Sanchez vs Pacman at 126

1) I actually have a very good record of picking fights. Thats not to say ive seen plenty of fights out there of each fighter, quite simply boxing is science. You watch a fighter, watch another and imagine both styles, strengths and weaknesses clashing in the ring. I dont need to see Pep's other 200 fights, from watching plenty of clips on him and his 2 fights, I can see his style. You dont need to watch 40 of PBF fights to see what his style is like. From what Ive seen, Pac would steamroll Pep. I saw 2 fights of Lacy on youtube and predicted Calzaghe would school him...analytical thinking over history knowledge.

2) Saddler possesed height, now enlighten me what else this plenty was? I wouldnt say his boxing skill was better, nor stamina, nor strength, nor power, nor speed, nor chin...so what is it? This is cloudy old fighter talk. I often defend older fighters from people critisizing them here but on this occasion, its obvious on film what their skills and physical assetts are.

3) I said RJJ could throw beautiful combinations, not pep. Ive seen pep throw proper combinations, they arent quite up to par with jones but he can definitely throw combinations. This still doesnt change the fact that he DOES like to throw wide shots from akward angles, with his hands down and potshot. Tell me how in the hell someone like Pep with his hands down, bending down trying to potshot a speed demon like Pac gonna work out? Its not, hes gonna get knocked out.

4) Sure that was the norm, but if a fighter has lost more than half of their fights it basically is saying a lot about their quality as a fighter. Its the norm for alot of mexicans to pad their records, ie: Chavez, that doesnt mean those fighters he fought were any better just because "its the norm".

5) Pea is a different fighter, a superior version. Pea was bigger and much better offensively. Pea would get Pac's respect, Pep wouldnt.

 

How much of what you saw was prime Pep outside of his fight with Saddler? Trust me, there is a clear difference between a prime Pep and the bit of him on Youtube.

Saddler was one of the most skilled in-fighters of all time. Unlike other long, lanky fighters who are easy to out-muscle, Saddler used his reach to tie his opponents up and use his extra length to land his own shots in these tie-ups. With his exceptional reach, he was able to do this often. He posessed a decent, long jab to find his way in, otherwise he was not much of an out-boxer. Most come-forward fighters were toast against Saddler because they were always there to be hit in close, and always there to be tied up and outdone in the clinches, in a much more leniant era, one that enabled him to be known as one of the dirtiest fighters of all time. He was also on Ring Magazine's list of the greatest punchers, where he ranked #5. All of this does not add up for a come-forward style like Pac's.

If you've seen a fair bit of Pep, you'd know his lateral movement was possibly the best ever, and his balance was superb. There are bits on footage of him using a simple shift to send his opponent flying right by off an attempted lunge or swing. His ability to use lateral movement against fighters coming forward was laughably good. The difference with a guy like Saddler was that Sandy was able to use his reach to tie Pep like he did so many others, a trait that Pacquiao doesn't posess. Pacquiao's lack of balance and habit of being open for counters will lead to a hell of a time against Pep.

Now you're showing that you don't know what you're talking about, period. If there's one thing that's always gotten me chewed out by those who have seen more footage of Pep than me, it's how I contend that Whitaker was similarly offensively effective. They contest that Pep threw better and more fluent combinations, where I counter by referencing Whitaker's jab. Both have points, but to say that Whitaker was far better offensively is incorrect, as Pep was great at throwing combinations off his defensive maneuvers.

 

1. We are going in circles on your first point. You haven't seen enough Pep, simple as that and I have explained that Saddler had the tendency to modify boxer's styles (I gave the Elorde analogy).

2. Saddler was just a tall guy? Read up on him.

3. This point is simply factually wrong. He threw awkward shots against Saddler because of the height and awkwardness, something I have been trying to point out to you.

4. Fine, it was the norm. But saying that conceals the reality of Pep, that he had great wins over great fighters, no matter the # of bums he fought.

5. Again, you havent seen enough footage of Pep to make this statement, even if it were true.

Dangerousity I think you should make a thread about this in the classic forum with people who have seen Pep fight. You would be enlightened by what you would find I think.

 

1) And Ive mentioned I dont need to study a whole fighters collection of fights to analyse him. I have a very good record doing exactly what im doing now, watch a fight or 2, watching clips and determining what kind of fighter they are from that. I dont claim to be an expert on Pep, I just claim to have seen him fight which I have. Sure Pep's style may be slightly different but you dont see Ali fight like Frazier in 1 fight, Foreman fight like Ali, Pacquiao fight like JMM...all fighters have their style and can modify it slightly. Even when MAB opts to box instead of brawl, he still has the same style, just employs some parts of it more strongly than the others, in this case the boxing over brawling. Having watched clips of Pep boxing other fighters, I can make out exactly what hes like as a fighter.

2) You failed to answer my question. What did he have over Pac? Size, strength, power, speed, chin, skills? Roughouse tactics maybe...

3) Explain to me why HL clips of him against other fighters not Saddler still show him slipping punches, moving aorund with his fantastic footwork, hitting them from akward angles? Because he likes to do so and he can do it. You telling me this guy fights all his other fights textbook with his hands up on his chin at all times? If you are then ok fair enough, but from what ive seen, he drops his hands FAR too much.

4) I never said he didnt fight great fighters. Just that his bum wins inflates his record to look better, take away all the bums and you have a record looking like 30-4 or thereabouts. Very normal.

5) Oh really. I suppose you've never compared fighters to other fighters before unless youve seen their entire fight collection?

Why should I? People who post in the classic section are posting there because their inlove with the classic fighters. Obviously their gonna praise and be biased towards the older fighters. This general section has a mixture of both classic and modern fans...it equals things out. Thats a bit like asking you to post in "pacland" and you will get a different response, and their response is somehow suppose to correct you because they have more knowledge on Pac and seen more Pac fights than you. Never mind their bias towards Pac.

 

Pea had already answered your question about Saddler and did so well. I don't get involved in h2h threads with boxers I don't know well, just like I declined to do so in this thread.

And classic posters know on average triple what general forum posters know about boxing across all eras including the current one. I am humbled by what those guys like sweet_scientist, Raging Bull, Sweet Pea, Mcgrain, Suzie Q --- and many others--- know in that forum.

 

Knowledge and analytical ability are 2 different things. I have never claimed to have more knowledge, but I do believe I have a good strategy for breaking fights down. Which is what this thread requires, an analysis of a fight...not a history lesson on a fighter.

Right now I am ranked 3rd on Huki's prediction league. Last year I must have gotten 2 fights wrong. I dont claim to be an amazing fight analysis that can guess how each fight would turn out, but definitely decent enough. This kind of thread calls for an analysis on a clash of styles & fighters, not a history lesson. Yet somehow these threads always seem to turn into "Ive seen more fights out of this fighter than you have therefore my opinion on who would win this fight is better".

Ive just seen Pea's reply. I would address him but im off to bed. Besides I agree with most of what he said anyways, still his argument really hasnt proven much in way of showing that Pep would simply box circles around Pac... And regarding the Pep, Pea comparison. Pea was faster, threw straighter, could get his combinations off better, had more power...what more can you say to accept the fact that he was infact really was better offesively than Pep...and bigger which is a big factor.

 

I've given both analysis and historical knowledge in this thread, so its hardly a matter of saying I know more because I have more footage. So I don't find that to be fair by any means.

And classic posters have plenty of ability to give analytical breakdowns, I'm not sure why you would think they lack this in their posts.

 

i think in fantasy match-ups, boxers will always be favored against sluggers. even a boxer/slugger MAB, if lived 2 or 3 decades ago will be easily favored against pac in a fantasy match-up:roll:

 

Knowledge is needed to make decent analysis.

 

Teddy Atlas has more knowledge than most on this site. Ask him to break a fight down to predict which fighter would win and plenty here are alot better. Simply put, more knowledge doesnt necesarily mean better analytical ability. Just look at Bert Sugar, he would pick Floyd Patterson to ko Wlad.... little knowledge applied correctly is plenty more accurate than vast knowledge applied incorrectly.

Whatever, this is off topic anyways.

 

That's true. But there are some equally skilled analysts in the Classic Forum, who sometimes post in the General Forum.

Guys like sweet_scientist, Raging B(_)LL always give detailed analysis on their matchups, and a guy like Manassa has, on rare occasion, given some of the most detailed, insightful posts on fighters styles, strengths, etc to give an analysis of the two in comparison to each other.