Hearns KO'd Duran yet Duran is considered greater, Mayweather UD Pac, Pac considered greater

Margarito came into the fight in the best shape of his life and rehydrated to 165 pounds. Pacquiao has said that he was very lucky to have won (and survived) that fight.

Name another lightweight that would have been competitive, nevermind beat, that version of Margarito.

 

After getting KTFO by Mosley a fight before that? Of course the Margarito Pac fought was the best version ever (Pac fan logic). After all, Margarito beat some village bum in Mexico to get a title so Arum can feed Margarito to Pac.

 

Pac has repeatedly said that Margarito was his hardest fight. That's a prime Pacquiao that Margarito fought.

Name me just ONE lightweight that would be competitive with that version of Margarito.

 

Nah. If you pick CR7, you are dead wrong. Messi is on another level.

 

You think so?

What makes me think it's up for debate is CR7's success at different clubs, leagues and internationally. He's managed to lift any team he's been in whereas we've only seen Messi in a great team at Barca that was set up with him in mind and he's been seen as a disappointment in his international set up.

I know all too well about the talent of Messi though. He used to destroy my Arsenal team year after year in the knockout stages of the UCL.

 

Messi is as good a goal scorer, but also has dribbling and playmaking of the highest level, which Ronaldo doesn't have.

I think they've both been significantly worse for their national team. Ronaldo's EURO is nice but he didn't stand out much. Messi has made 3 Copa America finals and 1 World Cup final, that's not too bad.

As for Barca being set up around him, so was Real for Ronaldo. When you have such good players, you play for them. I think Ronaldo depends more on his teammates. He's a box predator. Messi creates his own chances and assists. And yes, Ronaldo has been great at every club but we can't compare them on that because Messi just hasn't felt the need to leave Barca.

 

Shane Mosley...

 

Have you ever boxed in a gym?
Height and reach advantages are not that drastic. One has to know how to use them. Paul Williams should have been unbeatable yet shorter guys had plenty of success against him.
Chris Algieri is known for his jab, yet he could not do anything with it vs Pacquiao, who had little problems countering it. Pac countered over Algieri's jab.

A change in tactics is needed if one fights someone shorter/taller/heavier. Of course it is somewhat easier to keep someone at bay with a reach advantage, but it's not a given.

Delvin Rodriguez shoved his fist into Miguel Cotto's face and stiff armed him, yet Cotto still landed his left hook.
Reach and height advantages are a play on distance. One just has to maneuver that space a bit differently.

Btw, shorter guys tend to have a better center of gravity and better footwork because of it. Something that aided Tyson.

 

Danny Williams stopped Mike Tyson so therefore he is greater ?

 

Manchester United want set up as the Ronaldo show and he still excelled leading them to league titles and the UCL.

Anyway I don't have a horse in that race I'm just saying if whatever way you might go I wouldn't say you were wrong.

 

I've boxed for years with well over a thousand rounds of sparring against open class amateurs and pros. I speak from experience as someone of average height and above average reach of 73 inches. Those who haven't boxed don't realize the significance of length.

I can just jab and cruise around in the gym against a shorter fighter, and I land much more punches too. If they get into the pocket I can tie them up or move laterally. I can also counter all day with much less danger of getting countered. I have fast hand speed so shorter fighters who are also slower have tons of trouble. If I'm gassed out I can still throw stiff jabs and keep them at bay.

Against a much taller fighter? I need 3x the head movement and footwork just to set up my offense. This uses a lot of energy. I can't counter nearly as effectively because I need to step in past the danger zone to land my punches, which gives them a bigger window of time to react defensively. Then I need to step back out which gives them another chance of hitting me. If you gas out against a taller fighter, they can tee off on you from the outside without any danger. I tell you this as someone who can fight taller fighters much better than most people.

Height/reach is something that needs to be overcome with other physical traits or skill. It's an uphill battle. So I'll have to ask if YOU ever boxed before if you don't realize the difficulty of it.

There's a reason why many boxers want to be like Mike Tyson. Beating up bigger men is much harder than smaller men.

Let me ask you what would happen if Manny Pacquiao was 5'10 with 74 inch reach and similar hand speed fighting at 147.

 

I am 5'7 and rarely get to box someone my own size.
And every advantage you listed and broke down holds true. But it's not as drastic as you make it out to be.

With taller fighters I have to keep them at bay with my own jab and feints. Take control of the lead hands and the distance.
The most effective move is to lure them in. (Pacquiao often baits the opponent, takes a step back and then unleashes his own offense)
Forcing my way to fight at a close range is harder than to maintain distance.

Establishing superior angles and positioning is key. Something Manny has mastered. This is why he has no issues countering over the taller mans jab.

 

Styles do make fights, but a good tall man will beat a good short man when physicality is similar. Just like with Mayweather, his sitting on the ropes and pull counter wouldn't work nearly as well against a lengthier fighter. He would have to use a more aggressive style like when he was PBF.

If you're able to outbox a taller man chances are you will outbox a short fighter to an even greater extent, even if the short fighter has the same skill as the taller one.

There are equalizers though. If you're slow with little power chances are you won't be able to do much against someone taller that's faster with pop. Of course it all changes when you have one punch ko power and good speed.

Actually I think the best recent example is lomachenko with his tiny reach. When he was fighting people his size or shorter he was able to take all these crazy angles like the matrix. Now that he's fighting taller fighters we see that he has much more trouble working the massive angles he used to do.

At the top level a small advantage can mean the difference between a win or a loss, so any major physical advantages is nothing to scoff at. Length is a trait that can get a fighter to fight with a completely different gameplan.

 

First off Hearns has a lot of loses PBF has none so your comparison is dumb as ****.

 

Why will the Thurman win do so much for him? Pac was favored to win the fight and Thurman isn't the best WW in the world that's either Crawford or Spence. If Pac beat Spence of Crawford 2 fighters he would be the underdog against that would be something to talk about.

BTW PBF fought the majority of his career with Top Rank and they told him who to fight. Fights don't get made for various reasons but it seems to the PBF hater anytime a fight doesn't get made it's PBF's fault never the other guy.