Will you give Pacquiao credit if he beats Thurman, and vice versa?

no credit for Thurman he will be beating a shot 42 year old Pac lol

if pac wins he gets big credit

 

Mental gymnastics

 

Bad comparison. Sergio was a shell of his former self. Pac is still a very capable fighter who has been winning fights not coming off long periods of inactivity after a career altering and ultimately ending injury. That is one fight ill never give Cotto credit for. I just can't.

 

It would be for a moron but pretty simple to understand for anyone with an iq over 60.

 

Lol. Don't see it your way = moron. The mark of a true intellectual

 

No, it’s called logic. Moron.

How can you claim refusal to do test = guilty when:

1. Nobody was doing testing before, it was demanded outnof him via accusations, setting him as the example. Context matters, obviously he does them now.
2. He agreed to all the testing, unlimited urine testing which btw caught all the cheats so far not usadas fraudulent blood testing. VADA caught them left and right whilst usada caught 2 on years?
3. Here’s where I apply logic. 2006 there’s a video of him saying he lost due to last min blood test which weakened him. 2010 crazy floyd snr accuses him of drugs which started the trend. He agrees to all blood testing but not so close to the fight and immediately after the fight. Now if you have a bit of logic, you’ll see that he didn’t make this up on the spot, the video from 2006 confirms his superstious reasons.

Meanwhile, floyd gets caught with IV fluids that was declared illegal by Nevada, covered up by usada, a pass for it issued 21 days after the fact when it should be issued BEFORE. And there’s only 2 reasons for that much IV, he was dehydrated or doping. Which one is it? Which one is more culpable?

This is like finding the murder weapon at your room after you tried to cover it up, and then you claim someone put it there.

Heck it’s even worse for floyd. Because we all know he’s not faking dehydrated.

So ye, mental gymnastics for a moron with an agenda.

 

Lol

 

I always ask the Pacquiao haters this question, but they all duck it like Floyd ducked VADA:

What is more impressive?

30 year old Manny Pacquiao beating a 40 year old Keith Thurman?

Or a 40 year old Manny Pacquiao beating a 30 year old Keith Thurman?

If Pac wins, it's a monumental victory — young, prime, big, stronger undefeated welterweight w/ the second best resume in the division.

If Thurman wins, it's because Pac is almost 41 years old and the much smaller fighter.

 

Both should get credit either way without any Elementary EXCUSES from anyone here.
The moment someone post a single excuse, should be booted for 3 weeks.
There !

 

Convince the well above 50% who predicted a Sergio victory. Probably 75+%.

 

I don't know that Manny is getting enough credit for actually following through with this fight. Thurman is a young, huge, undefeated fighter that packs a lethal punch. This is a monumental risk for a 40 year old with a 23 year career. Think about how long some of the great fighters that Pacquiao has fought have long since retired and Manny is still out there seeking the biggest challenges.

 

Everything is relative.

If someone acts like Thurman beat prime Pac, that would be wrong.

If someone acts like Pac beat a HOF'er, that would be wrong.

 

The comparisons are not valid really but I think a decisive win for Pac over Thurman will cement him above Floyd in ATG status for many.
His post Floyd career, whilst not dominant, is still among the best around.
This is not some glorified exhibition either.
Amazing stuff if he pulls it off.

 

I won't give bum time much credit at all as pac man is washed up just look at his fight with bang average jeff horn and that was a while ago now.