I applaud Pac....

good point! i have no problems with pacquiao choosing clottey as an opponent, as he was the best available, but its when people say it was a great performance that really grinds my gears. it was a performance that was to be expected against someone who didnt wanna fight.





im goin ta bed... leave your comments and ill respond tomorow night

 

And you think it's a coincidence that all Pac's latest opponents seemed "very beatable the night they fought Pacquiao"?

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Pac was their opponent?

Just saying.

 

Tired old argument doesn't make you right. And please don't bother responding. You lose.

 

I have asked you a question. until you answer it and explain your answer, you lose because u are unable to carry on your argument.

...so ill ask again...

without realising it, that guy stated that clottey was only effective if you stand right infront of him and that he was a one dimentional fighter, so 'common sense' as you would call it so often, DEMANDS that pacquiaos task was never gonna be a difficult one from when the fight was made.... do you agree or do you disagree? :think

 

Why is boxing full of whiners and complainers that a boxer doesn't get full credit if it was a one-side fight? This is like discrediting a pitcher who just threw a perfect game because the opposing batters chose not to show up and got dominated. God, sometimes I hate the "fans" of boxing. This is worse than college football fans who argue about strength of schedule.

 

But people are sayin that while taking everything into consideration, like as you said that Clottey didn't wanna fight so it was gonna be very hard for Pac to look good against a guy who was in shut down mode. It could have been very easy for Pac to look bad with the way Clottey was fightin so when lookin at it Pac did look good and the fact that it was very difficult to make yourself look good in a fight like that, only made Pacquiao look better.

 

cotto didnt seem very beatable until he got hurt, which was all down to pacquiao being the better fighter... massive respect for pacquiao!!

although hatton got knocked down in the first round twice, he came back to give pacquiao a good fight in the 2nd until pac knocked him the **** out... massive respect to pacquiao!!

de la hoya looked like a weightdrained, dehydrated nobody throughout their whole fight together... no special props for pac here!!

clottey hardly threw a meaningful punch and never looked like he even wanted to win the fight... no special props for pac here!!
...............................

you see i am not a pac hater, but i hate when people over-evaluate ANY performance from ANY fighter!!!

 

he did look good, he looked flash... just as he would on a punchbag!! but that doesnt mean to say that it was a great performance!

 

without realising it, that guy stated that clottey was only effective if you stand right infront of him and that he was a one dimentional fighter, so 'common sense' as you would call it so often, DEMANDS that pacquiaos task was never gonna be a difficult one from when the fight was made.... any comments on this? do you agree or do you disagree? :think

 

But Clottey's punch output was more or less the same as it was in his previous bouts. It's not like he threw 1.000 punches in his previous fights but cut it down vs Pac.

So basically what you're saying is that you wouldn't give Pac props for beating Clottey no matter what. Because no matter how many times you put those two in the ring, I don't think Clottey would do much more.

 

yes that is what i am saying!

Bad choice of opponent but unfortunately, the only choice!! I thought, or hoped, that clottey would have taken this fight for what it was... a BIG ****IN FIGHT that coulda leaned towards more massive paydays had he won, but he never looked interested!!

I would only give pac props had clottey came out and fought like he wanted to win the fight. i may also add that in a poll on esb, i picked Pacquiao to KO clottey because i actually thougth it was gonna be a fight.



now im goin ta bed... ill respond to further comments tomorrow :good

 

Did Josh not come to fight, or was he put into submission?

 

so you disagree with everyone on this thread that say clottey fought the same as against any other fighter hes fought? :think

 

Why would I answer to an argument that I didn't have? You said that Pac didn't deserve any credit because he fought a coward, so I countered with "he made him look like a coward." But since you're too desperate for attention, here's my response: Whether or not it was a stylistic problem for Clottey, Pac and him still had to fight in the ****ing ring, not on paper. Pacquiao still had to be aware of Clottey's uppercut and all the physical advantages Clottey had. Clottey chose not to fight, it was his fault, but Pacquiao deserves credit for making him fight too defensively. Why does it have to be a struggle for a fighter to deserve credit? If he dominated, then credit goes to him. Don't buy into "he was never gonna be difficult" bull****. Pac still had to execute. Many say the Pacquiao that fought Morales was one-dimensional and Morales deserved full credit. So in your view, why doesn't Pac deserve credit? Because he didn't struggle?

 

Gotcha.

But you have to admit that Pacquiao did his part. You can't blame him for the fact that Clottey is a defensive-minded fighter who appeared even more defensive because of Pac's aggressiveness. All I'm saying is that Pacquiao deserves credit for making a pretty good and strong welterweight look like a punching bag.