Pacquiao vs Spence

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Nopporn, Jul 25, 2019.


Pacqauiao vs Spence

  1. Pacquiao wins

    16 vote(s)
    20.8%
  2. Spence wins

    50 vote(s)
    64.9%
  3. Not sure who wins

    11 vote(s)
    14.3%
  1. Alo2006

    Alo2006 R.I.P Sean Taylor Full Member

    8,683
    539
    Sportsbook:
    409
    Jun 28, 2006
    Spence is a south paw. When the last time Pac fought a south paw? Spence by TKO. Roach stops the fight in the late rounds.
     
  2. titanic

    titanic Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,999
    2,380
    Sportsbook:
    1,172
    Aug 7, 2016
    That's why Spence only wants to fight tinier boxers than him so he has the advantage. But still can't KO them :ibutt
    Spence is Over rated. I hope he lose to Shawn Porter :headbash
     
  3. kirk

    kirk l l l Staff Member

    62,876
    9,126
    Sportsbook:
    62
    Jul 26, 2004
    Spence UD or late stoppage.

    I give Pac very little chance.

    Hope this fight doesn't happen.

    Pac vs Mikey is the one I'd like to see made.
     
    Bofo24 and Rock0052 like this.
  4. Tramell

    Tramell The Ideological Slayer: I Slay Ideology! Full Member

    3,916
    3,299
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 21, 2012
    1. Because it is Pac that is getting a surge in thread topics here, not Spence.
    2. Spence is 25 fights old out of 8 years, still writing his legacy.
    3. Pac has written his over 20 years. Anytime he loses we can write it off as old age. Disagree? Anytime he wins we can say he turned the clock back.
    4. Spence doesn't have that luxury. If he gets knocked out twice an draws within 6 years like Pac did...would we say he got exposed? Probably.
    5. Winning his 1st title in 2017, up till today, who can I say he should have fought in these 3 years vs who he did? Peterson, Ocampo & Garcia. Am I supposed to grade a champ with 3 defenses combined record 96-3-1 -last 2 foes undefeated? 39-0 & 22-0. Did he refuse a mandatory to accept these two, I dunno? Were they viewed as cherry picks?
    5. It isn't Spence calling out Pac or Pac calling out Spence. It's Pac calling out a retired fighter & when he took on Thurman that has been injured for 2 years seems suspect as to why he was chosen. Spence is taking on the WBC titlist who has been active.


    If you & I are still posting here when Spence has been fighting for 20 years...decides to call out a retired guy fighting weak exhibitions (floyd), then bypasses active fighters for an injury prone fighter who has been inactive for 22 months, then I'm obligated to do to Errol, what I am doing to Pac; questioning a legends decision to avoid naming young active heavy hitters.:)
     
  5. Maidanas Gun Tattoo

    Maidanas Gun Tattoo Member Full Member

    216
    228
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 29, 2017
    I think Spence, at nearly 30 years old having 25 fights in 8 years not even having scratched the surface of a legacy is what the issue is when you nitpick a legends resume.
     
    Bofo24 likes this.
  6. Tramell

    Tramell The Ideological Slayer: I Slay Ideology! Full Member

    3,916
    3,299
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 21, 2012

    No problem, if you have a problem with me pointing out a legend fighting someone coming off a 22 month layoff then putting in an average performance over Lopez. That was the consensus here and most blogs, forums. Just noting that is who Pac's team chose.
    Yet Pac beats KT ...and now flows the many Pac is back threads.

    As for Spence? No problem if you think he should have gotten a title shot sooner than 8 years.

    Pac fought a gr8 f & proved he is still a force. Just not a force willing to call out the active fighters. That isn't nitpicking, its an observation.
    There is a reason his team is calling out Floyd and no one else, if that isn't a problem for you, ok.

    As I stated he has written his legacy & cemented. But I'm not going to pretend he is still the man to beat.
     
  7. dangerousity

    dangerousity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,326
    1,275
    Sportsbook:
    6,991
    Jan 4, 2005
    You know why its been a long time?

    When Pac was coming up, everyone was like "Pac can't fight on the backfoot, I'm going to take the fight to him" - what happened was Hatton, ODLH, Margarito, Cotto. Much bigger guys getting destroyed. In fact, Cotto's best success was when he ran.

    Subsequently, everyone else after that fought to survive or run except JMM. Rios, Clottey, Mosley, Floyd, Broner - everyone just trying to survive. Horn's flurry then headbutt and hold is another form of survival. Basically, any way to minimise the action.

    Now Pac hasn't had a KO in many years, Thurman found that confidence and starts believing the old lie, so he takes it to him and gets beat up.

    The only reason, and the absolutely only reason Thurman wasn't stopped within 6 rounds of him taking the fight to Pac is because of Pac's stamina. Pac would have thrown 12 punch combinations at him if he could, and every little win Thurman gets, Pac would try to land 10. He couldn't return fire as much and that allowed Thurman to take rounds.

    Rewatch the Cotto fight back to back with the Thurman fight, look at how much more speed and intensity Pac had with everything. His punches, his feet, him wanting to return fire. There were flashes of that in the Thurman fight but just that, brief flashes, not sustained throughout.
     
  8. dangerousity

    dangerousity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,326
    1,275
    Sportsbook:
    6,991
    Jan 4, 2005
    Still undefeated and already had his tuneup against a decent fighter. Floyd came back after 2 years and was perfectly fine. SRL came back to fight Hagler ffs.

    Too much is made of the 22 months layoff, Fury came back and look ****e in the tuneup and beat Wilder the following match.

    Now you can say Thurman was never THAT good which I would agree with, he was 3rd-4th to me (crawford, spence, brooks) and after brooks have become damaged, probably a clear 3rd but IMO, we saw more or less the same Thurman. He would handily beat Garcia and Porter in a rematch.

    Being one of the top 3 WWs where no one has clearly established themselves does make you one of the WWs to beat.
     
    Bofo24 and Tramell like this.
  9. Tramell

    Tramell The Ideological Slayer: I Slay Ideology! Full Member

    3,916
    3,299
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 21, 2012
    I think maybe, you misunderstood..or I didn't make myself clear.
    I never underestimated Thurman. Never claimed his 22 months were an issue. I was attempting to quote all those who wrote that going into the fight. Then turn around and witness Pac posts as if he beat someone they weren't here bashing.
    I am in favor of questioning if that is why Roach's team chose Thurman.

    Specifically, yes 22 months can be awhile for reflexive fighters, they need to be active. Cus said that to Ali's face before he took on Frazier. Malinaggi..OK so he isnt an ATG! But some fighters are special @dangerousity. And can do a Ray ala Hagler. PBF isn't a regular fighter IMO. My posts here bare witness.

    In another post I pretty much state what U did last sentence. Pac beat a sturdy fighter, not an exposed one. But IMO that isnt a re-surge of Pacman.
    This content is protected
     
  10. sparta

    sparta Active Member Full Member

    1,064
    308
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 4, 2008
    Well that is the whole point mate, we are talking about today's pac, what he was in the past is irrelevant, Thurman has layed the blueprint to beat TODAYS Pac, and spence will follow that and do it much better than Thurman did. Spence stops pac, most likely the ref jumps in and saves him from himself.
     
  11. Maidanas Gun Tattoo

    Maidanas Gun Tattoo Member Full Member

    216
    228
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 29, 2017
    Thurman just fought in January. So inactive is false. Calling out fighters means nothing. Lots of fighters call guys out with no intentions of fighting. But again, lets put Mannys resume on blast and keep quiet about Spence because, the truth is this. Thurman is the most proven fighter at welterweight. Spence and Crawford have done pretty much nothing at 147.
     
    Bofo24 and retriever like this.
  12. Tramell

    Tramell The Ideological Slayer: I Slay Ideology! Full Member

    3,916
    3,299
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 21, 2012
    I really don't get your posts, sorry.
    I like Pacman.
    All I did was respond to the title of this thread Pac vs Spence. Pac hasn't called out Spence, so on this thread I listed why I think so. This is not a Thurman thread. This is not a Crawford thread.
     
  13. minemax

    minemax Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,018
    4,778
    Sportsbook:
    42,481
    Nov 10, 2017
    But he didn't KO Mikey...
     
  14. Pimp C

    Pimp C Stay Dangerous Full Member

    107,840
    13,950
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 23, 2005
    Pac and mikey fight nothing alike. Pac comes forward more and is more aggressive which will be his undoing against a guy like Spence who will get the better of pac in the exchanges. Thurman busted pac up and outlanded him in power punches. Spence will do way more than Thurman.
     
  15. thesmokingm

    thesmokingm Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,049
    4,318
    Sportsbook:
    2,014
    Nov 18, 2009
    Maybe... maybe not. There's no way of telling how Spence will react. I don't think I've ever seen Pac retreat to any fighter thru a fight. It's one thing when he shells up for a breather egging the opponent to hit him for the fans, but it's a whole other thing to back Pac up. I don't know if Spence has got the goods for it. He might, he does have the size, reach, and tools to do it. Then again Thurman did too.
     
    Bofo24 likes this.


Advertisement