Against Erik Morales, the critics marveled at how Morales schooled Pacquiao in their first encounter (though on most scorecards, Morales won by 2 points, but it was apparently a schooling). Hail the Pacquiao conqueror! Yet a mere 10 months later, less than a year, Morales would apparently go from Pacquiao conqueror to Grandma Moses. Results: KO wins for Pacquiao in the rematch and rubber match. Monday Morning Quarterbacks excuse: Morales was already old, washed-up, wars with Barrera, loss to Zahir Raheem. Again, how does one go from being a 130-lb hotshot/Pacquiao conqueror to Grandma Moses in a span of 10 months? And its not like Raheem softened Morales up for the rematch with Pacquiao. Raheem is a finesse fighter. He did not do serious damage to Morales. Rather, Morales took Raheem lightly and was caught looking ahead to the Pacquiao rematch, a thing that sometimes happens even to the best sports teams when facing a relative cream puff (i.e., Lakers losing to Hornets, USC losing to a Stanford or an Oregon State). Morales, they would say, was already washed up when he first fought Pacquiao. So what was the difference between the Morales in the 1st fight, and the Morales of the 2nd & 3rd fights? Some will say that Pacquiao got to use the gloves he wanted (coincidence?), but it seems apparent that Pacquiao learned from the 1st fight and showed who was superior. Critics constantly treat Pacquiao as if he had not improved or transformed to a better fighter, but he has. Against Juan Manuel Marquez, many would say Pacquiao lost those battles. The subjective scoring of judges can be a topic for another day, but the one objective thing that most Pacquiao critics fail to address is the admittedly erroneous scoring of judge Burt Clements in the 1st fight, who said he did not know that a 10-6 score could be awarded to a fighter who scores 3 knockdowns! Had he done so, like the two other judges did, Pacquiao would have won by majority decision. And Marquez should be thankful that the 3-Knockdown Rule was not in effect. Otherwise, the record would have shown a 1st Round TKO, and this discussion about his comeback in the later rounds would be moot. The Pacquiao-Marquez fights were close fights. Arguments can be made for both sides. The critics and the Monday Morning Quarterbacks will go ahead and treat these fights like it was a Joel Casamayor-Jose Santa Cruz robbery! It was not! They were close fights that could have gone either way. But ultimately, one who gets knocked down 4 times in a closely contested fight should not later complain about losing a close one. Against Oscar De La Hoya, the critics called it a farce, a circus, a total mismatch! Oscar was favored to win, the size advantage too great. These were their conventional wisdoms before the fight. Result: Pacquiao TKO win. Monday Morning Quarterbacks excuse: Oscar was drained, hes a shell of his former self, too dehydrated, etc. That apparently wasnt foreseen before the fight! Once again, its after the fact. If Oscar improperly trained himself and overdid it, thats Oscars fault, not Pacquiaos. I am not sure why the critics also get on Pacquiaos case about this catch-weight against Oscar. Pacquiao was essentially a super featherweight (nevermind the pit stop at lightweight against David Diaz) going against a former middleweight titlist. Did people really expect Pacquiao to go 4-5 weight classes up to meet Oscar? That would be stupid. Oscar wanted the match, so they had to meet halfway at welterweight. And Pacquiao schooled him. As I may have stated before, a former middleweight champ, only a year removed from hanging with then boxings best, Floyd Mayweather, has no business losing like that to a super featherweight. I can try to drop 15 pounds, but does that mean I should be losing to my 9-year old nephew in a session of fisticuffs? I better not! Against Ricky Hatton, many people were saying how Hatton is not weight drained and will be able to use his physical advantages against Pacquiao. We were supposed to get a bona fide rough-houser in Hatton. Result: KO win for Pacquiao. Monday Morning Quarterbacks excuse: Hatton was an overrated, glorified club fighter who just walks in face first. Again, many of these Monday Morning Quarterbacks say this after the fact. Prior to the fight, Hatton was considered a top 10 pound-for-pounder, the king and undefeated lineal champ at 140 lbs. Yet overnight, he goes from 140 lb king to overrated club fighter a club fighter who apparently couldnt be put away by the likes of boxing veterans Kostya Tszyu, Luis Collazo, Juan Luis Castillo, Juan Lazcano, and Paulie Malignaggi. And finally, against Miguel Cotto, despite Vegas favoring Pacquiao, many were saying how Pacquiao has never felt the power of a true welterweight, that Pacquiao may have bitten off more than he can chew. Result: Pacquiao TKO win. Monday Morning Quarterbacks excuse: Cotto was damaged goods, thanks to Antonio Margarito, cutting down to 145 lbs took its toll (though he has made 146 just fine in previous fights), and the one that is an obvious stab in the dark: Pacquiao must be on steroids! Cotto looked fine, did not look drained. In fact, he was doing a great job in the first couple of rounds. Cotto getting dropped by the 3rd and 4th rounds were unexpected by most. If the Margarito beatdown theory were to hold, it would be seen in the later rounds, not the early parts. And allegations of steroid use is pure grasping for straws. It would be one thing if it were feather-fisted fighters like Malignaggi who all of a sudden develop power in their punches. But Pacquiao always had pop in his punches, dating back to the lower weight classes, where Pacquiao scored knockout wins within 5 rounds or less in 15 of his first 25+ fights. He would also go on to floor Juan Manuel Marquez 3 times in one round, lift Fahsan 3K Battery off both feet with an uppercut, floored the triumvirate of Marquez, Morales and Barrera a total of around 11 times, not including several other close calls where they were saved by the bell or held up by the ropes. So its not like Pacquiaos power came out of nowhere. In sum, Pacquiao is a great fighter, one we may never see again in the years to come. And we can always berate him before a fight, but when he disproves us, lets give credit where credit is due, rather than going back in time and having the benefit of hindsight to nitpick after the fact. But again, cant win them all. But conversely, the majority could care less about the fussiness of a few.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmm, yeah... Can't tell if you're a troll or you just accidentally made a couple statements which shoots a pro-Pacquiao argument in the foot and sums up why, in general, people don't like Pacquiao fans... they don't follow boxing.
The list was in order. What wins do you think are better than Pacquiao's Mosley W? -similarly old and faded Barrera II or Morales III? He'd already beaten them. -one of the JMM fights? Despite me scoring both for JMM. Can't do it. -Diaz? Really? -Oscar at 147 for the first time in 7+ years? He was partially retired when he lost to Floyd 18 months prior. -undefeated Jorge Solis? Good win, but Solis' only big career win was Cruz 3+ years prior. I could see the case for the JMM wins if you scored them for Pac, Morales III if you put a lot of stock in the serious being 1-1 and crave for trilogies, and potentially, if you went solely by Vegas betting lines, Oscar.
How many of those posts were made AFTER Ricky was pretty much out on his feet in the Juan Lazcano fight? Or after he had to face 'feather fisted' Paulie Malignaggi because his punch resistance was clearly not the same, which pretty much made his style? :think Quite sure that's when everyone was saying his punch resistance was shot, and he wasn't the same.. Then guess who fights him next!
Before the Pac-Hatton fight, most had Pac the clear favorite... This moron just posts the same **** over and over because it gives his pathetic life a little more meaning if he can live to protect Manny Pacquiao one more time. :yep