One thing that Pacquiao has over Mayweather when it comes to ATG standing...

wow..now floyd isnt great..ok..ur what we call a *******...u only follow one fighter and thats manny pac and anything going on in relation to him..

u dont even know the correct info so how u gonna be in the debate?/fukin stup1d 1diot

 

Typical dumbass response by you. No breakdown of the fighter's career or his strengths or weaknesses. You don't know **** about boxing I have exposed you time and time again.:-(

 

This guy is a fuicking idiot and a racist this coment and the one I'm posting below should tell you everything you need to know about this mouth breather.

If Mayweather retired today, I think he should go down in the top 200 fighters of all time. That's an honest opinion -Shendaoatsch

 

The entire argument is anything but pointless. It's merely a stone cold fact that Pacquiao has beaten HOF fighters in their prime and Floyd, as yet, has not. That's not an argument, it's a fact. Barrera will make the HOF, Marquez most likely will too. End of story. :good

If you say a fighter cannot reach his peak as a boxer in his mid 30s, I laugh in your face. Not every fighter peaks at the same time. Wilfred Benitez peaked in his teens, Naseem Hamed peaked in his early 20s, Joe Calzaghe and Bernard Hopkins peaked in their early-mid 30s. As did Juan Manuel Marquez. A guy's physical peak is not always the same as his peak as a fighter. Sometimes it is, but not always. Some guys get better with age, and learn and evolve as they get a bit older and wiser. Sadly, you don't seem to be one of them as you're every bit as much of a biased dip**** as you were the first time I spoke to you.

And Pacquiao will beat Floyd. I'm counting the days.

 

Who said he was??? :huh Answer me that.

I've already acknowledged that he isn't HOF standard now, but his career isn't over, and he is a 2-weight world champ going for a title in a 3rd weight class, and is only 29. We can't write off his chances completely. I don't think he'll make it, but of course it is still a possibility.

Also, I also said on this thread that I believe Castillo was a better fighter than Cotto. Did you miss that one as well?

 

No it isn't, it's an opinion based statement. You know the difference between fact and opinion, stop pretending otherwise.

I never said this, you're too busy trying to hype up your flawed agenda to actually read what is written. Some guys can peak in their 30's. Physically, fighters will almost always peak in their mid to late 20's. However, some guys start fighting later on in life, or totally change up their style which makes them a much more effective fighter. Guys like this are the guys that peak in their mid 30's. Guys like Hopkins and Marquez who have been boxing since they were little, and who have had plenty of pro experience do not peak in their mid 30's. That's just common sense.

I'm glad you really believe this. It's not going to happen though. Pacquiao will lose, and you'll just have to accept that you were dead wrong. Either that, or you can scramble for pathetic excuse to explain why Pacquiao was outclassed.

 

Your opeing statement seems quite logical. Born in the 70's I was around to see the sport and how it has devolved since then.

There are people here who have taken a stance to fight the good fight . But the quotes seem very fair to me.

 

Well Actually if you think about it other than Barrera. Who else has PAc beaten thats a HOF in their prime??

 

Why doesn't anyone seem to remember how bad Barrera's training camp was & include the other distracting stuff he had prior to Pacquiao fight?

Yes, he was still in 'the time of his prime' [having had the wars he'd had - that Pacquiao hasn't had - but saying 'prime' should still take account of conditioning / injury etc., which I contend Barrera was way short of top shape both mentally and physically.

Pacquiao has been one of the luckiest fighters in the past decade. Undoubtedly, he is a gifted athlete [irrespective of rumour], but has been cleverly matched with ageing HOF's eg. Morales - who defeated him of course - and has had that Hatton-type sycophancy surrounding his career. I think he is an exciting fighter, seemingly-good role-model, one of the best behaved in the ring - fights fair, no rabbit punching low blows etc., which i like.
I compare his style to a recent Nigel Benn without the anger, but with good ring-manners. he will be an ATG but remember that Khan beat Barrera, and beating ATGs doesn't always mean much...

 

It seems some Floyd fans have not taken this well. I think it's pretty obvious the thread starter is correct. The whole discussion of prime is really being twisted a lot by ambiguous points regarding age, best run of perfomances etc. I think you have to look at fighters individually to see when they were really at their peak as fighters, not necessarily at their physical peak. I do think however that Floyd has a very good chance to prove his worth by adding Pacquiao himself into his list which would overshadow any other fighter in Pac's list.

Having said that I don't think Pacquiao having more HOF fighters in their primes in his resume makes him better than Floyd. Just like Floyd being undefeated doesn't necessarily make him better than Pac. I'm feeling pretty hopeful this fight is going to happen, and everytime I think about it I still can't make up my mind on who wins.

 

The way I see it, Pac goes into his fight with Mayweather with major disadvantages:

1) Pac is shorter - 5'6 1/2" vs. 5'8"

2) Pac has shorter reach by 5"

3) Pac is susceptible to counters (see: EVERY fight he's ever had, vs. JMM)

4) Pac is susceptible to left hooks (see: destroyed right ear vs. Cotto)

5) Pac is susceptible to straight rights (see: vs. Morales, vs. Clottey)

6) Pac has known weakness to body attack (KO'd with body shot)

7) Pac hasn't shown ability to fight or handle a fighter moving backwards (see: EVERY fight he's ever had)

Unlike Shane Mosley, Pac doesn't have 1, or 2, or 3, or 4 punch KO power (see: all Pac TKOs... other than Hatton, Pac has not stretched any opponent over 140 pounds and all of them finished the fight on their feet after rounds of flush combinations from Pac. Even at lower weights, Pac TKOs almost all from accumulation)

9) Pac throws a lot, lands a little (Pac's total connect percentage almost always <35%)

10) Pac has no jab, eats the jab (see: every Pac fight, vs. Morrales, vs. Cotto)


These are just the 10 off the top of my head. Now can someone tell me which one of these does NOT play into Mayweather's hands? Can someone provide a SANE argument for why Manny will beat Mayweather if they meet?

Let's look at some other issues:

1) Pac beat DLH and Hatton in more impressive fashion than Floyd - let's look at the tape:

Pac/Hatton @140, Floyd/Hatton @147 - Floyd fought a bigger, stronger version of Hatton. Oh, that's right, 140 was Hatton's "best weight." So, let me get this straight... Pac can move up TWO weight classes from the Diaz fight and be FASTER and MORE COORDINATED while Hatton moves up ONE weight class and suddenly can't fight? Hatton walks around at 190... so am I supposed to believe that having 7 MORE pounds of muscle wouldn't have helped him in his fight against Floyd? And, if that is the case, how is it that Pac can do what almost NO fighter does by going up TWO weight classes and not lose any speed or coordination?

2) Pac/DLH @147, Floyd/DLH @154 - Am I now supposed to believe that Pac beating DLH at 147 was a better win than Floyd beating DLH at 154? DLH walks around at 160-165. He hadn't made 147 in over six years. No question that Floyd's win over a younger, stronger DLH was a better quality win.

3) Pac vs. Cotto @145 catchweight - Pac fought DLH at 147, but made Cotto come down to 145. Why? If the two pounds didn't make a difference, why not fight him at 147?

4) Pac "destroyed" Clottey @147 - OK, Pac throws 1200 punches against a stationary opponent, hammers his body and DOESN'T KO him? Pac's supposedly vicious body attack could not get Clottey to drop his guard... where was all of Pac's vaunted punching power? And how do you land only TWENTY PERCENT against a guy who isn't punching back? Even if you make the excuse that Clottey was in his shell, wouldn't a guy with Pac's supposed power and open access be able to get Clottey to drop his guard?

5) Pac's "KO" power - Other than Hatton, who has Pac KO'd with one punch... or two... or three... or four, etc. DLH and Cotto were still standing after being nailed with flush combination after flush combination. Diaz only succumbed to Pac's assault after 9 brutal rounds of pummeling. Pac stunned Cotto with two flush counters and couldn't get him to sit down even after 12 rounds. Clottey took 1200 of Pac's best and he looked better after the fight than Pac. Shane Mosley has a history of stunning and KOing people with one punch... Pac doesn't. PERIOD.


I'm still trying to figure out why people think Pac will beat Mayweather. Mayweather recuperated immediately after getting hit with two SSM right hands... am I supposed to believe Pac is a harder puncher even though there is absolutely no proof of that?

Let's put the nuthugging behind us and address the issues. If Pac fans are serious, then someone PLEASE offer some RATIONAL reason why Pac will beat Floyd.

 

Is this really your post or some newbies post?
Anyways, they are good points and I'm feeling pretty lazy so I'm not going to break it down for you all the way.

The main problem I see with this post is that it only points out the negatives about Pacquiao and not really the positives about him. I think the biggest problem for Floyd is that Pacquiao is a very dynamic puncher who creates angles that boxers really have a hard time preparing for because nobody can really imitate them. Pacquiao is very fast, has very good punching power, excellent fighting instinct, stamina and a lot of heart. This all means that even if Floyd is countering Pac and making him eat jabs Pac will still be fighting and will always have the chance to catch Floyd with one of his sneaky shots and score points himself.

Of course to be fair I haven't pointed out many of Floyd's attributes nor his weaker points. I'm not saying Pac's going to win, but if this was really such an easy win for Floyd then the fight really wouldn't have all the demand it has. In all honesty I do incline a bit towards Mayweather to win right now, but I keep switching my pick all the time. Hopefully in time will see how the fight plays out :good

 

Many fighters reach their prime at 30. Usually, lower weight guys hit their peak 3-4 years earlier but it's not rare to see a guy peak at 30. And Pacquiao had a fairly short amatuer career. Compare all his fights to Gamboa's, yet Gamboa still hasn't peaked either.

Marquez was very close to his best that night. You can be pedantic and look at other fights but I don't think he had a better run than around that fight. Despite losing, that was the best performance of his best run.

 

He will be in the HOF. There are fighters currently in with weaker resumes that Cotto plus it's a Hall of Fame. Cotto has a really strong resume, I think, and he will enhance that against Foreman.

Who cares about which titles he won? He was great at 140, the best at 147 for a while and is going up a division. I think that means more than titles and belts which can fall into the hands of C-class fighters like Judah or Baldomir.

 

I think Corrales in borderline. Floyd has faced 15 beltholders though.