Do you want to see some polls on who is more respected by the majority? We can use ESPN poll or ESB poll and the result is the same.
You're simply making an inaccurate assumption. I like action. There are numerous ways to get good action in the boxing ring though. Paying good money for a 1 or 2 round fight is simply not worth it. And that Tyson/Spinks fight was not worth it. I don't know how the hell you can say you felt cheated but also say the $39 was worth it. That's a total contradiction. I've paid for ppv's for many different type of fighters. Let's look at Pacquiao. His last 5 fights were all on ppv. I would say that 3 of them were worth the money(JMM, Hoya, and Cotto). All 3 of them were fights that you figured would be competitive and that lasted at least 8 rounds. Now 2 of them ended up not being competitive but at least they went a good amount of rounds. Are you going to tell me that you enjoyed the Hoya fight over the Marquez fight just because the Marquez fight went 12 rounds? Most people would not. In a boxing match, ideally, you want plenty of action, and a competitive contest that last a good amount of rounds. Pac vs. Hatton was not competitive, and only lasted 2 rounds. That's a ripoff. Hagler vs. Hearns lasted only 3 rounds, but there was a ton of action, and it was highly competitive. Now that fight was worth it. In the end it's not about the style of fighters involved when it comes to a PPV. It's about putting together an intriguing fight that provides good action, and is competitive. Those are they type of fights that I want to pay to see.
Never seen Pacquiao vs Barrera II ?? Absolute snooze-fest and I practically fell asleep in my chair. Not saying Pacquiao is not exciting, but he has had some snooze fests too. Styles make fights.
1. Clottey is not slow. His foot movement is calculated and efficient but he's not slow. His combination hand speed is much faster than Cotto's. 2. Clottey has excellent defense, a good right hand, excellent left hand combinations, excellent uppercuts, good jab and can counter punch. He's no cherry pick for anyone in the welterweight division including Mosley, Mayweather and Pac. 3. Pac will not be doing that sideways stepping when he's close to Clottey. Clottey positions himself so you can't do that against him. 4. Pac will have to fight his best to win. Anything less and he takes a beating. Pac is the favourite to win but he shouldn't underestimate Clottey. Clottey is as good as Marquez\Morales in most departments and much better than Marquez\Morales in a lot of other departments. Bigger, longer reach, harder puncher, better right hand, better left hook combinations, better defense. Pac has to be on top of his game to win.
I dont understand the purpose of this thread... So what if PBF Mosley is more exciting??? Does that make Pac-Clottey boring? no. Just another case of "i love my favorite fighter and i'm gonna bash the other one":| ****, grow up dude.
you know what i have always noticed? lots of FLoyd fans think he's awesome and a great boxer (which he really is) but at the same time call somebody like V. Klychko boring as hell and a bum... i call BS on that line of thinking anyway, back to this topic, from a pure entertainment point of view any Pacquiao's fight is better than most of Floyd's. Tho i prefer a good ole technical beatdown, hence i prefer to watch Mayweather or Klychko 11 times out of 10
Pac vs Clottey is set up more of an exhibition fight for Pac rather than a competitive boxing match, if people are happy watching Pac hammer him for 12 rounds while Clottey keeps up a high guard then no doubt they will find it exciting. I'd love to see Clottey pull out the upset with everything stacked against him.
When you mean "EVERYTHING STACKED AGAINST HIM", is it in gargantuan proportions similar to JMM-Mayweather fight?