View Full Version : Mayweather Wrong about going from Ordinary to Extraodinary


HaglerSteelChin
08-02-2010, 09:10 PM
One thing May keeps saying is that Pac got knocked out twice and had two draws but now he is unstoppable. Well there are many guys who had losses early in their career were great and even ATG fighters. Henry Armstrong loss his first fight, Arguello had a couple of losses early on, Salvador Sanchez had both a loss and draw early on, and although Monzon wouldn't lose in his last 80 or so fights he did have 3 losses early on.

Pac's first loss was a bordeline low blow from Torrecampo, he was weight drained against 3 K battery-but a loss is a loss no excuses, and his first loss to Morales he didn't wear his 8 ounce gloves and did fight with a cut eye. All are legit losses, but it didn't suggest that Pac was a generic fighter. In fact, he had power even very early on his career as i have his early fights as well. He got better by refining his skill with Roach.

Just because you suffer early losses- dosen't imply you can't be a dominate fighter in future.

HaglerSteelChin
08-02-2010, 09:16 PM
One thing May keeps saying is that Pac got knocked out twice and had two draws but now he is unstoppable. Well there are many guys who had losses early in their career were great and even ATG fighters. Henry Armstrong loss his first fight, Arguello had a couple of losses early on, Salvador Sanchez had both a loss and draw early on, and although Monzon wouldn't lose in his last 80 or so fights he did have 3 losses early on.

Pac's first loss was a bordeline low blow from Torrecampo, he was weight drained against 3 K battery-but a loss is a loss no excuses, and his first loss to Morales he didn't wear his 8 ounce gloves and did fight with a cut eye. All are legit losses, but it didn't suggest that Pac was a generic fighter. In fact, he had power even very early on his career as i have his early fights as well. He got better by refining his skill with Roach.

Just because you suffer early losses- dosen't imply you can't be a dominate fighter in future.

Put this thread here by accident, i figure most of the people already know the history of these fighters.

r.burgundy
08-03-2010, 12:11 AM
your less likely to see greatness out of modern fighters in those situations.guys like armstrong could afford to lose just by the volume of fights they end thier careers with

bojangles1987
08-03-2010, 08:27 AM
Sane fans know this. Pacquiao was always extraordinary.

EMACULATE
08-03-2010, 08:43 AM
Can anyone on this sire explain to me how Pac goes from barely beating Morrales and struggling with Marquez. In my eye he lost both fights to Marquez to dominating hatton, delahoya, cotto and avoiding all real legit 140lbers to fighting clottey, margarito, cotto and let me guess who will be next maybe daniel jacobs. Once a guy comes off a loss and looks bad then Roach will try to get the advantage and either weight drain them or fight no one in his class. Cotto lost to Margarito, Margarito lost to Mosley whom Roach said was to good, but was the lineal ww champ at the time and the #3 or #4 P4P at the time. Why he was avoiding Marquez mayweather beat the # 2 and # 3 P4P. So Pac takes on Cotto ranked around number # 8 P4P OR LOWER, THEN HE FOUGHT cLOTTEY WHO wasnt even in the top ten of P4P FIGHTERS WHEN mOSLEY AND mARQUEZ WAS AVAILABLE.

them_apples
08-04-2010, 02:36 PM
One thing May keeps saying is that Pac got knocked out twice and had two draws but now he is unstoppable. Well there are many guys who had losses early in their career were great and even ATG fighters. Henry Armstrong loss his first fight, Arguello had a couple of losses early on, Salvador Sanchez had both a loss and draw early on, and although Monzon wouldn't lose in his last 80 or so fights he did have 3 losses early on.

Pac's first loss was a bordeline low blow from Torrecampo, he was weight drained against 3 K battery-but a loss is a loss no excuses, and his first loss to Morales he didn't wear his 8 ounce gloves and did fight with a cut eye. All are legit losses, but it didn't suggest that Pac was a generic fighter. In fact, he had power even very early on his career as i have his early fights as well. He got better by refining his skill with Roach.

Just because you suffer early losses- dosen't imply you can't be a dominate fighter in future.

he got knocked out when he was 17 years old and had no food in him. I mean, thats extraordinary in itself that he was like 7-0 as a pro at that age.
Pacquiao is what got me into modern boxing. Pacquiao the very first time I saw him seemed like he was so determined he was bound to be this good. I was the only guy saying he could woop Hatton after the 2nd Marquez fight. I looked at his fight night weight and said..damn..he could easily fight at 140 now..and destroy a brawler like Hatton.

them_apples
08-04-2010, 02:38 PM
Can anyone on this sire explain to me how Pac goes from barely beating Morrales and struggling with Marquez. In my eye he lost both fights to Marquez to dominating hatton, delahoya, cotto and avoiding all real legit 140lbers to fighting clottey, margarito, cotto and let me guess who will be next maybe daniel jacobs. Once a guy comes off a loss and looks bad then Roach will try to get the advantage and either weight drain them or fight no one in his class. Cotto lost to Margarito, Margarito lost to Mosley whom Roach said was to good, but was the lineal ww champ at the time and the #3 or #4 P4P at the time. Why he was avoiding Marquez mayweather beat the # 2 and # 3 P4P. So Pac takes on Cotto ranked around number # 8 P4P OR LOWER, THEN HE FOUGHT cLOTTEY WHO wasnt even in the top ten of P4P FIGHTERS WHEN mOSLEY AND mARQUEZ WAS AVAILABLE.

because p4p..Morales and Marquez are better than Hatton and an older DLH? On top of that he did improve.

The Noose
08-04-2010, 03:34 PM
Can anyone on this sire explain to me how Pac goes from barely beating Morrales and struggling with Marquez. In my eye he lost both fights to Marquez to dominating hatton, delahoya, cotto and avoiding all real legit 140lbers to fighting clottey, margarito, cotto and let me guess who will be next maybe daniel jacobs. Once a guy comes off a loss and looks bad then Roach will try to get the advantage and either weight drain them or fight no one in his class. Cotto lost to Margarito, Margarito lost to Mosley whom Roach said was to good, but was the lineal ww champ at the time and the #3 or #4 P4P at the time. Why he was avoiding Marquez mayweather beat the # 2 and # 3 P4P. So Pac takes on Cotto ranked around number # 8 P4P OR LOWER, THEN HE FOUGHT cLOTTEY WHO wasnt even in the top ten of P4P FIGHTERS WHEN mOSLEY AND mARQUEZ WAS AVAILABLE.

IMO He also lost both JMM fights, but him dominating Hatton, Oscar, Clottey and Cotto is down to styles (they are all walk forward fighters), plus although they are bigger stronger fighters they were also slower and easier to hit, so for a volume puncher like Pac they were sitting targets.

As far as Roach waiting for them to lose before having Pac fight them i dont buy it.

Hatton did look vulnerable, but he was stopped by Floyd after 10 rounds at WW. That doesnt mean he automatically isnt a challenge for Pac, considered the smaller man and Hattons pressure and style could of been a danger to Pac. I think it was a legit threat for Pac.
Cotto had two good comeback wins after Margrito.
Clottey was seen as the toughest WW.
JMM is a real threat but has been 2 weight divisions lighter for a long time now.

I personally wouldnt rank the quality of opponents based on the p4p rankings. 1. theyre not official and 2. Floyd beating JMM was hardly a serious challenge because of the weight issue.

Pac, like Floyd wants to fight big names for the biggest purse. But Pac has looked to the higher weights whilst Floyd has looked to the lower weights.

The Noose
08-04-2010, 03:38 PM
And i think Floyd meant that no fighter has had such a dramatic improvement at this late stage in their career.

Many fighters lose early on when theyre green, but get steadily better. Floyd and others think Pac's sudden amazing success at 30 years of age is suspicios.

bojangles1987
08-04-2010, 07:41 PM
And i think Floyd meant that no fighter has had such a dramatic improvement at this late stage in their career.

Many fighters lose early on when theyre green, but get steadily better. Floyd and others think Pac's sudden amazing success at 30 years of age is suspicios.

Lots of fighters get much better later in their career. Especially guys like Pac who have a guy like Freddie Roach later in their career.

Fighters like Barrera, Morales, and Marquez are better fighters than the guys Pac is fighting now, and Pac beat them. So what he did early on is just as extraordinary as what he is doing now.