Who's the technically better boxer Pacquiao or Cotto?

stupid bump, cotto is technically better than pacquiao.

 

pac dominates cotto!! so what beats cotto? cant be the size. cant be the skills accdg to u. cotto supposed to have better power too.

 

angles, speed and workrate.

margo also beat cotto, is he a technical boxer too?

 

Cotto does more with less as far as physical advantages, but Pac's athleticism (his speed, stamina, and angles) more than make up for it. You could say cotto is more technically skilled on paper but in the ring Pac is more effective and more dangerous.

 

I really do not agree. I think what most people think of as technique, is orthodox boxing dogma. Manny isn't orthodox but he is technically very sound. It's just that his technique is fine tuned to his unique physical strengths.

 

but if you read the thread it looks like the OP is asking who the more 'text book' fighter is.

 

Ok, then it's a simple question. Manny isnt textbook. No matter how much he has incorporated into his repertoire since he moved up from the lower weights, he is still unorthodox and by that definition, not text book.

However. For me personally, a small guy with all the disadvantages that Pacquiao has compared to Cotto, to dominate that fighter like Pacquiao did, he must somehow be the better boxer.

 

This post is over two years old but I never saw this thread then. I think it's a great analysis despite DobyZhee's neanderthal response.

 

Clottey is by no means a bum

 

its really hard to count cottos loss to margarito

 

its always been cotto

 

Cotto is technically better but Pac is the better fighter.

 

For the record Clottey is also a better technical fighter than Pac.

 

This^

Pac beat Cotto not because he is a better technical boxer, it's because he's a far superior physical specimen. His speed was the reason he beat Cotto.

 

****in' rich from a guy that thinks Brandon Rios is the next Aaron Pryor. :-(