boxing-ne...ated-the-fallout-from-can-boxing-trust-usada/

 

of course they will mention the age, and he is 40. When Duran lost to Hearns he was only 32, just a year younger than Crawford. So much for excuses. That is how it works.

 

What that got to do with Pac?

 

I hope Thurman goes out there and attempts to treat Manny for what he is,, a small 40 year old fighter. If not it could be a cautious snooze fest.

 

Countering the logic that you can’t be a top guy if you sidestep fighters. My point being that Floyd sidestepped a lot of fighters going up and was still considered a top fighter.

Thought that would have been simple enough to comprehend.

 

There was actual dirext evidence that holyfield was on juice, which was actual steroids delivered to his home. The evidence against Floyd (saline drip) is no more substancial than the evidence against pac (refusal of tests)

 

Depends on if the decision reflects what happens in the fight.

 

Pac didn’t refuse test dumbass. He accepted unlimited urine test, blood test immediately after the fight and up to 21 days before the fight. Does that sound like someone trying to dope?

And then you ask why is there a cut off. Simple, there’s an old video of him being superstitious blaming his loss to morales 1 due to last minute blood test which he thought weakened him.

So we have proof that he believes his own claim that blood test weakens him. And he agreed to all kinds of testing.

And you think that’s more substantial than floyd getting caught with illegal IV and getting covered up? Enough IV for dehydrated person and we all know floyd wasn’t dehydrated because they documented his weight and he’s always a “small ww”. The only other reason for the IV is obvious and it was covered up.

Had it been pa caught with illegal IV you would be all over that.

The evidence against Floyd is damning as holyfields. He was caught in his own house with illegal unapproved iv’s that could only be used for 2 reasons, dehydration or ped. Which one do you think is more probable?

If Holyfield was floyd you would probably say floyd ordered those peds to inspect them not use them. Not caught in the act so doesn’t count right despite overwhelming evidence?