Pac-Man isn't really P4P #1, but he will destroy Hatton!

so would you rather have MAB not fighting pac back then?

 

does that mean you're discrediting pacman for beating the 3 great mexican legends?

who do you think he should have fought instead?

 

well hopkins may be slightly past prime but he's still an elite p4p fighter but i agree he should have done more earlier in his career. as far as chin goes, i don't think that's in question, the uppercuts he took from kessler would have taken a lot of boxers heads off.

 

the problem with bernie is he thinks MAB did pac a service by fighting pac back then. while pac continued fighting great fighters who are incidentally around 29 years old that time. what would people say when after pac beating MAB, he just stayed at 122 or 126 and fought the likes of caballero, john, soto, juarez and linares? people will bash pac for not fighting morales and jmm.

 

but dont you think if joe had made his name in the US and got fights against hopkins and jones it would have taken away all the doubt people have about him now?

why do you think he never did that?

 

he's giving his opinion. thats fine.

 

Because of Bernard Hopkins in 2002...

 

because he let warren control his destiny too much, just like hatton did up until he put his foot down and got the koysta fight.

 

thats a good year. sure.

i know the cliche about bernard upping the price and it fell apart but do you understand that if you make yourself a player on the world market - and for joe thats 2 fights at super middle at that time because its a poor division - then its going to happen....

 

Oh please. Wars can only take effect on a fighter if that fighter keeps on losing and losing and losing. You can only say a fighter is shop-worn if he lost a big fight and after that he kept losing and losing. Now can you say the same to MAB? NO. The simple fact that you always keep ignoring is the fact that after the Pac loss in 2003, MAB went on a 4 year WINNING STREAK. 4 ****ING YEARS. That includes the win against Morales in their 3rd fight who he was a big underdog. Everybody was saying that MAB was past-it after the Pac loss, so Morales should beat him. Yet what did he do?

Then what happened after that? He kept on ****ing winning 4 ****ING YEARS. Then he met JMM. Now if MAB was past prime in the Pac fight, then he should be SHOT in the JMM fight right? But what happened? Did JMM school him? did JMM embarassed him? No. MAB went on to lose in a VERY COMPETITIVE, VERY THRILLING, and VERY EXCITING fight. Hell, many people even think he won that match.

So tell me again, how the **** is MAB past his prime in the 2003 Pac fight when after that, he UPSET his long time rival, went on a winning streak and 4 years later lost a close fight to the then P4P #3? Does that look like someone who was past his prime? I just proved to you why MAB was prime. Now can you prove that he's not? No. You can't. Because all this time all I see from you is because of the "wars" that MAB had before. You have no material proof to prove that. You never had. No one can prove that he was past his prime because he kept proving you people wrong by winning all the time.

How the hell can someone be past his prime or war-torn by winning all the time? :huh

Oh and as for that prime fighters you speak of. The MAB of 2003, The EM of the second Pac match and JMM would've all beaten those "young and prime" fighters. I have always said this to you ever since you came here in ESB, and you have YET to refute it.

How the hell can someone argue that Pac hasn't beaten a prime fighter when those prime fighters would've most likely lost to those "old" fighters that Pac fought?

MAB, EM, JMM >> Linares, Gamboa, Valero, Soto, etc. So what value does this "prime" fighters have if they can't even beat the old ones?

I dare anyone to answer me this.

And no. You haven't ALWAYS made the distinction about war torn 30 yr old fighters and fresh 30 yr old fighters. You have always said that unless Pac fights someone below 30 you'll never give him full credit. Thats it. You've never made the distinction if whether its a fresh 30 yr old or a war torn 30 yr old. For you anyone who is 30 or above and Pac is cherrypicking. Only in this thread did you suddenly change your tune and say that Pac can fight 30 yr old fighters as long as theyre fresh. Don't try to squeel your way out of this bernie.

If your going to be consistent with your critique on Pac, then be fair and do the SAME to MAB. Be consistent on what your doing and don't play favorites. No ifs, no buts. Be goddamn fair.

 

in retrospect, no, because obviously I don't like the result. He should have made Manny work his way thru the ranks like he himself did, but hindsight is 20/20.

 

We don't know that yet, do we? Because Pac has kept the division on lockdown fighting old guys so nobody really knows what the young lions can do and we'll never find out until Pac retires because he won't fight them. Unlike ODLH, MAB and EM, who cleaned out ALL the young lions coming up and during their reign.

You want Pac to get ATG credit while never fighting ANY elite fighter at his best. Not going to happen.

 

We don't know? That has got to be the weakest comeback ever? MAB, EM and JMM where the best in the division when Pac fought them. That's a fact. How the hell can someone like Linares, or the 7-loss Soto beaten those three? If you think they have even near a 50% chance of beating those three, then lets hear it. C'mon now. Don't be shy. Your so confident that Pac should've fought young fighters instead of the 3 legendary Mexican, you must think that those fighters has a big chance of beating the 3 Big Mexicans, right?

So lets hear it. Why is it that we don't know who would've won between those young fighters you praise so much and the 3 Big Mexicans? What could those young fighters have in their arsenal that could've troubled the 3?

Also care to reply to the rest of my previous post?

 

so Larios deserved the shot? Solis, 3k Battery, Velazquez are all better fighters and more deserving of a big fight then the guys I named? Please.... Pacquiao has had plenty of time and opportunity to take on somebody besides the big 3. I give him a pass on Diaz because he had the belt, although he COULD have fought the GOOD Diaz or even Casamayor and took the shitty Diaz in another masterful display of cherrypicking.

Pac fights aging legends, and in between them he fights bums. Hatton will be his first real threat since JMM, and like I said, if they had known JMM was still such a big threat I don't think we would ever have seen that fight.

 

what ranks? he is the top 122 fighter during that time. MAB was the top 126 fighter. it is not unusual for the top guys of neighboring divisions to slug it out. if you would think about it back then, jmm is more of a tougher opponent for MAB than pac who was coming from a lower division.