pac haters slag him off as having beaten only "old" great mexican fighters, but what i would like to know is, who was he supposed to beat to be recognised as great, particularly in the 2003-2007 timeframe? at featherweight, barrera was the man, operation or not, so he should've fought him. and the said operation meant that a rematch was required sometime. he could've dispatched morales, but was cut and fairly beaten, so the trilogy was also inevitable. the marquez I fight was also controversial (though should've been for pac) so the rematch was also inevitable. that's 7 matches against atgs over 4 years. was he supposed to have fought guzman instead? i don't think so.
2003-2007 Manny was supposed to have fought whatever contender wasn't signed to fight him, wasn't boxing in the US, and/or fighting in a different timespan. Is that too much for them to ask of him?
He could have fought IN JIn CHi back in May of 07 after making all that noise about Macau blah blah and giving blue balls yet he backed out at the last minute and for a killer named Jorge SOlis.. Real letdown.. He could have started by fighting a worthy fighter at 135 but again, he settled for one of the weakest title holders in history DAVID Diaz.. SO what if Diaz had a belt? a fighter who's in pac's position had no need for a paper title as that wouldnt have gave him any more leverage against the other top fighters at the table. There were plenty of other fighters he could have fought yet he didnt. Ricky hatton is his first real fight since the first morales fight..
barrera, morales, marquez looks a lot better on the resume than guzman, valero, soto, juarez. if he beat those guys instead of the 3 mexican legends, people would be saying he's good, but he didn't beat the mexican legends.
of course there are plenty of fighters to fight, but do you actually think he should've skipped the morales trilogy to fight valero, soto and guzman? and morales was "real" in the first fight, but suddenly turned into a shell int he second fight. wow.
yeah i know, good point. just dont mind the few loud haters here and you will be fine. any real boxing fans know that pac fought the best possible opposition that was available to him.
No one...he has beaten everyone he is suppose to beat, and if he didn't fight those HOF fighters...he is less than the fighter he is now
Every fighter in Pac's position will be criticized for not fighting this and thas...but realistically, he wont be talked about as much if he hadnt fought those fighters he beat. Those saying he should've have fought other fighters are just hoping Pac would lose, and since they are not contented (they wont anyways even if he beat Vlad) They'd resort to these accusations.
cool. i'm surprised no real pac haters came out of the woodwork.... should i start a "who was calzaghe supposed to beat" thread?