Pacquiao or Sanchez...Which set of wins is more impressive?

You have to answer me first because you, Huki & Jups are discrediting me for using Boxrec as reference. Now tell me how you've learn about these fighters??? By old tales, by boxrec, By wiki, by boxing Mag, or by youtube, etc??? I have to know where are you basing your knowledge???

 

:nod

 

I don't have to do a thing.

I discredited you for ONLY using boxrec AND for talking up the circumstances surrounding Pacquiao's fights and the fighters to elevate them, but dismissing Sanchez's opponents without knowing anything about the fighters or how they were perceived at the time of the fights, and just using their records.

Case and point. Beating Gomez when Sanchez did was a HUGE win. No one cared that he was coming up in weight.

 

Fool, you're missing the point. He's discrediting you for using Boxrec, not the rest of the internet. Boxrec only gives you a fighter's record, not the whole story behind the fight or the fighters. It is a good reference, but if you think you'll find out all you need to find out about a fighter from boxrec you're thoroughly mistaken.

 

How so.?

When it was Gomez who went up in weight and lost

while Pac went up in weight and beat MAB?

both same circumstances 122 to 126

 

i saw it, the difference is they are quite faster. maybe because of youth. its the same with pac. quite faster in 122 compared to the one who fought morales. maybe because of youth, maybe because of weight. but still doesn't warrant to be called a shot fighter. by your definition now, i can feel that pac is now a shot fighter. pac is way past his prime now but i would not call him shot by any means.

 

Pac beat a declining Barrera while Gomez was a top#2 p4p fighter on a monsterous tear and the favorite going into the bout with Sanchez.

 

I believe he is refering to the gradual decline more so than being shot. The Morales in the Rahim fight is clearly shot.

 

No one cared that Gomez went up in weight. It was never a consideration at the time.

Gomez was prime and thought to be unbeatable. MAB was still a great fighter, not at his peak AND no one thought he was unbeatable. The circumstances are entirely different. And I would venture to say that Gomez was regarded higher P4P than MAB was when he lost to Pacquaio.

Why so much emphasis in going up in weight in relation to this fight? This is not like when DLH went up to fight Hopkins or something.

 

imo, it was because they rated gomez more highly than barrera. the barrera that fought pac a little past his prime and was defeated while gomez even if he is at a size and weight disadvantage was undefeated during that time.

i have no problem with that. the only problem is when people say that their resume is not even close. it's not only unfair to pac, it's also unfair with barrera, morales and marquez.

 

You cant say Mab was declining but was still prime he beat Erik afterwards and was champion again in 2 years time...

Gomez had his moments against Sal... Pac basically humiliated MAB...

all Im saying is that its hard to compare eras..I for one doesnt like it unless its obvious like Hearns vs Floyd at 147..

Had Sal..for example lost to Nelson in the rematch that would have certainly change perspective.. Fact is Nelson doesnt get half the credit that Sanchez gets in these boards..I wonder why?

 

Easily, he was considered #1 at the time.

 

You keep saying by my definition, but then you say something else which that demonstrates that you don't get my definition at all.

MAB and Morales III was fought on an entire diffrent level than the first two. Neither had their legs, neither had the old fire. Neither had reflexes they had before, and it was noticable to a high degree.

Pacquaio has not shown anywhere near that decline. He still has his legs and most of his reflexes. He doesn't have as much power and speed. He is also having a much harder time keeping weight off which is a sign he is declining. But he is not shot.

 

Not true at all. The alternative is to say that all fighters are prime until they lose. Then you will say that we only used it as an excuse BECAUSE he lost.

Hopkins has been champion for how long? He is no where near prime. Many great fighters are champions but past their prime.

 

Lets start wth the premise that Gomez was #2 and Mab was p4p #4..How much is a different is that?

Yes but you cannot escape the fact the PAc was the one who went up and beat Mab..Sal wasnt the one who went up to Gomez. And couple that with the point that the fighter with the disadvantage (and yes its a disadvantage for teh guy to come up) won in PACs case..it reinforces the argument for him.

Also how successful was Gomez at 126...that should be a factor as well as to how a great fighter like Gomez carries the extra weight.
Because if he became a monster at 126 as well and then Sal beat him..that would enhance the argument for Sal