Giving him a top 50 slot in the top 50 fighters of the last 10 years is far too generous in my book lol.
Let's just forget his name was mentioned all together. The fact that he is listed as 5 on the TS list is....................well there isn't a word for it honestly.
this isn't a p4p list. it's top 5 skilled guys. pacquiao doesn't have a large skill set, he is limited but gets away with it because of his speed and power.
i find it absurd to even have pacquiao not only on the list but a top 10 list.
Well the TS said "skills", he never mentioned "technical". And if you notice, Haye is on his list, that makes me assume that he's not just referring on the technical side. Yah know what i mean?
i am dumbfounded as to how pacquiao can be on the top 5 skilled fighters.
if pacquiao is on the list, Haye is #1 because flailing your damn arms isn't skill. Throwing punches while the other guy is punching, random ass punches at that, and landing because your faster isn't skill.
go watch marquez give pacquiao a boxing lesson. tell me how much skill pacquiao shows. how much skill was shown on that punching bag? how many holes were hit, how many uppercuts split the guard? this dude couldn't even throw a punch when rotated to his right. Hence Nazim laying the blue print to beating pacquiao.
SKILL encompasses more than just "being slick". skills include being able to throw ****ing 8 punch combinations at the speed of light. manny belongs on this list. his offensive skills are second to none for this era.
Well the TS said "skills", he never mentioned "technical". And if you notice, Haye is on his list, that makes me assume that he's not just referring on the technical side. Yah know what i mean?
i don't agree with his haye choice either, i think that is more absurd than pacquiao.
whenever i think skill, i am thinking basically technical ability. this doesn't mean you have to be marquez because I was considering joan guzman, donaire, hopkins etc but the margin between them are so razor thin that i didn't feel comfortable putting a 4 and 5.
Comment