After the dust has been settled, do some people here still think pac is not that good

It seems guys are not the least bit impressed unless you are a defensive wizard. They wax lyrical about the clinical science of boxing and for some reason ATG offensive skills dont mean as much to them. For some you must be a counterpunching defensive stud or you dont get props. These guys will never give Paq the credit and its always this or that. I dont believe these guys will shut the **** up until Paq beats Mayweather and considering Paq really belongs at 130 its a shame.

 

Pac can beat Void.

 

I dunno about them being worthy, but the way I see it, Bradley would give PAC the best fight amongst the others. He's undefeated, w/c would give PAC brownie points if he defeats him in emphatic fashion (I think he still has his WBO belt). With all that being said, I'd still give PAC the major edge in this fight. The most I could see Bradley do is potshot his way to a decision. You never know, tho >_<. boxing is too damn unpredictable sometimes.

Pac fighting any of the others mentioned would hardly garner any praise at all. While that would be his second foray against true LWWs, I don't think he'd get the mad props of beating, say, Berto.

(Why wasn't Cherry mentioned? T_T )

 

Your very inteligent insight amazes me . . . stinky. :yep

:good

 

:good

 

Dont get where the idea that being a runner or defense orientated is the true meaning of the sweet science. If anything the true meaning of the sweet science is like Pac/Tyson, priority of hurt your opponent more than he hurts you...not get hurt less than your opponent.

People invented boxing for entertainment, a fight. The idea wasnt to see how many punches a guy could avoid for 12 rounds.

 

as long as pac keeps dominating and demolishing his opponents, doubters will always question the capabilities of his opposition no matter who they are and therefore ultimately, pac as well. it would probably have been better for pac if he had a harder time beating his opponents just like jmm does.

i guess being too good also has its pitfalls. but that's why he's currently p4p #1 and the best fighter in boxing in the first place. he's supposed to dominate and decimate lower level opposition and not have a hard time doing it.

 

Pac ducked elite asian fighters his whole career... (Sasakul was poisoned)

so untill Pac beats, Hozumi Hasegawa, Chris John, Gerry Penalosa, Nonito Donaire, Koki Kameda, David Tua, or Daisuke Naito then i can't rank him any higher then a top 118 ATG

 

Next time Pac should hold back on his opponents and carry them through the later rounds, he should let his opponents hit him many times and maybe let himself get purposely Kd'd, then he can go full force and KO them. That way, people will appreciate him more because apparently struggling is better than dominating. :roll:

 

truth! Offensive fighters have always been underrated on ESB and will always be. Pac first and foremost. On top of being offensive-minded, he doesn't speak english, he's humble, he's not flashy, he's not controversial, and to top it off he's asian. Noone identifies with him.

I asked who would win between prime Pac and prime Oscar at 140 and people are saying **** like "Oscar knocks him the **** out". People still think Pac is some nobody.

 

hmm, some nobody... pac vs. hatton is projected to do 1.6M+ US PPV buys. if it does, it will become the 4th largest boxing PPV event ever. and this in a bad economy with the specter of swine flu.

contrast this w/ floyd vs. hatton which did 850k US PPV buys in a good economy. that now makes pac a bigger PPV draw than floyd.