LOL @the pattern that goes on with every Pac fight.

He was 106 at 16 years of age. That's hardly indicative of what his size would be as a full grown man. And Cotto in no way looked massive next to Pac, what a ridiculous thing to say.

 

not zab judah...

http://www.8countnews.com/news/125/ARTICLE/2076/2009-11-18.html

 

Yeah so whatever way you look at it there is no need for this catchweight stuff. If the few pounds doesn't make any difference then why does Roach insist on it?? The reality is that it does make a difference and that is why Roach is so insistent on it, but does it make such a difference that it is worth people always talking about it?? Let's face it nobody really now believes Cotto being allowed to come in at 147 would've made a difference to the overall result, other than Cotto probably being a bit more durable for longer. So please Freddie and Manny fight Mayweather at 147 and don't even bother trying to get the weight down by a couple of pounds because it just doesn't look good and is it really worth it??

 

What would be the excuse if he beats Floyd Mayweather Jr.?
The two year lay off?
Marquez laid the blueprint?
Mayweather got drugged in the dressing room?

 

his biceps looked a lot larger, **** his frame is larger.

yeah he was 16, but he was pro none the less, i dont care what boxers were fighting at ameteur, he started pro at 106, thats all that matters, thats all that gets looked at in a serious discussion about boxing regarding pacquiao's weight, so go floss them nipples and **** off.

 

He wasn't done growing. What he weighed as a kid halfway through his growth cycle is utterly and completely irrelevant. What he weighs NOW matters.

Yea, Cotto has a bit larger torso, but Pacquiao has massive ****ing legs which is not coincidental and has a lot to do with his power, movement, and ability to absorb punches. I recall someone posting their dimesions in the lead up to the fight and Pac was larger than Cotto in many areas outside of things like chest width, etc, because Pacquiao is very densely muscled.

 

Thanks for that man

Zab seems like a different person, actually talking sense and giving good analysis and not ****-talking anyone or calling every big money fighter out.

Looks like his son has matured him a bit and he looks focused on winning a 140 belt.

 

"What he weighed as a kid halfway through his growth cycle is utterly and completely irrelevant. What he weighs NOW matters."

it doesnt matter, he was pro at 106. pro is a whole different ballgame to an amateur fight. to start as a pro when you are still growing is even more impressive dont you think?

 

if you want to get technical, men dont stop developing into their mid to late twenties, where should we draw the line?

 

Um, you draw the line what they weigh at the time of the actual fight in question, and how they look at that weight, perhaps? Instead of some utterly arbitrary criteria like "natural weight based on what the kid weighed when he was a malnourished 16 year old".

Who cares what he weighed a decade and a half ago?

 

"Who cares what he weighed a decade and a half ago?"

It all gets taken into consideration.

 

By random ******s on internet forums.

 

listen nipplefloss, the name says it all right there:yep, fighting at 106 lbs when you turned pro and then tko'ing the best at welter "matters".

 

I weighed 130 lbs when I was 16 ergo I weight 130 lbs now.

QED

Brilliant

 

Hey Kirk, you get my reply in the other thread about Pac and SRL?