***official pac hater's excuses after mabs brutal defeat***

forrest fire thing has me rolling...good one.

 

Yes, I forgot, you Pacman fans seem to think by typing "owned" it magically proves something.

MAB's prime was from about 94-00. Around then he changed his style because he could no longer physically sustain it.

Not about Pacman, its about MAB. Learn something about him and perhaps I won't have to fill in the gaps for you. Or try asking an MAB fan...or don't you trust their opinion. I would guess you don't cuz of who they are, but you get upset when no one trusts yours on Pacman. Go figure.

 

well, it is true that some people here give more credit to jmm for beating an older mab by UD than they give credit to pac dominating him for 11 rounds. i think this is a clear sign that those haters flame to annoy pac fans because after the pac-mab 1. very few people did not give pac props.

i don't think there will be an excuse in this fight, rather we will here lines such as "they should not have fought anyway" or "we knew it was going to be a beating like the first one"

 

Bro you are lost... youre all over the place, I like Floyd. What are you talking about???:huh ... He didnt dominate DLH, but he won clearly. DLH was still a capable fighter, he said **** that he will bring it on but he couldnt Floyd was too slick.. Im not a Floyd hater where are you getting this??? I find him cocky but he is p4p#1

I cant say that Morales is better than Guzman but you dont know because its a different level of competition, Guzman has fought NO ONE!!

 

You're Packing right Johnco!!! 2003 was the time MAB was on the Highest P4P ratings in his Career. Therefore there's no argument that definitely he was on his Prime when Pac Beat him!!! Congratz you OWNED KG today!!!

 

I'm all over the place? You seem to have gotten my point clear enough to defend yourself. When I said you, I was generalizing. But no one here seems to care about that when making posts, calling everyone who doesn't say Pacman rules the world a hater. Again, what's good for the goose.....

Yes, I can say by looking at them that Guzman is better than Morales. Morales has lost to lower level competition as of late. Just like I know Roy Jones would lose to Chad Dawson right now, though Dawson hasn't beaten anyone close to the caliber of fighters Jones has.

 

actually, it is kind of hard to see when mab peaked. if you looked at his record, you'd see that before the pac fight he was coming off 8 straight wins which included fights against morales, hamed, tapia, and kelley. so one can make a stong point that this was the best stretch of his career. however, it could also be argued that mab's physical peak was right after he lost twice to jones and therfore needed to reinvent himself.

 

Yay.....a cheerleader!!

Hey, was Hopkins in his prime at 37 and 39? Just a question. Appreciate your answer.

 

yup and wlad will whip floyd if ever they meet at a catchweight.

 

That was his peak. MAB in his PRIME was better than the fighter who beat those fighters in that stretch. He would have beaten all but Morales worse than he beat them, and Morales only on styles gives him trouble.

People confuse when someone got famous that he was in his prime.

Jones was on a dominating stretch past his prime. Not losing doesn't mean prime, it just means you're better than who you are fighting.

Hopkins was not prime when he beat Trinidad. No one noticed him prior. It's a mistake to think 37 yr old Hopkins was prime, and anyone who saw him in the mid to late 90's knows otherwise.

 

so mab defeated morales after mab peaked?

 

4 years ago barrera was still near his Prime & he was no match for Pac. Barrera today is still a good fighter(Competitive loss to JMM Proves this) & A little bit old. But Pac is on a Different League now. When you mixed JMM, MAB, Juarez, EM, Soto & Guzman you will always see competitive & a Close fight. You matched Pac with any great Fighters... most of the time you'll see Domination that ends in a Knockout!!!! Why only Pac can do this????

 

Lots of smiley faces, no content.

Learn more about boxing, get back to me. You can be winning and not be prime. Or don't you know that?

Let me rephrase. You are hurting your own argument. If you say that because a fighter is winning and getting highly ranked because of this, he is PRIME, then he can't be NOT prime until he loses. Otherwise you can ALWAYS say he is prime because he is winning.

However, when I point out that MAB lost, now you don't want to accept the logic above, even though it is the logic you were using to claim he was prime in the first place.