Is Manny Pacquiao Fighting Errol Spence The Most G Move In Boxing History...???

Yeah, I should have mentioned that. That was some insane ****. Somoene who's almost 50 has no business whatsoever being in there with a prime Kovalev. Hell, not even today's Kovalev.

 

Yeah, quite possibly. But he was one of a kind. Still a good fighter at that age.

 

I like how you use 43 to make it seem like Pac was close in age. Foreman was 46 then since he was only TWO months away from his birthday.

HW, especially Foreman's style take more damage than little men.

Spence had an even fight with Porter. He didn't KO the much smaller Garcia. Is he really that dangerous against someone as skilled as Pacquiao? More people are giving Pac a chance than Foreman. I expect a UD for Spence, but a KO from Pacquiao would not be that surprising as Foreman already showed, the power stays with you.

 

LOL You wouldnt know a fighter if he jumped up & bit ya

 

Yes it is the most " G" move. even though i hate that ghetto vernacular, as in the ghetto being a " g" means using a gun to do a cowardly drive by... not a well tuned athlete using his fists in artful combat... but i digress

Yes Pacquiao is amazing and this is the fight i dreamed of.. He said no to lame fights like mikey garcia and instead is taking on spence. A thing Gayweather would never dream of... The only thing comparable is maybe when Hopkins beat Tarver or Pascal... but this is more significant because of Pacquiaos huge size disadvantage and that Pacquiao really fights unlike old Hopkins who mostly just used craft to avoid a real fight.. All hail the best, Pacquiao

 

This is definitely Top 1 ATG P4P balls of steel.
The closest to this is probably SRL-Hagler, but SRL was much younger.
This is not comparable to old HWs capturing titles at all.
If you'll notice the trend, the higher the weight class, the more world-class older boxers there are.
Remember, the lower the weight, the more you need your speed and quickness, so the younger you need to be to be relevant to the sport.

That is why, for instance, Pac's win over Thurman is miles and miles ahead of Duran's win over Barkley, both because Pac was older and Duran-Barkley was at a higher weight.

 

yeah, but both pac, as well as duran, were natural lightweights. i dont believe pac could do what duran did with barkley and hagler.

 

Your prediction on Pacuiao vs Spence?

 

Thats bull****. Where is your evidence for taking more damage? Lighter weights throw much more volume and don’t knock each other out, look at mab-Morales, gatti-ward. 12 rounds of pure damage. Foreman meanwhile smashes Ali for 7 rounds, gets tired and gets stopped with the first clean combo ali hits him with.

Secondly, it’s a fact that the smaller weights age quicker. That’s why it’s extremely rare for the little guys to be fighting into their 40s. Pac has been the exception afaik.

SRL was retired young, Mab, Morales was practically past it at 32. The smaller weights have to move fast, therefore need faster reflexes, which is the first to go. Meanwhile, heavyweights have traditionally always had the older champs. Bob fitzsimmons, Klitschko, Lewis, foreman, fkn Ortiz.

Heavyweights rely on power which is the last to go. Their reflexes also don’t need to be as great considering they’re far slower.

You can look through history and the average age for top HWs have always been older than the lighter weights. That’s why at 40yr old Heavyweight is no big deal. Ever see a 40 yr old featherweight? Heck 30 in FW may very well be the equivalent to 40 in Heavy.

Heck this is such a well known fact that it even gets asked around the web;
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-boxers...than-fighters-from-the-lower-weight-divisions

 

spence by comfortable decision. rds will be competitive enough to where manny shows his class, even now. but spence will keep just one step ahead of him the whole fight. he will take the lead around the 5th rd and keep it through 12.

 

Miles better is taking the ****. Pacquiao and Duran are more or less the same size (big LWs), and there was about three years difference in age. Duran wasn't considered world level before he beat Iran, Pacquiao was before he beat Thurman. And also, Barkley was definitely better than Thurman.

 

It's an interesting comparison. There are several factors to take into consideration when comparing Thurman and Barkley. Barkley had already suffered 4 losses earlier in his career, but he was coming off the biggest win of his career against Tommy Hearns when he fought Duran, which made him such a big favorite.

Thurman was undefeated however his matches vs Porter and Garcia were very close and many saw those results as toss-ups that could have gone the either way. But he was still undefeated unlike Barkley and a completely different fighter than Barkley in the skills department. Very elusive, quick on his feet, hard to hit clean, etc. And the fact that Pacquiao put him down is that much more impressive. However unlike Barkley who was a very active fighter coming off the biggest win of his career, Thurman was coming off a long layoff, nearly 2 years before he came back to fight Josesito Lopez, and he had some rough moments in that fight. So Thurman was showing signs of inactivity and vs Lopez maybe not being quite the fighter he was years earlier, who was a fighter who at one point was talked about as being one of the P4P Best. And though the public was split on who won those fights vs Porter and Graria, he performed at a very high level during those matches and at the time those matches were massive and he did come out victorious.

SO I think it's a little hard to say that Barkley was definitely better than Thurman. I would argue that Thurman is better than Barkley, but maybe not better at the exact time he fought Pacquiao and when Barkley fought Duran. Barkley ended his career with 19 losses, and was stopped 7 times. A great fighter no doubt, but was he harder to beat and outpoint than Thurman? So better overall as a fighter, I'd say Thurman, though Barkley was a heavy favorite and a massive win for Duran at that time. If you say Barkley is better than Thurman, what makes him better in your mind? A bigger puncher, but what about defense? Surely this is debatable they are very different fighters but I don't think you can say Barkley is definitely better than Thurman, Thurman at his best is very tough to beat.

 

[QUOTE="George Crowcroft, post: 21084190, member: 120441"Duran wasn't considered world level before he beat Iran[/QUOTE]
The Thurman win was not better than the Barkley one, but what you wrote here was a joke right? Not world level until barkley??????????!!!!??? what!?

 

i would say that overall Thurman was a better boxer, but the important thing is that Barkley put on the performance of a lifetime that day, and still got beat by a fat, old blown up LW. Who also happens to be an ATG, so all is well. It's an interesting comparison though indeed