Pac Man Versus Manos De Piedra

. Against a high IQ fighter who knows how to deal with a south paw …Like Bernard Hopkins …Roy Jones …Alexis Arguello …Kosta Tyszu etc …being a southpaw is almost a disadvantage

 

Duran is too tough and would get to Manny late

 

Duran is IMHO one of the top ten greatest boxers of all time , he beats Pac-Man anyway he wants , Pac-Man can’t outbox him, Can’t out slug him and can’t out brawl him. My question is for the people that are picking Manny how was he supposed to win?

 

Duran wouldn’t have an entire pharmacy in his system and 40 rounds of experience with Pacquiao’s style to figure out all of his little habits and quirks like Marquez did. I could just as easily say what punch did Tommy Hearns sleep Duran with and then say Manny would do the same with Manilla ice but I won’t, because they’re different styles and it’s a really lazy way to analyse an interesting style matchup. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, there’s more than one way to beat a southpaw, and there’s more than one way southpaws best orthodox fighters. The nuances of the open-stance matchup aren’t even as important as the style matchup is.

 

It’s really not though. RJJ was stopped by multiple southpaws and dropped by Lou Del Valle. B-Hop was beaten by Calzaghe. And one of Arguello’s toughest fights was against the southpaw Jose Luis Ramirez, even Ganigan managed to get a solid number of shots in. Good southpaws know exactly what orthodox fighters want to do to them and have tricks to deal with this.

 

Why is it "bad-faith"? The OP said that Pacquiao won belts in eight weights. How relevant is that really to how Pacquiao would do against Duran? Moreover, I thought my response was contextually right on point. Did winning multiple belts at different weights help Hearns or even Duran against Hagler? Winning multiple belts at higher weight means nothing to me unless you beat someone who is a great fighter in his prime, rather than just another bigger stiff.

 

Unfortunately, I do think they are not comparable. Duran beat not only people bigger, but better great or near-great fighters at their peak. Look, among recent fighters, Pacquiao may well have been my favorite. And he was great; I consider him the second best Asian fighter of all-time and maybe the second best fighter of the last two decades or so. Still, Duran is a different animal. He was superior in every respect - resume, skills, and physical tools. As highly as I think of Pacquiao, this is a scenario where I see no route to victory for Pacquiao. Is he going to outslug Duran? Outhustle him? Outbox him? Anything Manny brings to the table, Duran has a counter. But Pacquaio has no counters for many things Duran brings.

 

Exactly. There is no path to win against the best version of Duran. He's dealing with a bigger guy who hits harder, has a better chin, and is more skilled and versatile. The only potential edge Pacquiao has may be hand speed, but even that's closer than one thinks - as the announcers (who expected Leonard to have much faster hands) noted in Montreal.

 

Even if he was, Pacquiao showed enough vulnerabilities against natural featherweights for me to think he can compete with Duran.

 

Freddie Roach has said more than once Duran whips Manny, too many tools and Duran was simply better. Manny was great but prime Duran was top 5 all time.

 

I'm firmly on the side of Duran in this one, but I do think there's a bit of underrating Manny in this thread. Pacquiao is one of maybe 4 lightweights ever who would be a serious problem for Duran at arm's length - and one of only two who could be a serious threat in terms of causing physical damage, with the other being Ike Williams. His level changes, pivots, physical talent and ability to punch on the move would undoubtedly give Duran problems at first.

However, Pacquiao is a unique stylist which usually works for someone but I think it subconsciously works against him in a lot of people's opinions of him. Pacquiao in theory, should destroy swarmers due to his power and beat counter-punchers due to his style; but the specific things that bothered him seemed to be Floyd/Marquez'/Morales' ability to time his rushes with the right, while using the left to keep informed of when those rushes were coming. I think he has another stylistic weakness, too. His early career fights against Hussein and Sanchez, and his later outing against Horn show - imo, at least - a very clear disdain for scruffy, rugged and dirty guys. It really, really bothered him and messed with his ability to really impose himself on those guys.

Duran might be the most perfect example of these two styles mixed together, and he's just overall a better, more intelligent fighter.

Also, I understand the whole "He beat X, so he can beat Y" and why it's usually horsehit but sometimes that is all you need. Just on the basis of being able to beat Sugar Ray Leonard, I won't be picking him to lose to Oscar De La Hoya - sure boxing is more complicated than that but there always exceptions to prove the rule.

 

Yes, I remembered Manny's struggles against Agapito Sanchzez when imagining what would happen if Duran and Pacquiao got into a clinch range. On your final comment, I am a bit confused: Do you have Manny losing to de la Hoya if de la Hoya were in his prime? (If so, I tend to agree.) Or were you just using this as a random example and not necessarily relevant for this fight?

 

This would be an interesting fight and not the mismatch many may be inclined to think it would be. Pac had a style that would be extremely troublesome for anyone. I don't view Duran as "untouchable" like many think he was. I was a big fan of his growing up, but I think there are several that would have had a good chance against him. Manny's southpaw stance and activity would give Duran issues.

 

Just random, I think Pacquiao beats any FLH.