Manny Pacquiao vs Packey MacFarland

McFarland appeared to be a master of making a fight stagnate and winning during said stagnation. Not the most outwardly impressive fighter on film, but he’s a master of the boring arts. He would likely win this if he gets Pacquiao to follow this game plan.

 

This is hogwash. You need a refresher course on McFarland. Everything you wrote is BS. Funny how you are summarizing his entire career on the Gibbons fight, coming off a 2 year lay off and carrying around the most weight he ever had.
" Not the most outwardly impressive fighter on film, but he’s a master of the boring arts. " ... cmon man
He looked GREAT on film because he had to change his style to fight Gibbons.
That is why the fight was on the inside from what we can see of it
and he fought him to a draw

 

He was boring as **** against Welsh as well, I don’t get where you get this idea that I base his legacy solely off of the Gibbons fight where he had a 2 year lay off. I never once said so.

He had a minimalist style, that doesn’t mean he was bad. A lot of spoilers are skilled fighters who’d give anyone a difficult night. He’s not as outwardly impressive like Ritchie, Gans or Leonard on film, but I wouldn’t pick anyone archaic/primitive to be able to beat Pacquiao if he was able to get him to fight HIS fight.

 

then show me the footage you are referring to.

Show me one opinion that supports this Packey style was archaic and primitive. Being incredibly fast of foot, dominating the distance, getting in and out scoring points, fighting on the inside when he needed to. Being desribed as well ahead of his time.. There is a plethora of McFarland info here on this forum.

 

LOL, I literally said he wasn’t archaic and primitive and that I wouldn’t pick anyone who was to beat Pac if he got him to fight his fight. What low level trolling is this?

Also, just watch the Welsh fight. Packey doesn’t look especially extraordinary though he does everything well. Compare it to Gans, Ritchie and Leonard and I wouldn’t call him nearly as impressive. However, we do know his ring IQ was excellent and that he didn’t have to be.

This content is protected

 

Not the most outwardly impressive fighter on film, but he’s a master of the boring arts.[/QUOTE]

??. Again what film ?

??

Being incredibly fast of foot, dominating the distance, getting in and out scoring points, fighting on the inside when he needed to. Being desribed as well ahead of his time.. There is a plethora of McFarland info here on this forum. use your search button and do your homework

 

what are you talking about. He looks OUTSTANDING in that footage ,, LOL. Are you kidding me? I have never seen that footage but everything I just described about McFarland was exactly in that footage .... "Being incredibly fast of foot, dominating the distance, getting in and out scoring points, fighting on the inside when he needed to." There is a plethora of McFarland info in this forum. Like I said you need a refresher course

 

??. Again what film ?



??

Being incredibly fast of foot, dominating the distance, getting in and out scoring points, fighting on the inside when he needed to. Being desribed as well ahead of his time.. There is a plethora of McFarland info here on this forum. use your search button and do your homework[/QUOTE]
I’ve never equated not being outwardly impressive as being crude, if you knew how to read you’d probably know this. I’ve also already said that many great boxers fit this category. I genuinely don’t know how clearer I can be, my infant niece has better comprehension skills.

You can find literally any boxing historian call an old timer ahead of their time, doesn’t make it true. Some legit historians genuinely thought Corbett invented the left hook, or that Fitzsimmons invented the solar plexus punch. We can see that Packey is an intelligent spoiler from what we have of him, but not especially remarkable like I’d say Leonard, Gans, Dundee, Ritchie, Kilbane do.

 

Get Packey’s nuts out of your mouth, for once. He does everything well, but not outstanding like the names I’ve listed. He looks just looks basic, as if he’s doing the bare minimum to win the fight. Even if I rate Packey highly, he just does not look as outwardly impressive as they do, and I rank him a lot higher than a lot of the guys I find more outwardly impressive. Sometimes, being basic and having a high ring IQ is really all you need.

"Being incredibly fast of foot, dominating the distance, getting in and out scoring points, fighting on the inside when he needed to."

You’re implying a fast footed fighter who is good at controlling distance can’t be a boring spoiler then? Interesting.

 

I’ve never equated not being outwardly impressive as being crude, if you knew how to read you’d probably know this. I’ve also already said that many great boxers fit this category. I genuinely don’t know how clearer I can be, my infant niece has better comprehension skills.

You can find literally any boxing historian call an old timer ahead of their time, doesn’t make it true. Some legit historians genuinely thought Corbett invented the left hook, or that Fitzsimmons invented the solar plexus punch. We can see that Packey is an intelligent spoiler from what we have of him, but not especially remarkable like I’d say Leonard, Gans, Dundee, Ritchie, Kilbane do.[/QUOTE]

You literally just said he dosent look impressive on film and the footage you provided he looked outstanding. He isnt a spoiler, he was as well rounded of a fighter as it gets as he is described.. You dont weigh 139 pounds and cut to 133 to make the LHt weigh limit and dominate and also fight at WW and dominate there if you are a "spoiler." And his record backs that now dosent it. You will be hard pressed to find historians who support your view. Because truth be told .. they saw just the opposite

 

You literally just said he dosent look impressive on film and the footage you provided he looked outstanding. He isnt a spoiler, he was as well rounded of a fighter as it gets. You dont weigh 139 pounds and cut to 133 to make the LHt weigh limit and dominate and also fight at WW and dominate there if you are a "spoiler." And his record backs that now dosent it. You will be hard pressed to find historians who support your view. Because truth be told .. they saw just the opposite[/QUOTE]
Not outwardly impressive ffs, but not bad. You don’t have to be outwardly impressive to be a great fighter, sometimes you just have to have excellent fundamental knowledge of the game and use a minimalist output intelligently. We know what McFarland was able to do against the very best fighters of his weight class, truly elite fighters. We know he’s supremely intelligent, so it doesn’t matter how basic he looks to me. Clearly, you think he looks much better than I do.

I used to not rate Packey that highly after just watching footage of him, until I saw a contemporary piece calling him a sort of “boring master”, to paraphrase. I’ll try digging it up.

 

Its okay.
He looks great on film. too bad you dont see it.
Dominating the distance, being the aggressor with the Higher work rate, incredibly fast of foot, in and out scoring points, slipping and countering, landing lead uppercuts, fighting well on the inside leaning on him and tying him up so he cant get off, resetting and fighting tall... wtf ,, you call that a " spoiler "

 

I’ve never equated not being outwardly impressive as being crude, if you knew how to read you’d probably know this. I’ve also already said that many great boxers fit this category. I genuinely don’t know how clearer I can be, my infant niece has better comprehension skills.

You can find literally any boxing historian call an old timer ahead of their time, doesn’t make it true. Some legit historians genuinely thought Corbett invented the left hook, or that Fitzsimmons invented the solar plexus punch. We can see that Packey is an intelligent spoiler from what we have of him, but not especially remarkable like I’d say Leonard, Gans, Dundee, Ritchie, Kilbane do.[/QUOTE]

 

McFarland-Welsh description 1910-06-01 Boxing (London, England) (pages 319, 320)

“That was really the outstanding feature of Packey's boxing. He was so amazingly speedy, and yet he never once appeared to be in the slightest hurry. Even when he broke ground before Welsh's desperate assaults, andappeared to go back slowly, it was always a jump, and a jump of exactly the right distance--which right distance was just one inch or so beyondFreddie's reach.

He proved himself to be the one and only "Gentle Tapper," as well as the proud possessor of a more thanformidable punch. He was always tapping away at Freddie's head andwarding gloves with that left of his.

I have called it "tapping," but I am notso sure that "flicking" would not be abetter word.

A small point, you may say, but nevertheless a most important one. For whereas McFarland's style was the perfect economy of effort and of time, Welsh's however rapid and speedy it might be--and honestly many of Freddie's moves were as fast aslightning--yet were always made afteran expenditure of both time and energy.”

Sounds like a boring minimalist to me. Not much of a critique considering how effective it is.