Manny Pacquiao vs. Prince Naseem Hamed

What about Duran in Leonard 2, Laing, Benitez fights? He had time to prepare....was Duran at his best?

 

Nah, you're confusing a clearly past prime fighter with one who is in his prime and wasn't in shape/focused/in the right mental shape etc etc

The reason i say what i say is because it always reeks of bias in my opinion. The Leonard-Duran situation works both ways, people make excuses for Leonard not fighting the right fight, and others make excuses for Duran not being in shape in the rematch. Also, 88 Tyson is a joke of a way to not acknowledge that Buster Douglas simply handed Mike his arse, he was in the heart of his prime.

That's not the same as Duran losing to Hector Camacho or Robinson to Paul Pender etc etc. It;s not even the same as say Archie Moore losing to a non-famous fighter early in his career, when the man was fighting so often, that's undeniable, he was fighting all the time.

And also, no my point has never been to say that Tyson could never beat Douglas say in a rematch or whatever, i don;t know why you're coming at me on that front, i've made it clear my point has always simply been to give the winners of fight full credit for beating a prime fighter/a fighter who was great at a given point in his career.

 

I just replied man.

 

Manny Pacquiao slaughtered Barrera at FW, right? So there you go. And yes, in this situation boxing math does make sense.

 

edit

 

I feel that Hamed wins this one. Fw Pac was more than willing to engage and he was clearly there to be hit. With Hamed's power I could see him ending the fight with Pac early in something that would look like a better version of the Kelly fight.

 

I can't think of any reasons why Hamed vs Pac wouldn't resemble Hamed vs Kelley. Good call.

 

Pac. Skill level here is miles apart.

 

pacquiao by brutal beatdown wouldnt really be close either

 

Naz by stoppage. Pac wasn't the same fighter at feather and though he was very good, his defense was terrible and had the tendency to lunge in. He would be getting hit by bombs all night and wouldn't be able to do it.

 

Well that is a little hard to dispute seeing as they fought peak for peak and we saw the result. Hamed was a year removed from his best career performance, he was just up against a far better, far more intelligent fighter than himself in Marco Antonio Barrera.

 

You usually deny the fact that he wasn't at his best.

 

One thing that always gets me about Pacquiao is this thing about him getting countered. You hear it all over the place now: Pacquiao's too wild, Pacquiao's open, when he runs into a counter-puncher he's going to get screwed. It took a very clever game plan and a great fighter in Marquez to pull that off, and he did it with very careful foot-work and range control to stop Pacquiao dragging him into a brawl. He fought a very controlled, intelligent fight both times. Even then, though I had him winning both, it's not like he won hands-down. But then look at how Cotto tried to use a similar game plan to beat Pacquiao: Jabbing here and there, waiting for him to expose himself then counter him. Same thing worked a treat against Mosley. Against Pacquiao he basically just got run over. He may have landed the odd counter, but he was being made to miss an awful lot as well, and most of the time he was just getting overwhelmed by the speed and volume of Pacquiao's punches. You need a first class skillset in that domain to effectively pull off a counter-punching game against MP, and an even better one if you're fighting in the counter-punching brawler mould rather than the Marquez one. I'm not making a pick here but Hamed might not even be able to get started.

 

:bbb****!!!! Pack slaughters the powerful but limited Prince within professional fashion......... Pack by a mile........

MR.BILL:thumbsup

 

What the **** guys? Seriously?