Pernell Whitaker v Manny Pacquaio. 135lbs, 140lbs, 147lbs.

:good Me too mate. I think Floyd wins and make its look easy, and nothing I saw in the Cotto fight changed my mind.

 

I do realise that Robbi...but lets face it Pea is far more proven at these weights and that should be the main deciding factor in spliting the two.

Neither has gone close to fighting someone like the other...but at least Manny has shown issues with skilled boxer types with proven durability, Marquez for instance. Pea is clearly better then that.

 

Whitaker completely outboxes Pacquiao.
Pacquiao won't be able to get past the jab and will be outworked throughout the fight.

 

Whitaker only ever really delivered in two fights vs Nelson and Mcgirt......Nelson was a feather and not at his best weight. was Mcgirt as Good a cHallenge to Pea as Cotto to Pac I beleive Cotto posed a greater threat to Pac and look at how Manny performed! Whitacre had one hand the left.... Pacs takes all three.

 

You have only ever delivered one correct spelling of Whitaker's name in all your posts about him, and there it is above, well done. :good

 

Basically sums up why you're such a **** poster:deal

 

sweet pea may win h2h but pacquiao is higher in ATG ranking...

 

How is that nonsense?

If one fighter has proven ability and form at certain weights against superior opposition compared to someone else then that should be factored heavily in their H2H ability. For Pea his in the ring dominance was proven against a range of opponents at the weights stipulated...Pac on the other hand is lacking in relative quality of opposition and hasnt come even remotely close to facing someone stylistically or with overall comparable ability above 135.



Thats how I do it...I know you do too no matter what spin you ultimately put on it.


Styles matter but where that isnt applicable I look at how fighters did against their best opposition at the weights and what was the quality of that opposition.

Lame, lame comparison and you know why.

 

You guys just never learn. You pick Oscar, pick Hatton, pick Cotto. Manny confounds you again and again - yet afterwards, despite him proving you wrong completely about him, you are still not remotely swayed on his abilities, and will tip just about anyone to beat him again. If I write someone off, then they completely shock me by winning in style when I thought they would lose, I would be re-evaluating my position, not stubbornly clinging to it and refusing to recognize I could have been wrong all along. Addie, you thought Cotto would beat Pac, and Pac annihilated him. Why does nothing about that change your mind about Pac at all? If he beats Mayweather, will you still back Mosley to beat him then, and just about anyone from history to beat him h2h?

 

Am I right in thinking you've already decided I have an agenda against the little Filipino and nothing I would say in response would change your mind?

 

No mate. But I just don't understand how someone can continually pick against someone, and when that someone completely confounds your predictions again and again, that fact doesn't seem to impress you or make you re-evaluate anything, it's as if you weren't proven completely wrong each time, because you doggedly revert back to your initial feeling again each time, picking anyone and everyone against him, writing him off and not giving him a chance.

After B-Hop's stamina so clearly let him down against Joe C, I tipped Pavlik to beat him. After Mosley's mediocre performance against Mayorga and Margarito's supernatural performance against Cotto, I picked Margarito to beat Mosley. When I was completely and utterly confounded both times, I didn't sit there eating my words, but immediately revert back to the same critical and dubious mindset after the fight, just ready to tip anyone against them next time. You have to think of why you were wrong, what the guy has that you didn't see, and factor it into your thinking for future challenges. And that was one fight for B-Hop and one for SSM, you guys have been nowhere with your tips for three fights in a row, not just wrong, but crazy wrong! Yet your opinion of him never seems to rise one iota. I just find it a bit strange, that's all.

I'm sure you don't want to get dragged into a big dull debate about it though, so I'll simply ask for a one-word response to this rant:

If Pac beats Floyd, would you back him to beat Shane Mosley then?

 

Well, let's let the cat out of the bag. I'm a firm believer in Floyd Mayweather's ability as a prize fighter. I think when we go back and reference his fight with Jose Luis Castillo to support our thesis, we forget that he won the rematch fairly comfortably, and fighters genuinely improve the more fights they have, and the better the opposition theyovercome. Floyd is a better fighter now than he was back then, more experienced. There was every reason to believe Ricky Hatton could have been as successful as Castillo given his success with Floyd, but that didn't turn out to be the case.

I've said it before, it's a testament to Manny Pacquiao that I find myself picking against him in every match-up. Is there a reason to believe Hatton could have beaten Pacquiao? Well, Hatton had never lost as a Junior Welterweight, he held physical advantages over the Filipino, who had never fought at 140lbs before in his entire professional career. We saw how jumping up and down weights effected Roy Jones, the victory sure as hell wasn't set in stone.

Likewise, we look at his fight with Oscar De La Hoya. Freddie Roach, the biggest Pacquiao nuthugger on the planet, freely admitted that Hoya was sporting fresh IV marks as he was going into the ring. He admitted, himself, that Oscar could no longer pull the trigger and everything that transpired in the ring that night supported all of those notions. If Oscar had rebounded from the defeat and looked great next time out, we could perhaps be reevaluating the victory. But Oscar retired, he was not the same fighter he was. I never expected the weight to effect him that drastically, but 90% of people picked against Manny in that fight. For obvious reasons.

And finally, Miguel Cotto. There were so many reasons to pick against Manny Pacquiao here, and it's because the little ******* challenges himself in ways Floyd has never attempted to do. Cotto is a world class Welterweight, he's proven that with a win over Shane Mosley, and he's a big strong 147lbs too, with heavy hands, and technical ability in abundance. Manny had never fought a live opponent at Welterweight in his entire professional career, and he'd never took a solid shot above Lightweight either. Even Popkins was shocked at how well Manny took Cotto's shots. If I had told you Cotto landed x amount of left hooks on the night of the fight, would your prediction have changed? There's a possibility.

Basically, there was reason to bet again Manny Pacquiao in every single one of those match-ups. By my own admission, I have underestimated the Filipino, and so have you regarding his punch resistance, but Miguel Cotto and Ricky Hatton are light years away from being as capable as Floyd Mayweather. Look how easily he dispatched of Marquez, a fighter who I feel holds two victories over the Filipino. The man very rarely gets hit on the chin, and boxing on the back foot, utilizing a fast jab and lead right hand is his bread and butter. Cotto landed his jab, many times, and Marquez's best weapon over their two altercations was the right hand.

There's two fighters from 147lbs and below that I would favor over Pacquiao, Shane Mosley and Floyd Mayweather Jr.

I was wrong against Hatton because I had underestimated the punching power of Manny Pacquiao. I was wrong with Oscar because I hadn't envision Oscar coming in dead at the weight. Miguel Cotto was the best fighter out of the three, and Manny surprised me with how well he took Cotto's best shots. I have thought this through, and what does any of that mean against Floyd Mayweather Jr? Nothing in my estimation. Floyd very rarely gets hit, a master craftsman like Marquez couldn't even manage it more than a handful of times. You have to see it from my point of view, if Manny was pitched against Marquez, I'd pick for Manny. If he was pitched against Berto...or anyone other than Floyd or Mosley, my money would be on him. He just challenges himself and that's a credit to the little *******.

If Pacquiao beats Floyd, I'll never pick against him again. I don't rate Floyd particularly high in a P4P sense because he doesn't have the resume to back up many of his claims. That said, if he went into the jaws of the lion, I think 9 times out of 10 he'd come out alive. He's an unbelievably talented fighter, and if Manny beats him, it's right up there with Duran vs Leonard as one of the greatest victories in Boxing history. Quote me on that ****.

 

Comfortably? I suppose so. I had it to Mayweather by 4 points, but I thought he was poor on the night. A highly underwhelming performance. One of the main reasons I don't share you and Bill's belief in Mayweather's ability to the same degree is performances like Castillo II. Who have been Floyd's two toughest and two best opponents? I'd say JLC and a past-prime Oscar. In ATG fighter's biggest fights, they are supposed to produce the goods. Floyd quite simply doesn't. He uses Gatti as a punchbag, he outclasses good but limited fighters like Corrales and Judah, but in his toughest and most important fights, he skirts around the periphery of the fight and ekes out a dull and unsatisfying decision. People seem to think he is suddenly going to come alive and put Pacquiao to the sword - but why? Floyd doesn't produce against his best opponents, this is clear from his career. He opens up against Gatti and (eventually) against Hatton, but against guys like Castillo and Oscar, he is scared of being hit, scared of being visibly hurt, scared of going down. Why would he be any different against Pacquiao? Do you think Floyd watched Pac's fights against Hatton and Cotto, saw their reactions to his punches (Hatton didn't react like that when hit by Tszyu or Floyd, Cotto didn't react like that when hit by Mosley or Margo), and thought to himself "I'll go toe-to-toe with that mutha****a?!" Did he ****. If he fights Pac, he will be firmly in his over-cautious shell mode like he was for some of the Oscar fight, determined not to get hit or hurt. And that's when Pacquiao becomes a very dangerous opponent indeed for Floyd. Pac is far, far more active, explosive and eye-catching than Castillo or a past-prime Oscar were. That's when Pac starts winning rounds. When Floyd's neat defence and occasional crisp counters are lost in the storm of Manny's punches and a wild pro-Pac crowd.

There are so many, many examples where the opposite is true. Some fighters improve as they go, some peak and decline. Personally, I don't even see an argument for Floyd being better now than he was in 2001/2. I think he is inferior now, the main and crucial reason being he doesn't throw more than one punch at a time now. He was never a truly great combination puncher anyway, even at 130, but he was certainly very good in that respect in his sfw days, and it is a clear deficiency in his game now that he pot-shots. Floyd does not have the single-shot power to hurt Manny, and I think there is virtually zero chance of him unloading combinations against Pacquiao and taking the risk of being hit and dropped as he does so.

At the times Floyd fought them all, Castillo and Corrales were better than Hatton and Oscar. Floyd hasn't beaten better comp than the men he beat 7-8 years ago. I'd say the only thing he has learned from his ww days is how to overcome larger men like Baldomir and Oscar. Obviously this helps him not a jot against a smaller, faster man.

You're citing a general truth here without considering the singular case in point. In general, people get better with experience. However, that is often not the case, and Floyd is definitely one of those cases. By throwing one punch at a time now, he is clearly inferior to his 130 - 135 or 140 days.

Did Hatton ever have the intelligence, composure, pedigree or chin of Castillo? I don't think so personally.

Exactly. Yet after a complete and utter annihilation, you still didn't revise your opinion of him, and tipped Cotto to win. If Pac had won a close fight, then maybe a slight revision or even no revision would have been called for. But to have your prediction blown away in less than 6 minutes, to me it's just odd that it didn't affect your opinion of the man you underestimated in any major way.

I'm tired of this "pull the trigger" stuff. Is there a scientific way someone can be tested to have or not have this mystical "trigger-pulling" ability? It was an off-the-cuff remark from Roach to say he didn't believe Oscar could stop Pacquiao, but now it seems to have passed into boxing vernacular as a definitive state of being, the same as a medical injury. "Vitali tore his shoulder against Byrd" is a legitimate way of writing off Byrd's win, because Vit Klit had a real injury and couldn't fight. Is "Oscar couldn't pull the trigger" a legitimate way of writing off Pacquiao's win? What the **** is a trigger in boxing terms anyway? That fight has become so warped in the collective memory it defies belief. To listen to people now you would think the cadaverous remains of Oscar were carried to the ring in a coffin and tipped out onto the canvas, and Pac walked over and stamped them into dust. Was it just me, or did Oscar come out swinging in the early rounds, get raped for pace, go into his shell, and gradually have the resistance punched out of him? I particularly remember him springing forward and landing a good solid combination to the body, at the end of the 8th I think it was. Yes, Oscar was weight-drained, and yes he was well past-prime, but this was not Duran v William Joppy here. In Oscar's last 2 fights, he took the p4p#1 to an SD, and then done better against Forbes than the younger, fresher Berto managed in Forbes's next fight.

Didn't the fact that you had dramatically underestimated Pacquaio last two times out come into your thinking at all, among the thoughts of Cotto's heavy hands and technical ability? He hadn't just beaten Hatton, he had blown him away with an ease that defied belief. Cotto is not a million miles ahead of Hatton IMO. He is better, but is he that much better that the way Pac handled Hatton with ease meant nothing? Not in my opinion. And I was right (again).

Yes, but there were equally salient reasons to back him, reasons which were underlined and reinforced after each thoroughly dominant victory.

Let's not go overboard with that now. I made a thread on the day of the Pac-Cotto fight saying Pac by late KO when up on the scorecards, on the premise of 'speed kills'. You can't get much more on the money without guessing what colour the round-card girl's panties would be. If you search my posting history, you will find too many instances of me remonstrating with people that they underrate Pac's chin and that it had always been granite. I can PM you an example if you're interested. I wasn't shocked with his punch resistance as such, it was more the way that he flaunted it and took the risk of having it tested, when he didn't need to.

And the current version of Manny Pacquiao is light years ahead of anyone Floyd has ever fought.