Hatton: Pac not versatile

It was a very close fight with JMM. I thought he lost, but his speed, mobility and explosiveness gave Marquez trouble all the way. It was an excellent fight by two very evenly matched guys and there was maybe a round in it by the end. Marquez paid dearly for that KD.

But JMM is not the same question as Hatton and, while I see the fight being rough for the first 4-5 rounds, I think Manny's sharper punching and movement will give him the openings to break Ricky down.

 

And that's the other point... but I didn't want to start it in case the pro-Hatton crying gets going again.

 

Never said they were anything spectacular, but Pacs last 4 fights are what have made him concensus P4P#1, and to be honest its fraudulent.

 

Mayweather retiring made Pac no.1. truthfully, I think JMM deserves it for his last two wins. I was gutted that Diaz lost to Juan, but it was great to see such a stunnign turnaround.

 

You know I find it hilarious y'all completely write off Pac's win against Hoya. I told you guys Pacquiao would beat him. All I heard from people in here is that Hoya is way too big, I'm in a dreamworld.

Suddenly now, he gets no credit whatsoever and Malignaggi would have beat him that night!? :shock:

Pacquiao was brilliant, made him look even worse than he was.

 

Theres nothing revisionist about it at all. If Roach even admits that Pac would have lost to a "live" De La Hoya, as he does, there is nothing we can do but write it off as a shot fighter taken a bad beating.

Pacman does get credit for the victory but theres no way thatit ranks amongst the greatest wins of all time or, for that matter, amongst the best 3 wins of Pacman's career.

 

It's the definition of revisionist.

I made a thread documenting why Pac would win. Nobody believed me. Every ****er picked Hoya. We've gone from that to people talking about a "corpse" of Hoya, giving Pacquiao no respect at all for his performance and claiming anybody would have beaten him. All in hindsight of course, and no acknowledgment of what Pacquiao did to emphasize the point. I'm surprised people have no shame.

 

But, in their defence, their opinions were based on De La Hoya being on the decline and not shot. De La Hoya picked that fight because even if he was at just 20% of his best he would have beaten Pacquiao.

By the way, you should be proud of your prediction. A Pacman win WAS unlikely before we knew how bad De La Hoya was and you picked him to win. Though I think you might be a bit annoyed that your prediction, as good as it was, came true because of De La Hoya and not Pacman.

 

I find it hard to have sympathy with their defence when the reasons for Hoya's sudden decline were the exact reasons they picked against Pacquiao. They picked against him because he's a prime super feather against a welterweight. Logical of course, but they ignored the fact De La Hoya hadn't made the 147lb limit in years.

They also ignore the fact Pacquiao's performance made De La Hoya look hopeless. He was bad, but nobody other than Pacquiao would have made it look that bad. Pacquiao was too quick, his in and out movement is better than anybody elses, stopping Hoya getting off.

Anybody deserves credit when they win as a big underdog. IMO. Pacquiao does not get it.

 

He IS proud of it, can't you tell? He's been banging on about it for the last 4 months, apparently its the only time in living memory that someone has picked the underdog and been right....

 

Sorry Gaz, who did you pick?

 

Yep, I had Oscar:roll:. I do give Pac credit for taking the fight and putting in a solid performance to beat the fighter put in front of him but thats all. The Oscar and Diaz fights have not really shown much of what Pac is capable of above 135.

I'm not one of these people saying Pac can't win, he's a great fighter who's passed the 2 tests put in front of him above 130lbs, but I think to beat Hatton he'll have to show a damn sight more than he's had to show to win his last 2 fights. Maybe has it in the tank and maybe he doesn't, we'll see on May 2nd.

 

He'll have to show a damn sight more in your opinion.

So if he performs as he did against Oscar, that won't be enough?

 

I'm with Gaz on this one.

I picked DLH to win based on all sorts of things - I weighed up the fact that Pac hadn't beaten a good opponent above 130 and the fact that DLH, whilst not at his best against Forbes, got the job done fairly well at 150lbs.

I decided that was more relevant than Pac not having to cut the extra weight which could be said to have affected him in his previous contests, and that DLH was 7 months older... having to cut extra weight etc.... and was way off the mark.

I still haven't picked the winner of this yet.... but Pac certainly isn't going to be getting it all his own way - Diaz had said the speed bothered him more than the power which bodes better for Hatton.... who is much quicker than Diaz..... whilst DLH was just awful.

Give me until May 1 to pick!

 

If he's expecting to spend the fight out of range and potshotting a stationary opponent who can't get his own punches off and he's not willing deviate from that tactic then yes, he'll lose. He IS a some point going to have to mix it up with Hatton and fight (or smother) on the inside and against the ropes, he had to do neither against Oscar.

He was never taken out of his comfort zone against Oscar so didn't have to do anything else in order to win the fight. I think he'll have to dig a lot deeper to beat Hatton.