I have one question for you guys: If boxing appreciates boxers, then how did Manny...

well he is certainly more reputable than any other poster here who just gossips their way through what is happening in the negotiations. the guy told the truth about who did not really want this fight to happen.

 

So does that mean your opinion ( and joyboys ) matters more to someone who is hired to write articles in a boxing magazine? Damn. Even Floyd fans think they're opinions are the truth all the time.. in theory... just like Floyd in fantasy fights. LOL.

 

joyboys doesn't like much this ring mag article for it exposes the truth as to who did not really want this fight to happen.

 

it's an article

a column

which expresses 1 person's opinion


nothing more, nothing less

 

I think that says it all about how the US media, in particular, views Mayweather's legacy as compared to Pacquaio.

Pacquiao's legacy > Mayweather's legacy. Anyway you look at it.

End of discussion.

 

Not my article. You go check with them. You being resident ESB Floydette. Them being The Bible of Boxing.

 

again, like i already stated, it's a column

if you don't know what columnists are, research it

if you need help, ask

 

PAC is ducking hopkins

 

the way he stated this, it looks like he has more of an inside info than most of the posters here who knew nothing. and even if it was just his opinion, the guy is more credible than most experts here.

 

but when joyboys like yourself say that Pac ducked FLoyd, it's the truth?
atsch

 

i'm not sure what's so hard to understand

a columnist expresses opinion

opinion is not fact

he stated what happened (the negotiations), then

he stated his opinion (about who was in the wrong)

citing an article (column) that is not strictly reporting, but stating opinion, and using the entire article (fact + opinion) as fact, is fallacious

he may be the world's greatest boxing columnist, but it doesn't change the fact that opinion is opinion

here is an excert from the boston globe about what columnists can do:

"A columnist has more latitude and license than a reporter and is not constrained by the rule of impartiality that governs news writing."

i am not arguing about his opinion, he can have any opinion he wants

what i am saying is you can not cite his opinion as fact

 

no, it's opinion

nothing more, nothing less

 

i got what you are saying but with the way he stated what happened in the negotiations, it looks like it was more of an opinion. it seems that he has some info regarding the negotiations. he even stated who had the first offer and the succeeding moves that happened. a person that is just stating his opinion would not write a sequence of events in the manner that he did. and yes i agree that based on that sequence of events he mentioned, he formed his opinion out of it.

 

I disagree with this post but atleast it has some substance to it. couple of points though...

Sure Ricky Hatton won against Collazo, controversially. A light hitting Collazo nearly stopped Hatton at 147, nearly beat him, you could almost say they were of equal calibre fighters at 147 based on their performances. Now Collazo is no great fighter, he's a B level fighter at best. Lets examine this more closely:

140: Hatton hasnt come close to loosing, beat Tsyzu, Mallignagi, Maussa, Urango, Castillo, Lazcano...
147: Controversial win over Collazo.

After the Collazo fight, Hatton specifically blamed the weight for his poor performance, so he went back to 147, yet despite all that, PBF who was suppose to be a 140lb fighter fighting at 147lb drag Hatton back up to 147. Of course there was also the controversy on Joe Cortez refereeing.

Without bias, look at that and tell me where Hatton feels better at.

Throw in the fact that Pac absolutely destroyed Hatton, in 2, at his best weight, being the smaller man and its no rocket science to me that Pac's win was more impressive.

First off, your "shell of de la hoya" at 147 is simply a product of Pac's domination. At the time, Pac was such a huge underdog, when he dominated a WW like that, it was a case of DLH must be that bad, as oppose to Pac being that good. Half the board even after the DLH fight said Pac would loose to any top 10 WW. Wrong, Pac has continued to dominate fighters like that.

I would concede that DLH was better at 154, but then again, Floyd didnt jump 2 weight divisions to meet DLH at 154. Here is one for you, Pac was a bigger underdog against DLH than PBF was against DLH. Pac shocks the world...

Again, the JMM vs DLH comparisons of domination just isnt very good. Pac was whooping a guy when he was an underdog, a bigger guy. PBF was whooping on a guy when he was huge favourite, he was expected to whoop the guy, and the guy jumps up 2 weight divisions.

This is like saying Klistchko beat Pavlik is more impressive than Pavlik beat Klitschko :think Thats exactly the same scenario. Pac was more impressive cos he was underdog going up in weight, PBF was picking on smaller man and was fav.

 

Pac has beaten Floyds best wins MORE convincingly than Floyd (DLH, Hatton etc) had hall of fame and legendary battles with Barrera, Morales and Marquez. And beat TOP WW Cotto (who beat Mosely) and Clottey (who was a fighter who had never been beaten convincingly)