Pacquiao is shot, or near shot, but can still beat Crawford

To me, if you are able to be competitive with elite fighters you aren't shot. Past your prime, not at your best, sure. Shot? No.

That being said, I would like to see this fight. I would honestly favor Crawford, but I'm not confident in my pick. I would love to see Crawfordat 147 since I think that is the much better division than 140.

 

And then Crawford will beat Pac and you'll be saying it was because he's shot anyway, so you probably shouldn't be making threads like this, especially since you'd be trying to take credit from Crawford should he win.

 

Well, I don't consider Maidana elite. Solid, very fun to watch, can give a tough fight to most, but not elite. Sadly, I'm going to have to pull the age card here and say that I'm not familiar enough with Barkley to assess that match haha.

 

Tinman is probably younger than you!! Lol...

 

The Filo just look young, but they are actually grandpa

 

The Filo just look young, but they are actually grandpa

 

PAC is still solid B-level.

His genetics and ability to not gain masses of weight and inherently sharp twitch muscles and fibres mean he will always have fast hands and power. Once his feet slow down though it will be harder for him to remain a force.

 

I agree on the idea that pacman isn't shot whatsoever. His last two wins were against Bradley and Vargas, so he obviously can still compete with the best in the division.

It would be a difficult fight for Manny, but no one knows what Crawford would look like at 147 or how well he'd be able to take a shot against someone as strong as Pacquiao. I'd probably favor Terrence, but with Pacman's experience level you can never really count him out.

 

I think they should make the fight. Not sure if $20 mil will be paid to PAC. Seems like a lot but Arum will make the fight happen.

 

Nah, Pacquiao looks worse every fight and Crawford is too good. Pacquiao clearly beat Vargas but the difference in level wasn't that much.

 

I think it's all relative we say Pac doesn't look great because we know what he used to be, but if someone who had never seen him fight before saw him now they would hes a good fighter, top 5 in the welterweight division.

With that being said although I don't think he would be disgraced by Crawford, he would get soundly beat at this point.

 

You are not using it right but i get what you are saying.
Pacquiao is still Pacquiao but he is just old. Shane Mosley still had it at 37 but he did show his age.
You don´t outclass two top 10 contenders when you can´t pull the trigger.
Pac-Man still has plenty left.

 

Duran wasn't shot when he fought Barkley and he certainly wasn't shot when he fought Hagler. In decline, past his best for sure, but not shot.

An argument can be made that Duran, in fact, gave Hagler his toughest championship fight. If you can hold your own with a near prime Hagler for 15 rounds then you are not shot.

Duran is a special case as many regard him, pound for pound, as probably the best boxer of the past thirty years or so. He's certainly the most recent boxer to consistently make many peoples top ten greatest boxers of all time.

So, Duran's greatness, his skills and in particular his experience allowed him to compete at a high level for far longer than most.

Barkley was Duran's last significant win, however he boxed on for another decade or more.

By the time he fought Joppy in 1998 Duran was clearly shot, however he was pushing fifty years of age at that point.