Agreed.....not that Manny can beat the very best of the Jr MW division but he'd surely outclass and outbox a raw and unplolished James Kirkland. Some folks are just bananas.:nut
Charlievint, I know you worship Pacman but do you have to let the whole world know it,lol. You know deep down Manny has no chance to beat Kirkland, and Manny style is all wrong in this match-up.
Relax......you'll be hard pressed to find me worshiping anything let alone anther man. I'll leave that up to the "pros".....you got that covered enough for both you and myself. Deep down? **** bro......I need only to scratch the surface to shoot holes in your stance on James vs PAC. James Kirkland??..:rofl Either you are borderline ******ed or a straight up hugger. Either or.....your transparent b/c there is not logic to support James beating Manny aside from having a punchers chance. Stylelistically or not....james doesn't have the tools, skills or experience to match Manny. That's as stupid as thinking James could beat Floyd Jr. just b/c he is holding a weight advantage over him.
atsch Jesus Christ, I don't think weight means everything. I even said Pac/Cotto was a tossup from what I remember. I wasn't sure of the outcome at all. Now, when are you going to realize that styles make fights and weight will matter as much as anything eventually if you keep stepping up? Do you think Chavez would've beaten Terry Norris too? He was better, why not? Quality over weight! Weight doesn't mean that much! Hearns is greater than Tyson and fought at Cruiserweight, want to put them in together and see who wins? Hey, Hearns is a higher quality boxer, stepping up one more weight class isn't anything, I say he beats Tyson's ass? :nono If one weight class didn't mean much Bob Foster wouldn't have been knocked out by the likes of Ernie Terrell. If weight didn't matter as much as quality at any given time, the Fosters would not lose to the Terrells. And the Pacquiaos would not get knocked out in one round by the Mirandas. I mean-oops, that's for a future thread, excuse me. The weight only matters when it's dramatically proven to matter to people, I guess. Oh, and Clottey? Talk about shutting out Clottey? Clottey is NOT a puncher. Clottey is NOT a high activity aggressor. Kirkland is BOTH of those things. Styles do make fights. Yes, Pacquiao shut out Clottey, it was a great performance. At 147, against a low activity, average puncher. No, that is nothing like Kirkland at 154. Yes, Miguel Cotto, a heavy-handed welterweight busted Pac's ear and marked up both eyes and Pacquiao even busted his hand against him. No, Kirkland hasn't shown to have anything like the style or limited durability of Cotto and he's a heavy-handed light middleweight. Think it might get worse for him? Even entertaining the ****ing possibility that Pacquiao is not an indestructible god? If he moves up and beats Kirkland, no doubt someone will say he can move up and beat X middleweight...then if he does that...I get it, nobody ever wants to be wrong again and will entertain the possibility of Pacquiao winning any fight, no matter how unlikely or ridiculous it seems and get into these discussions preemptively. This conversation is going nowhere. :barf Pacquiao KO1 Wladimir Klitschko in 2012 just before the apocalypse. He's the better fighter, weight/schmeight, I'm done.
Join the dark side like me Boxed Ears and make some hypothetical mismatch threads... if somebody in this thread was hyping Manny to beat the top 154 lbers I would have made one in a hurry (*cough* Pacquiao vs. McCallum *cough*) but they're just talking about a prospect in Kirkland so it's not that bad.
No, you're right, I suppose it's not that bad...But something about this thread makes my testicles draw up into my throat. I've got three ****ing Adam's apples right now.
This charlievent guy is a *******, ******d to the fullest. For starters a blind man could see pbf and Manny have totally different styles. This is why Kirkland has a great chance at whipping and Koing Manny because styles makes fights and Manny would be facing a guy who moe aggressive, better power, younger, hunger with good speed.
I can tell you're just arguing for argument's sake now because you bring up examples that have no bearing whatsoever. Hearns at CW compared to Tyson at Heavyweight? what a **** comparison! Hearns was not half as good at cruserweight as Pac is at WW, and I can't believe you even compared Mike Tyson to JAMES ****ING KIRKLAND. What the hell are you smoking?!?!?! You said Pac vs Cotto was a toss-up and now you're underrated Pacquao once again. You said Clottey is not a puncher and a high activity agressor but Pacquiao is at his best against a high activity agressor. Clottey is 100x better technically than Kirkland is and so is his defense. Cotto got his ass handed to him by Pacquiao, won 1 round out of 12 and got KTFO. Its a different class of fighter. The only thing that made any sense in that drivel of yours are the last 2 words.
Philla, I promise I at least matched your amount of sense at worst. I have no way of relating to your *******ism. I can't find one. Though I tried. I didn't really compare Tyson to Kirkland, I was using an example of quality not likely overcoming weight class disadvantage. I'm sorry you didn't understand that. Please go jerk off to Buboy or whatever the **** you do when you're not trying to argue pointlessly about how Pacquiao can beat anybody ever because he's so great. :hi: PS: KTFO is not a term you should really use for the ref deciding enough is enough in the twelfth and final when the other guy is still on his feet. KTFO is more of the Hatton example. FYI.
KTFO is a term I use when a guy gets beaten and battered and stopped. Which is what happened to Cotto. Your example was ****. You should stop being a douchebag and admit it. Tyson was of higher quality at HW than Hearns was at Cruiserweight anyways. The gap in ability and size between Pacquiao and Kirkland is more like comparing RJJ to John Ruiz. You can shrug off what I said by calling me a ******* because you can't accept that what I'm saying makes sense, that's fine. But in the end you're the one who's isn't seeing things clearly. Like you said, you're done.