If Team Pac avoids "slick black" fighters, does Team Floyd avoid "good welters"?

amigo, you are rapidly becoming the GOAT of stupidity.

mp fought hatton, all of his 45win and 1 loss card of him.

mp fought cotto. same thing, only loss only.

hmm, how many losses did baldo have when pbf fought him.
how many losses did judah and jmm have when pbf fought him.

if you think pac is not fighting the most competitive guys, what can you say about pbf then. :rofl

 

PBF said on the sky sports interview miguel cotto probably was the best welterweight at one point.....so why not fight him then?

Margo/Arum offered 8mil to fight but he fought baldomir

why did he fight judah after his loss?

But crticizing PBF can be selective we can also do similar with manny:

if roach knew de la hoya was finished then why make him even more redundant by fighting him weight drained?

If they knew hatton was rubbish why fight him? Why not Guzman? For example?

If they knew. Cotto lost some speed and stuff after margo why fight him etc etc and make him come at a lower weight?

Why demand fights at 145????

the thing is we can critique both camps in some ways but boxing now is about money and most of these fights were not about fighting the best bu more it is about less risk and more money.

I just hope the two best boxers get it on soon to see the megafight of the decade!!!

 

What's the difference between what Floyd did to JMM? He had a FAR smaller man move up 2 weight classes to a divsion he NEVER faught in before...Same with DLH when he called out PAC.

DLH didn't fight PAC at his "REGULAR" weight either......so they decided to meet in a WW fight. For me that isn't a catch weight. For me Campbell, Bradley and Holt aren't proven at 140 either. Bradley beat a 135 champion ,..smaller man who is pushing 40 in Nate...and he really didn't win. That was his claim to fame b/c other than that he had a decent win over anther unproven fighter in Holt. No question they are skilled and talented but Hatton WAS proven, although raw and limited. It worked for him and he was a solid champion at 140.

 

Manny is rich.....He's "DLH" rich like Floyd was after getting that opportunity. Just b/c they share 2 common opponents doesn't mean they have to share the same ranking bro. It's how you perform and how you win against those common opponents and also what the rest of your resume consists of. Manny is ranked higher b/c his resume is great, where Floyd resume is good. BOth are great fighters or boxers respectively but they have vastly different resumes.

Floyd has haters just like PAC, but to suggest PAC wins are suspect just b/c he's ranked higher than Floyd is wrong. Floyd resume can be dissected and put under the microscope and has been in the past....some were unwarranted critisim, some not but with PAC you can't really deny he's had one of the hardest resumes in terms of level of opposition than anyone in the last 20 yrs in the sport. Floyd not so much.

Sloppy 2nd's? What? You expect fighters who loose to Floyd to hang 'em up? It's not like Floyd ruins fighters...he's not dominating or punishing his victims like PAC is. He's outclassing them, using his talent, speed and reflexes to win decisions and once in a while takes advantage of his opponents mistake and can get them out of there early.

PAC's sucess is NOW being compared to Floyd's due to the rise of Manny.....3 yrs ago Floyd was the man....no one compared Manny to Floyd b/c there was really no need or way to compare Manny. But now BOTH have similarities in talent, Ability, status and the fact they want to make a fight happen. Of course they are going to be compared.

 

Until they hear the vitriols that spew out of this man's mouth. Then they will go back to basketball and football.

 

:good