Better Performance: PBF (against castillo 1) or PACQUIAO (against morales 1)

PBF found a way to win while hurt.
Pac lost.

 

Floyd 11th round against Castillo. My favorite round in floyds entire career.

 

There is absolutely no way the answer is Floyd here. It very well may have been down to an injury, but Floyd was poor on the night. Pac fought like a lion but was outboxed. Floyd was outboxed and did not fight like a lion, he was not his usual self at all. Floyd fans would say he performed better against Augustus or Oscar than ****ing Duran did against Leonard, but the answer on this thread is Pacquiao.

 

nono:nono

 

Floyd won...this is a no contest.

 

Pfft. The Morales vs Pacquaio fight was the defining moment of Morales career, not Pacs. He was past his prime. Yet pulled off a magnificent performance and won the fight.

[yt]xyjaojqkGmk[/yt]

Floyd Mayweather outboxing a veteran bigger fighter on the inside while injured. Thats why Floyds performance was better.

 

Floyd showed he can find a way to win when the odds are against him, that even when hurt - he can win a fight. Pac was outfought, great fight - but didnt deserve to win. Just because Floyd didnt engage in a war to win - doesnt make him any less of a lion, SRL engaged against Duran - and it cost him the fight and his undefeated record - Duran was possibly at the pinnacle of a boxing greatness that night - it's one of my favourite individual performances, but just because Leonard fought like a "lion" - engaged, doesnt give him extra credit.

Rambled a bit - but the greatest of fighters find a way to win - no matter what it takes, Floyd found that way - Pac didn't.

And it doesn't take anything away from what Pac has achieved in his career - it's shown he can come back from defeat, something we've never known Floyd to do.

 

Great logic.

Then Oscar De La Hoya performed better against Felix Sturm than Pernell Whitaker did against Jose Luis Ramirez in their first fight.

Try again, with the Mayweather-tinted glasses off this time.

 

Yes, but I don't think Floyd performed better. Calzaghe 'won' against Hopkins, did he perform better than Oscar De La Hoya did against Felix Trinidad? Absolutely not. Floyd did 'find a way to win' (ie got the judges decision, many would argue wrongly), but he fought a poor fight.

 

No, you remove your Pac-visors instead. Im a Pacfan.

Pac vs. EM and Floyd vs. Castillo were not robberies unlike those you cited.

 

The rule still applies though. You said Floyd simply because he won, but that reasoning is flawed, because someone can win and perform poorly (as I believe he did) and someone can lose and perform well (as I believe Pac did).

 

Also, there are no Pac-visors here,

I think Floyd's best performance (Corrales) is significantly better than Pacquiao's best performance.

It's just that in this instance, I think the answer is Pacquiao because I thought Floyd was a shadow of himself against Castillo and deserved to lose.

 

Simple logic is often lost to the simpletons of the board. :deal

 

Urgh - i didnt want to discuss calzaghe for once

I consider that a good performance - because I consider Hopkins the best fighter lhw down after Joe - i rate both VERY highly - but that's me.

in this case - floyd was injured, not fighting well - yet still pulled it out, his performance was - to me, better because he won - which in boxing is arguably the most important thing. Kessler performed very well against calzaghe - but lost, and it'll always cast a shadow over him.

Pac - he fought great, it was a great performance - but, it still wasn't good enough on the night - and I - personally, am of the school of thought that believes winning is everything - no one remembers who came second, and no matter how badly you performed - as long as you win (legitimately) - your performance was better because you did the most important thing - win. It's just my personal belief's - I'd rather win ugly than lose spectacularly.