Pacquiao Being Brutalized At Low Weights

I just have a few thoughts and questions I'd like to pose for Pacquiao experts.

We have video evidence of Manny Pacquiao being brutalized at low weights. Yes, two early stoppages that have long cast a shadow over Pacquiao's ability to take a shot. Some have speculated about him even having a glass body.

Now, the typical defense goes like this: "Pacquiao was young and malnourished at that weight and those fights mean nothing!"

I like to refer to this as (A).

Alright, sounds reasonable enough to me. However, this leads me to my next point. It gets a bit troubling here.

As everyone knows, there is a Floyd Mayweather Jr vs. Manny Pacquiao superfight brewing. There have been arguments back and forth as to who will win. That is, of course, in the spirit of the fight game, and is all fair and good.

The problem, though, is that there have been a number of people suggesting that Floyd is picking on a smaller man. The argument often goes like this: "Pacquiao can trace his roots back to 106lbs, that proves Pacquiao is much smaller and has no business at Welterweight!"

I like to refer to this as (B).

They use this history to suggest that no matter what Floyd does, he should not get credit. However, doesn't (A) preclude the use of (B) in determining just how small Pacquiao ACTUALLY was? I mean, if we're not going hold Pacquiao's brutal stoppages against him at the lower weights based on (A), then shouldn't we also not use his weighing in so light as a knock against Floyd? Shouldn't we apply the same rigour on both ends?

Would it not be fair to say, "Well, since Pacquiao was young and malnourished at the low weights where he was brutally stopped, we won't hold it against him, and likewise we will not criticize Floyd for fighting a guy who grew into a healthy body at a weight similar to Floyd himself"? Would that not be more fair?

My argument is this: If Pacquiao's stoppage losses are not going to be held against him based on (A), then Pacquiao "coming up from 106lbs" is not a fair argument to use against Floyd. If, however, someone wants to hold Pacquiao's two ruthless stoppages at lower weights against him, then it is fine to cite Pacquiao's low-weight history and use it against Floyd.

Pick one or the other since you can't have both.

 

1. Floyd's body also grew bigger from 130lbs while reach and height remained the same. I'm not sure what point you're drawing here.

2. Alright, so Pacquiao's prime weight is 126lbs in your estimation while Floyd's was 130lbs. That's a four pound difference, for the mathematically challenged. So why wouldn't Floyd get credit for beating someone whose prime weight was only four pounds lower than his?

 

Both fair posts. Thanks for reading and coming to reasonable conclusions based on the evidence presented here.

 

If everyone could be so fair, there wouldn't even be need for threads like this. Excellent post.

Yes, Floyd is certainly the "bigger man", but this is a fair fight and one that needs to happen. The winner should get full credit and be crowned as the greatest fighter of his era. May the best man win.

 

He seemed to be suggesting that Pacquiao's arms and legs didn't grow when he got older, but Floyd's stretched unnaturally or something. I don't know exactly what was with that point.

 

There you go, you saw it.