Is not having an '0' to lose a big + for Pacman

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by colinthfc, Nov 25, 2009.


Page 2 of 2
  1. YAGBOLSCO

    YAGBOLSCO Member Full Member

    412
    0
    Aug 21, 2009
    deleted.
     
    YAGBOLSCO, Nov 25, 2009
    YAGBOLSCO, Nov 25, 2009
    #16
  2. Marnoff

    Marnoff Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,227
    27
    Feb 14, 2006
    Obviously being undefeated leads to greater drawing power. That would be true for Pacquiao as well, if it were the case. If he were undefeated, the Pacmania would be multipled exponentially.
     
    Marnoff, Nov 25, 2009
    Marnoff, Nov 25, 2009
    #17
  3. watsinango

    watsinango Active Member Full Member

    1,495
    0
    Feb 17, 2008
    so as the Koki KAmeda (21-0) kingdomship will exponetially grow..
     
    watsinango, Nov 25, 2009
    watsinango, Nov 25, 2009
    #18
  4. Knives7

    Knives7 Boxing Addict banned

    7,196
    1
    Jan 24, 2009
    So basically you're saying that Hatton, Hoya and Cotto are lesser boxers. :patsch
     
    Knives7, Nov 25, 2009
    Knives7, Nov 25, 2009
    #19
  5. VIP

    VIP Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,175
    2
    Aug 19, 2004
    I think it's a positive in that Mayweather thinks a lot of having that '0' and in some senses afraid of losing. He doesn't take a lot of risks in the ring, but he's been good enough to beat everyone thus far. But what happens when someone really pushes him?
     
    VIP, Nov 25, 2009
    VIP, Nov 25, 2009
    #20
Page 2 of 2