Mayweather got the "reputation" for being boring around the Baldomir fight. And NO, there was never a significant consensus that he was boring lol It was just his haters looking for an excuse to discredit him. "Yeah yeah, he wins all the time, but it's only because he fights extra safe and is boring. blah blah blah" He wasn't talked about as being "boring" when he was moving up in the lower weight classes. He wasn't boring when he knocked out Hatton. He wasn't fighting safe against Sugar Shane or Cotto. His fights with Alvarez and Maidana weren't "boring" at all, and he stood in front of those two. You are a sheep if you are actually trying to state that he was a "boring" fighter. And you aren't swayed by what Roach has to say? Who the hell has to say it then?!? lol The guy is Pacmans trainer and was heavily informed on all of the negotiations. But you don't give merit to what he has to say on the subject?? Because you "know quite a bit about the boxing game" haha Sure you do...
Granted, I didn't really give the best account of myself earlier, I was genuinely busy and I got a bit frustrated with those other guys. Anyway, the only point I ever intended to make was that I believe Pacquiao has the better overall legacy. I believe this, for the most part, based on weight classes and the level of prime opposition. Beating world class opposition from flyweight to junior middle is, surely, pretty impressive. It's more weight classes than Mayweather and surely counts for something. Wins over Barrera, Morales and Bradley also, for me, give Pacquiao an edge over Mayweather in terms of opposition. I also give him credit for the multiple rematches. His resume is also good enough that I don't think his losses diminish his accomplishments in any way. You don't have to agree, of course, but I consider these factors to be relevant. Mayweather beat some good fighters, for sure and in my opinion Corrales was probably his best win. Personally, however, I don't think he has any wins to rival Barrera, Morales or Bradley. In fact he doesn't really have any career defining fights at all, but it's still a pretty good resume. I don't really think being undefeated counts for much, particularly in view of the Castillo and Maindana fights and I don't really think the decision over Pacquiao counts for much, either, given that they were both past their best when the fight finally took place. As for being boring, that is the way I see it. As a fan I think it's a fair point. I can appreciate skill and technique, of course, but I still want to be entertained. I always think of Mayweather in terms of before and after DelaHoya. I agree, he was certainly a lot better to watch earlier in his career. I was never really a fan, but I actually thought he was pretty good back then. Post DelaHoya, however, he put on some awful fights; real stinkers. True, the Cotto and Maindana fights were pretty entertaining, but that was largely down to those guys and not Floyd himself. As for what Roach said, why he said it and when; I really couldn't care less. It's all just gossip to me. I'm really only interested in the fights themselves, the celebrity side of it doesn't really interest me much. To the best of my knowledge, however, there is no credible evidence that either Pacquiao or Mayweather are or were on the PEDs. I wouldn't rule it out, of course, for either of them, but there is no solid proof, just gossip. Mayweather did have to pay Pacquiao libel damages, however, so if Roach did say anything genuinely incriminating then I'm sure Mayweather would have wanted to claw some of those damages back. Who knows why Roach said what he did? Certainly, nothing seems to have come of it. Why would he incriminate his own fighter when he didn't have to? As I say he said it in the build up and promotion of the fight and that's the context in which I see it. Truth is, I couldn't really care less. All I know is that when the fight finally happened, it was a stinker and I criticise both fighters for that. Anyway, I really didn't want to get caught up in all this, but I hope that goes some way to addressing the points that you raised.
Think your own mother would be proud of you for saying something like that? Your manners are even worse than your grammar and spelling. Pretty gutless, too.
PAC!!! KO by in 6, lucky punch, l thought I won, sore shoulder, afraid of needles, they are like animals. PAC will be remembered for these all day long.
No matter how many Alts vote on this bogus poll, nothing will ever change the fact that Floyd was regarded by ESPN as the vastly better fighter, almost anyone who knows boxing does LOL. And let's not forget the fact that Floyd beat the crap out of him. That's fact.
Both had great careers, but Floyd's was better due to never losing, never being knocked down. Manny gave us some great fights though and beat some great fighters. Both had fights that could have gone the other way, Floyd with Maidana and Castillo.. Manny with JMM x 2. The difference is that Manny also legit lost against JMM, Morales and Floyd (and 2 nobodies when he was young). So even if you give Manny the Bradley fight back, and the Horn fight (I thought Horn won) he still doesn't stack up to Floyd. So Floyd, and by a pretty good margin.
I am speaking on what I feel. Floyd never fought anyone without an advantage or right timing. He constructed an undefeated record, because he knew without it he would have no great fights.
Why is this even still debated. Only two places Pac is rated higher. Pacland and the Philippines lmao
