Better Performance: PBF (against castillo 1) or PACQUIAO (against morales 1)

How do you then justify Marquez' lofty position in the P4P rankings after his defeat to Vasquez???...

 

manny pacquiao showed good performance in a dramatic fight...

 

I didn't choose his place.

 

Pac fought a much better fighter.

 

also, Pac's best performance, against Barrera, is a better performance than Floyd's best performance against Corrales.

 

That's very much debateable

 

well lets have a go shall we

Pac moves up in weight and beats the lineal Champion at 126. Barrera was coming off the best win streak of his career and was ranked 3rd p4p by the ring. Pac destroys Barrera and forces him to quit

Floyd Mayweather beats undefeated Diego Corrales in a defense of his WBC title at 130. Corrales' best win up to that point was ... Derrick Gainer? PBF destroys Corrales and forces him to quit

 

All this does is give credence to the notion that the win over Barerra was a better win. However, the debate is about which one was a better performance.

 

well what do you believe makes one performance better than another

 

I am a massive Pac fan, but I disagree. Pac beating Barrera was a better win because Barrera was a much better fighter than Corrales IMO, but Mayweather's clinic on Chico was one of the most flawless all-round boxing displays of the past 25 years IMO, worthy of comparison with Whitaker-Ramirez II or Whitaker-Chavez or Whitaker-McGirt II or Jones-Toney or Hopkins-Trinidad (not quite as good as Whitaker-Haugen or Whitaker-Nelson though).

 

Pacquiao didn't beat Morales ... he lost ... PBF beat Castillo ... I think the better performance was PBF ... that was the first time I seen PBF fight on the inside against a strong fight --

Pacquiao was eating that left jab of Morales all night --

 

Result and performance are two different things

 

I understand what you're saying here, but you are not answering the question asked. If the question is concerned with performance only as it is here, the result is irrelevant. All you should be taking into consideration is the in-ring action of each passing round - how they performed and not what the result was. Remember - a result is only the majority decision of three fallible men. Judge the perfomance for what it is, unless the question extends to the whole fight and not purely performance.

 

I'm sure you'll agree that the Mayweather who fought Castillo was a more skilled, more well-rounded, more complete fighter than the Pacquiao who fought Morales.

Mayweather fought well below his own standard against Castillo.

Pacquiao did not fight well below his own standard against Morales, he fought as well as he could but was beaten by a better fighter.

Also worth noting, Morales was a better fighter than Castillo p4p IMO.

IMO, Pacquiao performed to a better level on the night. The decision of three men is not relevant to the performance.

 

Idiot post!!! PBF won his fight on not his best night. Pac lost. Enough said. How about Pac's peformance against Oscar, compared to Floyd's pefromance against Gatti.