Why does Pacquiao always fight guys coming off a loss ?

Why does Mayweather always fight JWWs and 36-year-old lightweights?

 

You couldn't help yourself could you.? :hey

 

He doesn't dumbass.

 

Don't pay attention to the bitter people. These fights made sense at the time. And not many thought they were bs fights. According to most of these scrubs, Pac should have Valero, Soto, Guzman in his resume because they are fresh. And should have ducked MAB, JMM, Morales, should have never fought Hatton, etc, etc or should have never given those guys rematches.

Only for Pac is this true. Imagine had he not taken the Morales rematch citing he had lost to Raheem LOL, or imaging him taking on those fighters I mentioned instead of the guys he did fight. He would be a nobody who ducked the big boys of the divisions and made excuses about why he wouldn't fight him. "He was scared his win vs MAB was a fluke" "He was scared of Morales, he exposed him and ducked him, same with JMM". Pure bs.

And you know that's a fact.

 

Give me a F*cking break. Can't imagine how long it took you to come up with this joke of an argument.

 

is it me or as soon as pac crossed over to mainstream appeal, the hardcore boxing fans started hating on him? if pac went up and beat valuev he probably wouldn't get credit for this because he coming off a loss and he was also the weakest champion in the hw division.

 

In other words thread starter wants PAC to fight the likes of Valero!

The tomato can specialist! :yep

Based on PAC's achievment he won countless awards and recognition.

NOW, TELL ME WHO SHOULD PAC HAVE FOUGHT INSTEAD?!
Lets start the ball rolling after his loss to Morales. He has eleven straight wins.
WHO ARE THOSE ELEVEN FIGHTERS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HIS OPPONENT?
LETS SEE HOW SMART OR STUPID YOU ARE?! NAME THOSE ELEVEN SHOULD HAVE BEEN OPPONENTS?!

 

Apparently if Pac fought: Tim Austin, Joan Guzman, Edwin Valero, and Andre berto instead of Cotto and the rest of those bums he fought, he'd have greater recognition.

 

looks like pac has a history of this

i wonder how those darn *******s defend this

 

I just noticed the thread was 3 years old. Jimmie, if you are still alive, please contact your nearest suicide prevention center. If you are already dead, rest in peace. :yep

 

At least they haven't been KTFOrofl

 

As if Clottey is a household name


Give it up *******.:rasta

 

I cant believe you chose the word those instead of "we"

 

So the fights you mentioned there represent his entire career?, "always" fights guys coming off a loss?

Morales 1 - At the time they wanted to fight Marquez in a rematch, Marquez priced his self out and Morales was the best option available. Morales didn't turn out to be an easy target, right?

Morales 2 - A rematch was already inked and Morales losing to Raheem doesn't mean that Pacquiao can't avenge his loss.

Morales 3 - Pacquiao gives Morales another chance like Morales gave him. What's the problem there?, the public wanted that fight badly too.

Barrera 2 - Barrera always wanted a rematch and the public also wanted that fight. Barrera had a close fight with Marquez, I personally thought Barrera won that fight and scored a knockdown he didn't get credit for. Pacquiao fought the guy that beat him after this one, so what's the issue?

Larios - Tune-up material and still a damn good opponent for a tune-up if you ask me. It was a fight for his people in his country and still he took on a top level opponent.