If Pac beats Cotto...

He was the same fighter in the second fight that he was in the first. He was not abducted by aliens after the first fight, stripped of all will, ability and physical attributes, and then deposited back on Earth for the second fight a year later. Watch the two fights - Morales is the same, it is Pacquiao who is different.

That doesn't make any sense. Pac isn't going to be 126-130lbs when he fights Cotto, so what difference does it make whether Barrera or Marquez would beat a 147lbs Cotto?

Is Baldomir a better win for Mayweather than Corrales because Baldomir weighed 162lbs on fightnight and would surely have beaten Corrales with a 20-30lbs weight advantage?

Is Lalonde a better win for Ray Leonard than Benitez because Lalonde weighed in at 168lbs and would surely have overpowered a 147lbs Benitez?

Barrera was much better at 126 when Pac fought him than Cotto is at 147 now. Marquez was much better at fw and sfw when Pac fought him than Cotto is at 147 now.

 

Absolutely.

The cut Pacquiao suffered didn't happen as early as the one on Cotto's, and I don't think it was seeping into his eye as badly either. That said, Pacquiao was clearly hampered by the cut. How can a fighter not be? I think Cotto wins decisively against Clottey if he isn't having to fight with one eye.

 

I think it would be his biggest win,a former Flyweight Champion beating a Welterweight Champion who's also one of the best fighters in the world doesnt happen everyday.

 

Stick to beastiality please.

 

I could be getting mixed up with the rounds here as I haven't seen the fight since that night and I don't have it on dvd, but I think I remember having Clottey a point or two up after eight rounds, and he had had Miguel in noticeable trouble in that 8th round. Miguel then completely changed his tactics. He did what did against Margarito again, and it was Clottey's own ineptitude and lack of ability and awareness that meant he was not able to capitalize in the same way Margo did. Miguel lost the exchanges in the 8th, and started boxing on the backfoot. However, it was not effective boxing on the backfoot to my mind. It was not Marquez style counterpunching or Hopkins style outboxing, it was Ray Leonard in the Hagler fight style running the clock down, backing off, pitter-pattering, backing off, pitter-pattering, looking at the clock, ****ing willing it go faster, every move calculated not to hurt his opponent or build towards a stoppage or change the tide of the fight, but simply flurrying in the hope you impress the judges enough to edge the rounds and get to the final bell. Now, just like Leonard against Hagler, this tactic did mean he won the rounds purely because the other man wasn't doing much for extended periods. I had Miguel winning the fight for sure. However, this does not mean it was an impressive performance (of course Leonard v Hagler was, I am referring to Cotto-Clottey only now), I thought it was an unconvincing and unsatisfactory performance. I think it must be attributed to the cut to some extent, because I cannot accept that a Cotto with no hindrances could not convincingly beat a one-dimensional plodder like Clottey. But, the jury is still out as far as I'm concerned.

 

Like I said, we'll disagree on this. :good

Because it puts the accomplishment in perspective. I personally don't think those two fighters could ever beat a fighter of Cotto's calibre up at 145. That is why I would say beating Miguel would be Manny's best win to date.

The flaw in your argument is that Baldomir is a C level fighter, whereas Cotto is a B+. This is the point I'm making. Cotto isn't a better win simply because he is bigger, but he is also comparable with the Mexicans in ability. "Comparable". Baldomir is nowhere comparable.

Same as above. LaLonde never held a win over a fighter of Mosley's quality.

Absolutely, but Manny would have a tougher time with Cotto because he brings "comparable" skills to the table, as well as significant advantages in size.

 

But your point was that a win over Cotto would be better because Cotto would beat a 126lbs Barrera and a 130lbs Marquez. That doesn't make sense at all. If Manny beats Cotto, the only reason it would be a better win is because Manny would face extreme size disadvantages on the night. It has nothing to do with whether Cotto would beat Barrera, because Lalonde would beat Benitez and obviously the Benitez win is far better. That isn't a valid way of analyzing quality of wins.

 

Cotto may be his best ever win, but this is a bogus reason.

 

Fair enough, I see where I put it now.

Not only do I believe it to all be true, but Manny should have no business beating Cotto either. Like you said, those Mexicans are all superior fighters to Cotto, but they would never dream of beating him up at 145. Pacquiao would be beating a fighter of comparable skill level to those guys up at a weight where it would suit Cotto more than it would Pacquiao. I think it would be Manny's best win, and the fact that it's a much tougher challenge than the Feathweights is very much part of that.

 

My very next post!

 

pac ko5

 

If Pac beats Cotto...

1. Cotto is now considered shot
2. That was not the Cotto 'THEY' / 'WE' used to know
3. Cotto was messed up by Clottey/Margarito
4. Cotto is a bum
5. Cotto is overrated
6. Cotto is weight drained
7. Cotto is old
8. Cotto didnt have a gameplan
9. Cotto didn't manage to rest enough from his previous bout
10. Cotto loses cause Bob Arum said so



I saw a list from some people what would be posted "If Pac beats Hatton..."

AND ALL OF THEM REALLY GOT POSTED!



And I'll bet my ass that at least 6 of it will be posted afterwards!

 

:yikes

Cotto is a comparable skill level to Barrera or Marquez?

Just... no mate. No.

If Pac beats Cotto, he beats an inferior fighter but he beats him facing great disadvantages that he did not face against the superior fighters.

It's a balancing act whether people think it is a better win or not, it depends how much importance you place on the size disadvantage.

My gut feeling is... Cotto would be his best ever win by a whisker over the first Barrera fight. But I can easily understand why anyone would remain adamant Barrera was the better win.

I'm swayed to say Cotto would be better because Floyd fought at 147 for years and avoided taking on one of the best fully-fledged welterweights available, and I believe this was because he didn't fancy giving away weight to a fresh, prime fighter capable of hurting him.

For Pac just to waltz into the division and beat one of those guys before he'd even won a title there would be BIG.

 

I think Cotto is "comparable", meaning he is in the same stratosphere as those two, whereas LaLonde and Baldomir are both C level.

I don't know why you thought that would be an apt comparison, actually.