Even though Pac beat Oscar, he is still too small for 140

I picked Oscar due to a combination of factors. The emphasis was on the size disparity, but I made note of the fact that a fight between Pacquiao vs De La Hoya is not in the same vein as Jones Jr vs John Ruiz.

Oscar is a supremely skilled athlete, and I thought then and still believe now, Hoya would beat Pacquiao even if they were the same size. So, as a result of the disparity in size, and Hoya's own attributes; including his hand speed, power, and jab in particular, I picked Hoya to win by stoppage in the 5-7th round.

The reason I decided to resort to name calling, was an attempt to get out of the conversation. Countless times, I've had these discussions with over zealous Pacquiao fans, who don't listen to a negative word said about Pacquiao. Their minds are already made up, and I didn't see anything good coming out of us two discussing Pacquiao and the whole myth about all his opponents being shot. However, if it's such an issue, and it clearly is, I will discuss it.

You asked me if I would bring up the same old excuses about Hatton being shot if Pacquiao was too win? My response was, "It all depends on what transpires on the night". Countless times in Boxing history, fighters have lost everything over night. Hatton has had a long career, had a terrible time at 147, and hasn't fought top tier opposition since his loss to Mayweather. However, I would only say Hatton was shot if something drastically changed from here to May time.

I would say the version of Hatton today is not the best we've ever seen but he's still good, so on that basis, a win at 140 against arguably the best Light Welterweight today would be a great win for Pacquiao. It's made even greater when you consider Pacquiao has never fought at the weight before, also a reason I think him being heavily favoured is ludicrious, but there you go. I suppose that is your answer, it would be a great victory for Manny.

However, I don't come out with excuses everytime progress is made in the Manny Pacquiao fanclub.

His breakthrough, the victory of Marco Antonio Barrera, is one of his greatest achievements. Marco's prime was around 2000-2003, when he was destroying guys like Sanchez and Salud, and not to mention his awesome display against the undefeated and heavily favored Naseem Hamed. Barrera was not shot, but he didn't seem to carry the same speed and determination as he had previously before his fight with Pacquiao. However, to Manny's credit, a year later Barrera would put in his second best career performance to go 2-1 over Morales in their stunning trilogy. Great win.

The two victories over Morales, in contrast, are hindered for a number of reasons. Firstly, the very average Zahir Raheem was able to outbox and outpoint Morales after Erik had beat Pacquiao in one of the best fights of 2005. This was clear indication of Morales being removed from his best days, as a prime Morales or even the version that fought Pacquiao the first time, would never have lost to somebody like Raheem. Also, it was well documented that Morales was being killed making the weight. Morales lost 4 of his last 5 fights. His time was clearly up. Prime Morales beats Pacquiao

You know where I stand on his victory over Marquez. I have scored the fight numerous times, and always come to the conclusion that the wrong man got the verdict that night. However, he did beat the best fighter in the world, in my opinion, on paper at least so that would have to be considered a plus as opposed to a minus as far as Manny's career is concerned. The Draw in their first fight, I also called for Marquez, but officially that was ruled a draw. As far as these fights are concerned, it is screaming for a third fight and I would be the first in line. Great matchup.

Pacquiao is a great fighter, but he has beaten some old and shopworn fighters in his way to the top. He's undeniable p4p number 1, but anybody will concede, both of the decisions in the Marquez fights could have gone either way. He's been extremely fortunate, whereas Marquez has been on the wrong side of a lot of questionable decisions. Pacquiao is being overrated when people say he can be competitive with the elite at 147 and 140, in my opinion.

Time will tell, but if Manny beats a game Hatton on May 2nd, I will make a thread explaining how wrong I was in grave detail.

 

"... zero chance of winning..." Hmmm... Shouldn't that storyline be applied to Pacman... :good

 

Hatton = B-
Floyd = A+
Pac = C+
ReturnofTheKing = F as in FAILED

 

I agree to an extent. I don't think Pac is as big as a natural lightweight, and I think he could still make that weight, so IMO he would be stupid not to stay there as not only would he be fighting people closer to his size than he would at 140, but also lightweight is a stronger and better division than 135 with more good fights for him.

However, I do think he could and should fight Hatton and Mayweather if possible. Pac is within touching distance of becoming a serious legend - he should reach out and go for the biggest fights he can get. Lightweight (and JMM) will still be there after he has taken a fight with Hatton and/or Mayweather. I think both are winnable for Pac (I am much more confident he could beat Hatton than PBF though).

After seeing Pac's performance v Oscar, I do think it is possible he could achieve something no other fighter will ever achieve again by winning a world title at 147, but it is totally dependent on who has the belts at the time.

For me, there is no way that Pac could beat someone the size of Margarito or Williams or even Clottey. Nor would I fancy him against someone as strong and seasoned as Cotto or Mosley. But I'd give Pac a fighting chance against a small ww like Judah or Berto.

 

thank you for answering my question/s thouroughly. i have discussed with you before especially after the pac-jmm rematch and you seemed like a sensible guy. i don't necessarily agree with all you opinions but thanks for clearing it straight.

it just leave a sour taste on pac fans like me when all of those he beat are automatically was branded shot just to make the victory less-impressive thus resulting in a bitter debate. in every points you've said, there are counter-points like pac is moving-up for the first time in weight against morales so it is not written in stone that a prime morales would beat pacquiao.

i also got what you mean by fighters getting shot overnight but you have to factor also the opposition as well. why did he look so bad? was it all because of himself or was he facing a very good fighter capable of making him look that terrible? from this, if hatton wins, full credit must be given to him.

 

Nice thread but it seems there is a flow... "it depends on what transpires on the night"?!

Either you are happy and satisifed or you'll get a shock of your life again if in case PAC destroys Hatton.

In other words if you are NOT happy what transpired then you could easily say Hatton is SHOT!? :bart

The only thing which could change the complexion of the fight if there is accidental headbutt. Otherwise there should not be any excuses!

REST assured if the fight HAPPENS and if PAC losses you would not hear from PAC fans that "PAC is SHOT!

I'm so sure if we will hear that "HATTON is SHOT" from non-pac fans, non- believers, pac haters.

If Hatton would seem slow compared to PAC...then you'll hear this thing for sure...

Hatton of 07' would have beaten PAC of 09'

 

Marco Antonio Barrera is my favourite fighter of all time, and Manny did give him a brutal beating in 2003. I have wished for some redemption since, but that never came in the rematch, where Barrera had to resort to survival mode. He couldn't keep up that kind of pace any longer.

I'm saying this because it's easier for Pacquiao fans to brand me bitter, and say that is why I always say every opponent of Pacquiao's is shot. I was admittedly bitter after he defeated Barrera, and after being given the favorable decision in the Marquez fights just added insult to injury.

However, I'm still man enough to admit that Manny is undeniably P4P the best fighter in the world today. He does have great wins; Barrera I, Marquez II, and I suppose due to the size disparity, his victory over Hoya should be considered a triumph. However, this is Boxing, and circumstances are more important than what you read on paper.

On paper, Barrera beat Mckinney. Mckinney was still very good in 96, but he wasn't the fighter he was when he was in his mid 20s. Likewise, Tapia and Ayala are all decent names on his resume, ironically the two men he beat before and after his loss to Manny. However, Tapia was past his best days and naturally the smaller guy. Likewise, Ayala was naturally smaller and removed from his best days. You can even poke holes in Barrera's best wins, saying he didn't deserve the nod in Morales II and that Hamed wasn't the fighter he was after losing Ingle. People will say that.

I say, Morales shouldn't be considered great wins for Pacquiao because of circumstances, likewise the Barrera 2 decision was academic, and Hoya was a walking corpse. I don't say this to discredit Manny, I say this because this is what I truely believe to be the case. Pacquiao has great wins, and then he has not so great wins that cause him to be overrated on the General Forum.

You'd be hard pressed to find somebody who hates Pacquiao. It's his fans that do everybody's head in.

 

Your certainty is surely misplaced.

Pacquaio beating Hatton at 140 in May is a great win, unless Hatton resembles the living dead, much like De La Hoya did in his fight with Manny Pacquiao.