Who has taken on the riskier fights in their career; Manny or Floyd?

[jaestix1]

whats considered a risk for the hypejob from the philipines is considered a cherrypick or easy work for floyd. that should tell you everything you need to know.....floyd has to fight a middleweight for him to take a risk but sleepy-head can drag a 40 yr lw to ww, get raped by the 40 yr lw and it's still considered a risk. lmao

[hugh grant]

Because Floyd dont go down the route of defending his titles and fighting challengers regularly, people expect Floyd to make more of a statement with opponent choices and Guerrero just doesnt cut it im afraid to say.

When people say FLoyd should fight Sergio at 160, its not cos people put a higher standard on Floyd. Its cos they expect Floyd to do more cos of his laziness to make up for inactivity.
If you are the best, you have to prove it, and you cant do that with one fight in 2 years. Floyds peers slog their guts out, so its just not fair on them.

[DeadLikeMe]

Considering Manny hasn't done crap in 4 years except get hilariously KTFO and drop a decision to a pillow puncher, it is quite a bit closer now than it ever has been before.

[sapaw]

Originally Posted by Big Dunn

If manny and floyd fight opponents that are both 4-1 underdogs, which fight is riskier?

It doesn't matter what the name of the opponent is, that doesn't factor into calculating risk. Now if manny fights a 2-1 underdog and floyd fights a 3-1 underdog, well the risk would lean toward manny.

What are you using to calculate risk?

Okay, since you want it to be factor of underdogs as Risk.

Pac is the underdog before the fight.
Pac - Dela Hoya
Pac - Barrera
Pac- - Ledwaba

Floyd is the underdog before the fight.
?
?

So whose taken the riskier fights based on the factor you brought us?? why you still vote "SAME"? you eating your own sh*ts! lol

[hugh grant]

Originally Posted by DeadLikeMe

Considering Manny hasn't done crap in 4 years except get hilariously KTFO and drop a decision to a pillow puncher, it is quite a bit closer now than it ever has been before.

This is sounding a bit spiteful. When the topic of who is taking a bigger risk, Pac or Floyd with the Bradley and Cotto opponents i remember the majority thought Pac was taking a more serious fight, regardless of whether you thought Pac beat Bradley or not.

The fact that Pac was hilarisously ko'ed as you put it isnt the topic. Its the fact that Pac fought a style nightmare for himself. Isnt that a challenge? Isnt that a risk?

[Frank Ducketts]

Originally Posted by PAC-BOY

SO what makes a fight risky?

All fights are risky when you get to both guys level Homer.

[Big Dunn]

Originally Posted by PAC-BOY

By fighting better opposition for starters...throughout his career. And mostly because he fought guys who were bigger. DLH (floyd wouldnt rematch him...he retired) Clottey bigger Margarito bigger ....Cotto at better weight and better condition. When Pac fought Cotto....floyd was blowing up a LW for the first time to WW (JMM)...what a risk taker! :WORD: Manny fought Hatton at Hattons weight. Floyd fought Rick Fatton! Oh and before Pac moved up Barrera, Morrals, JMM ,Solis
And in Mannys career he fought around 8 or so undefeated fighters...compared to Floyds 2 :WORD: even that is a risk! Small risk but challenging !!! And you say the same?

well if size equates to risk floyd fought the same type of fighters as he moved up ehich would mke them about the same, which is how I voted.

AGain, names by themselves are not good enough. Clottey, Hatton, Margs all fights where manny was a clear fairly large favorite. Again if manny is 4-1 over clottey and floyd is 4-1 over Ortiz, then the risk is equal. You can't just say well clottey is more risky just because its manny.

Undefeated is not necessarily a measure of risk. If floyd fought Bradley thats not as risky as fighting Sergio, who isn't undefeated.

The TS asked a question that most people gave their opinion on. I'm trying to make it less objective and more subjective by creating a measure or definiton of risk.

[TRTboy]

pac fought barrera, morales and marquez within 4 fights.

[PAC-BOY]

Originally Posted by Big Dunn

well if size equates to risk floyd fought the same type of fighters as he moved up ehich would mke them about the same, which is how I voted.

AGain, names by themselves are not good enough. Clottey, Hatton, Margs all fights where manny was a clear fairly large favorite. Again if manny is 4-1 over clottey and floyd is 4-1 over Ortiz, then the risk is equal. You can't just say well clottey is more risky just because its manny.

Undefeated is not necessarily a measure of risk. If floyd fought Bradley thats not as risky as fighting Sergio, who isn't undefeated.

The TS asked a question that most people gave their opinion on. I'm trying to make it less objective and more subjective by creating a measure or definiton of risk.

Well then i guess as every thing...it boils down to opinion. I dont think being the favored to win discredits the amount of risk involved. Floyd didnt fight Marg or Clottey. OR Cotto when he should have. Manny did! Just those three alone against manny being the smaller guy is a huge risk...despite the betting odds. I did say an undefeated fighter was a small risk. But an undefeated fighter can be that way for many reasons. It does have some significance but i see your point as well.

[Evol]

Originally Posted by IronDanHamza

So Baldomir was a risky fight for Mayweather then considering the size advantage I'm guessing?

BAldomir is shorter than Floyd, the hell u smoking on? Size advantage to me would be a guy like manny fighting a guy like marg.