If Floyd doesn't fight Pac, how will it affect his legacy?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Bummy Davis, Jan 21, 2015.


  1. MVC!

    MVC! The Best Ever Full Member

    60,129
    5,612
    Nov 5, 2013
    Completely understandable, it is true that sometimes in business you have to do business with the people you hate.

    But he doesn't share that viewpoint. He doesn't want to be associated with the guy who has stolen from him.

    And I don't blame him because like I said, I wouldn't either.

    That's why he's been asking Pac to leave TR for the longest time. He doesn't want to work with Arum, that's it.
     
  2. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,559
    16,066
    Jul 19, 2004
    Pacquiao will ALWAYS define Floyd's legacy. The question now is, how will Pacquiao define his legacy?

    1. Will it be a Floyd victory over Pacquiao and a career-defining signature victory?

    2. Or will Floyd lose to Pacquiao and have his career defined that way?

    3. Or the 3rd option - and the one that I think would harm his legacy the most - is never fighting Pacquiao.

    Whatever one of those three outcomes plays out, I have no doubt that Pacquiao and Pacquiao alone will be what ultimately defines Floyd's lasting legacy.

    I, for one, hope it's one of the first 2 options.

    :smoke
     
  3. schooling

    schooling Guest

    I don't really agree with you when you say floyd loves the hate i think that's false bravado i remember once floyd was talking about pac saying he can lose and still be loved but the americans don't stand behind him they stand behind others, that really hit me thinking he really does care also anther time i think this was when floyd fought hatton, he said something like he wished he had fans who really love him like ricky's fans

    Floyd is human and he does not love the hate that's just a act
     
  4. MVC!

    MVC! The Best Ever Full Member

    60,129
    5,612
    Nov 5, 2013
    It's vice versa. Floyd also defines Pac's legacy.

    If they never fight each other, neither will be considered amongst the greatest ATG's in boxing history. Not even close.

    Them not fighting one another will leave a huge asterisk on both resumes.

    The question of what if will always pop up whenever you consider either man.
     
  5. schooling

    schooling Guest

    I agree he really never wanted arum involved anyone who says floyd is using arum as a excuse is deluded, but i think he also came to the understanding that he needs to take this fight its the right time he wants to go out on a bang and also make big money
     
  6. TheDarkLord

    TheDarkLord Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,854
    15
    May 24, 2011
    Bit out of character MVC :lol:
     
  7. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,559
    16,066
    Jul 19, 2004
    Them not fighting inherently harms Floyd's legacy far more than Pac's for two reasons:

    1. Floyd is the "A-side". He's the undefeated fighter, and he and he alone is the one with the power to make the fight happen in the snap of a finger if he really wants it. There's no disputing this.

    2. Pacquiao already has legacy defining rivalries against other great fighters, namely the trio of Hall of Fame Mexicans.

    Ergo, Floyd has far more to lose should a fight with Pacquiao not materialize.

    :smoke
     
  8. schooling

    schooling Guest

    I really think it's a shame 2 fighters who were the top of there respective divisions and both being p4p number 1 guys never fought each other
     
  9. gqsneezer

    gqsneezer Active Member Full Member

    648
    2
    Dec 18, 2013
    I can't believe people still consider that $40M a legit offer. Manny refusing the blood testing was shady, that I agree with, but the offer? Really?! Of course $40M is a lot of money and that would have been more than Pac would have made in one fight but surely you can't be that simple minded.
     
  10. MVC!

    MVC! The Best Ever Full Member

    60,129
    5,612
    Nov 5, 2013
    1. History tells us that it wouldn't matter which party was the A or B side, if they don't fight, both men's legacies are going to be tarnished just as equally.

    2. The only reason why Floyd hasn't had a "legacy defining rivalry" is because he's beaten everyone decisively, there was no need for a trilogy or any sort. It's actually very arguable that Floyd has the better resume due to overall body of work. He's had legacy defining wins as well as Pacquiao.

    Legacy defining single wins are key here.

    3. Floyd DOES have more to lose, and it's because he's a better fighter, that's all.
     
  11. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,559
    16,066
    Jul 19, 2004
    It's nothing short of pathetic, and has largely contributed to boxing's demise, at least in the US.
     
  12. schooling

    schooling Guest

    I really have hopes it could happen now should i wake up from my dream rums?
     
  13. Unimane

    Unimane Member Full Member

    158
    3
    Sep 17, 2011
    1. I don't necessarily think Mayweather's avoiding Pac, but I do think he has little urgency about fighting him and always has. He's also bought into the idea that he can dictate whatever he wants to any fighter and they have to bend to his will. This is probably true for nearly all of his potential opponents, but Pac can still make really good money (though, not as good as fighting Mayweather) fighting other people.

    2. Fighting, and defeating Mayweather, will do wonders for Pac's legacy, but I think the questions I asked earlier about Mayweather's legacy that were concerning for Money will be beneficial to Manny. He fought in a very aggressive, crowd pleasing manner which delivered more exciting fights for people to points towards 50 years from now. He has some iconic rivalries and moments throughout his career. So, Money may be a better boxer, but, right now, Manny has left a more indelible mark on boxing that people will remember. Unfortunately for Money, the main thing about him that people will remember will be that he was a very good boxer, but not anything or exciting to point at.
     
  14. MVC!

    MVC! The Best Ever Full Member

    60,129
    5,612
    Nov 5, 2013
    Mayweather will go down as the greater boxer when you consider both these men, by a fair margin.

    Sure, it's true that he hasn't been in many blood curdling wars, if at all. But boxing aficionados will regard Mayweather as the higher ranked fighter.

    The boxing public will probably see Pac as the more exciting and more memorable one. This is true.
     
  15. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,559
    16,066
    Jul 19, 2004
    If Floyd ultimately retires without facing Pacquiao - you will be proven totally totally wrong. (ESPECIALLY if he retires undefeated)

    That's a fair point - EXCEPT that Floyd is so good, there is only ONE guy fans have been eager to see him fight - for FIVE years. That's why Pacquiao has become his career-defining nemesis despite the fact they never faced each other.

    That was my point 1, wasn't it? Floyd inherently has more to lose because he's widely viewed as the better fighter (I said "A-side" and "undefeated" - but it serves the same purpose).

    So are you agreeing with me that Floyd inherently has more to lose because he's better? Or are you disagreeing? :huh

    :smoke