Pavlik and Arreola prove why Pacquiao is truly something special...

Arreola losing to Vitali would be in the lines of Pac loseing to say Mayweather.


Not David Diaz.

VK is number 2 in the heavyweights, Diaz never had that honor.

 

Only delusional Pac****s can oversimplify and make that generalization.


What Pavlik did was fight guys who clearly were not tailor-made for him. Until pac fights guys who are a stylistic nightmare for him, then it's a ****ing disgrace to try and downplay Sergio as some kinda bum that Pavlik shouldn't have lost to.

 

Pacquiao is a great fighter. One of the very best in history. There is no valid argument against that.

However, the thread starter's argument is inherently flawed. Pac turned pro 15 years ago, and if we are to believe his recent statements, he is approaching the end of his career. Pavlik has been a pro for 10 years, and if we are to believe his recent statements, he is nowhere near the end of his career.

At the 10 year point Pac already had 3 losses, inlcuding a loss to a journeyman. Pavlik has 2 losses. One against a living legend, and one against a guy who has proven himself to be very, very good. Kelly has never been close to losing to a journeyman.

Pac has failed to step up his game, and conquer the challenge in front of him, 3 times. Pavlik failed to step up his game, and conguer the challenge in front of him, 2 times.

When you move away from the abstract, and stick with historical facts, it's easy enough to see the fallacy of the thread starter's logic. We already know just about where Pacman will stand at the end of his 15 year career. We have no idea where Kelly Pavlik will stand in another 5 years.

Immediately after the first Taylor fight someone ask KP how the hell he got up after the beating he took in the 2nd round. Kelly said, "I was hurt, but I wasn't done." Right now Kelly Pavlik is hurt, but he ain't done.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PR_rzF8ofw[/ame]

 

:huh

 

:rofl

 

It's because the point you are making -- that Pac is great because he beats the other top fighters he faces -- while true, is also quite obvious. The thread is confusing, particularly the parallels between the Pavlik/Areola losses to the Pac wins you cited. All that is an overly complicated way of stating the obvious.

Edit: Also, Pavlik and Areola aren't good examples at all for this argument because they were never generally accepted as being that good. Many predicted Pavlik would lose to Martinez and rightfully so, because BHop showed Pavlik was flawed in that he can't deal with anyone who has good lateral movement. Areola wasn't that great and you even admitted in your OP that Vitali was a favorite going into the fight.

 

This content is protected

You didn't put in on this.....MAN!!!!

 

What pac**** are you talking about and what generalization you can not understand?:huh

Pac is a great fighter who steps up in big fights.

MAB, Morales, Dela Hoya, Hatton and Cotto. If these are not big fights, I don't know what to call them. What do you call these fights? Cherrypicked fights?

As for Pavlik, the Martinez fight was also a big fight, same with Arreola fighting Adamek. Yet, what happened?

The style match-up you are talking about is just nitpicking, TBH. Cotto has the style to beat Pac. He was a good boxer, with heavy hands, who can counterpunch effectively well, and more importantly, he was well-entrenched and solid at the 147 division. But Pacquaio, the one who went up, still beat the **** out of him.

Against Marquez, another boxer whose style is difficult for Pac, it was a struggle but he still came out as the winner. Now, last time I checked the Pavlik fight against Martinez and Hopkins, he did not just struggle, he was beaten decisively.

Pacquaio came out big in big fights and showed he is a special fighter. Against quality opposition.

Pavlik came out as loser in his big fights and showed he has limitation against quality opposition.

 

or not, Pacquiao is special becuase he is a special talent first, then he has heart.

 

But see, my gripe is if he is that spectacular why doesn't he take on the very best challenges? You can't say Cotto* was a better challenge than Mosley. You can't say Clottey is a harder fight than Bradley. If you are on top of the world and feel that nobody within or near your weight class can defeat you, why not respond to a huge challenger like Paul Williams? Pac has already cemented his legacy and has made his millions. I say he should fight the Bradleys, Williams, etc. because they are tougher challenges than guys like Cotto and Clottey. And when you're widely considered the toughest, you should take on Class A, not B or C. I don't like to sound like a harsh critic but when you repeatedly tell me you'll fight anyone, I'm taking you seriously.

*I'm aware he beat Shane but that was during his pre-Margarito days. Besides, Shane's resurgence puts him in the top 3 WW as of today.

 

We have a dumber one.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6663660#post6663660

Nice work son!

:rofl

 

Pongsaklek Wonjongkam?

 

Pac hasn't exactly shined in every gfight either. He has lost to. Now when he steps up to the likes of Bernard Hopkins and Sergio Martinez now that he has moved up in weight, then I will agree with you. But to try to deride other fighters, especially Pav who in both losses fought guys who were a stylistic nightmare for him, we will never know how special Pac is.


It's really not rocket science. Pac is a great fighter, but not everyone is convinced that he could do what he's doing in the upper weights against certain kinds of competition. Not once has he proven that he can.

 

What a way to spin other happenings in tribute for love for your god

Die.