There's literally a style that Pacquiao has consistently lost to. He has major difficulty, and most of the time loses to a sharp 1-2, iron chin and fast, effective footwork. Morales, Márquez and Mayweather all do this and all beat him. I'm surprised most people ignore it. Mayweather beats Pac at any weight.
Exactly! High ring iq educated footwork accuracy and countering are his weaknesses. People ignore it because they hate to hear the truth.
I don't know why either, it's a matter of styles. Every fighter has something to exploit (I can only think of two who don't), Pac's has always been skilled counter punchers who like a 1-2, Mayweather's have always been aggressive, high-paced swarmers who go downstairs. Styles really do make fights, as cliché as that may be it is true. An example I like is that I'd pick Mayweather to beat Alexis Argüello fairly comfortably, whilst I'd pick El Flaco Explosivo to knock Pac out. But then I'd pick Pacquiao to obliterate Aaron Pryor at 140, and think Pyror's style would be hell on earth for Mayweather.
1) Mayweather was juiced (illegal IVs being a popular and effective method of masking PED use) 2) Pac was injured And the fight was no schooling and in fact, Pac authored the two most significant sequences of the fight. Pac wasn't even looking, baiting, and waiting for his countering opportunities. He just caught Mayweather twice by being himself. Had he loaded up on those shots, Mayweather might very well have been dropped. 2010-2012 Pac beats Mayweather clear.
That fight was no closer than 117-111 Mayweather. You forget that Mayweather was drastically better in 2010 too. It's the same result (Mayweather winning) just a better fight.
It was absolutely a close fight. Pac authored the 2 most significant sequences of the fight and was tit for tat in punches landed for many rounds. This is one of those fights where the expectations were astronomical and when it failed to be an explosive, drama-filled affair, people ended up genuinely disgusted. Just because Pac didn't do what people EXPECTED him to do doesn't mean that it wasn't a close fight. That's flat out discrediting the actual work that Pac did put in.
The majority score in Vegas by 2 judges out of 3 in vegas was 116-112. The fight was way closer than people lead on. Pac won the 2 clearest rounds, and 4-5 more could have easily swung his way. In a lot of rounds, there was no difference, maybe Floyd landed an extra jab, or what not. It's a joke how people are coming up with these scorecards.
I agree. he was penalized, by some at least, for not living up to the image of a guy throwing ten-punch combos and putting out at full steam for three minutes of every round. I seem to recall Roach had always said, even way back when the fight was first mooted, that it would be a pretty cagey fight.
Nope. I don't think that holds true just based on the examples you've given. He beat Morales 2 out of 3 bouts and beat Marquez 2 out of 4. The Mayweather fiasco, I believe him when he says he carried injuries into the ring and anyways he had noticeably declined and was far from peak Pacman. You might as well make the case that Hopkins beats Roy Jones Jr at any time or weight because we know that's not true either. If they'd never had a rematch years and years later everybody today would say that Hopkins could never beat Jones because he beat him that one time. Also, by implication you're saying that guys like Barrera and Bradley have bad chins and poor footwork. There wasn't a style that Pacquiao had trouble with. He had trouble with good fighters, like anyone would. Mayweather had trouble sparring with Morales and seems to have gotten the worst of it. The only lesson to be learned here is that Erik Morales is a bad mother****er. The fact is that all of these guys were close enough in ability to beat the other ones on any given night. If they fought a series then nobody goes undefeated. I think every series of high level fights in history has proven that. That's why Ezzard Charles dropped losses to Bivins and Walcott. Also, you can see guys losing to other guys they used to beat as they get older. The scales shift. One guy enters his prime while another is in post prime decline, or they are the same age but one declined faster.
I agree with most of that, but I'd also give Erislandy Lara a good chance to beat Mayweather in a boring long distance pot shoting defensive fight. There's more than one way to skin a cat. I kind of hated how everybody always walked to Mayweather and fought his fight. I don't think he's a complete fighter who can be aggressive as well as he can be defensive. I always wanted to see somebody fight him in the same uninteresting overly cautious negative style he used in all of his fights.
Yeah, but when you go back and watch 2009-2010 Pac he's a jungle cat. It's night and day to 2015 Pac. Five years is a long time in professional boxing. Plus, 2012 Marquez sparked him out and he changes his style up. That's when he really started becoming cautious.
I agree to an extent, though not a mythological one. That's why I said the 2010 version of the fight retains its fascination for guys like us. You have to expect that Pac's workrate would have been cut some, though. Floyd was no Clottey.
There is a suspicion because he blatantly refused to do drug testing with BS excuses of being scared of needles at a particular period. When it was insisted on his power diminished somewhat as he stopped knocking people out hence reasonable conclusions were drawn. I do agree he never officially failed a drug test but there was the period he refused to ti blood testing in particular. It’s not a deduction it’s an observation.
