Why is there a double standard with Pac?

Both of them have better resumes?? Campbell: Funeka, J Diaz, Acorro, Quiles, Zegan, Hlatswayo.. Are you serious? Guzman: Ameth Diaz (Whoever he is), Soto, Davis, Barrios, Jauregui, Jandaeng. ..... lol agreed, the barrera, morales, and marquez pacquiao fought would have all beaten both guzman and cambell at the time imho

I wouldn't say Pac wasn't fighting for legacy. You're telling me fighting Cotto whom just last year everybody was talking about Cotto being the fight that needs to happen with Mayweather as a non legacy fight? He's fighting him for the 7th division to be champion at. Cotto has one freaking loss and everybody's saying that Margarito took something from Cotto. Well let me ask this. Then does that mean the Torrecampo fight took something from Manny? How about the UD loss to Morales? Then how about the Singsurat fight? Cotto gets one loss and all of a sudden he's done? Hatton gets one loss (To Mayweather no less) and he's done?? But it's okay that Pacquiao losses to MOrales and 2 unknowns to keep getting better? Whatever happened to "Learn from your losses?" It seems like Pacquiao is the only fighter to have the *sarcasm*privilege to have that. The rest are: It has taken something from that fighter. It's just interesting to know what the difference is honestly. Since by all rights and accounts that first fight with Morales, nobody would've blamed Pacquiao for declining after that.

I wouldn't say Pac wasn't fighting for legacy. You're telling me fighting Cotto whom just last year everybody was talking about Cotto being the fight that needs to happen with Mayweather as a non legacy fight? He's fighting him for the 7th division to be champion at. Cotto has one freaking loss and everybody's saying that Margarito took something from Cotto. Well let me ask this. Then does that mean the Torrecampo fight took something from Manny? How about the UD loss to Morales? Then how about the Singsurat fight? Cotto gets one loss and all of a sudden he's done? Hatton gets one loss (To Mayweather no less) and he's done?? But it's okay that Pacquiao losses to MOrales and 2 unknowns to keep getting better? Whatever happened to "Learn from your losses?" It seems like Pacquiao is the only fighter to have the *sarcasm*privilege to have that. The rest are: It has taken something from that fighter.

read Pink's post....de la hoya PICKED pacquiao...he coulda manned up and fought the winner of margs/cotto...but he picked manny...how he came in that night was on him right on man good looking out but you know that oscar was not in true form and it had little to do with manny it was the weight that Oscar agreed to fight at. so it was oscars fault. He shuld have manned up and fought margs or cotto

pac ducked bruce lee in the 70s fukin pussy

read Pink's post....de la hoya PICKED pacquiao...he coulda manned up and fought the winner of margs/cotto...but he picked manny...how he came in that night was on him "Fanny Pac cherry picked the sorriest mofo at 135! Campbell woulda beat his ass! And he cherrypicked old, weight drained DLH who had already been beaten by Mr boat buyer. And we all know Hatton was there to be had by ANYBODY. He wasn't the champ of shit at 140. Bradley and Nate both school Fanny Pac! he's got nothin on Mr boat buyer ya hear me? Nothin!" :rofl::rofl::rofl:

I hear you man but honestly are you going to tell me that the Oscar he fought was in great shape and not weight drained. Freddie Roch said it himself that he knew he was weight drained in the Hatton pac 24-7 I think what bothers people is this whole catchweight issue. He is taking advantage of the situations to favor him in every way. Lets see him rematch JMM and 135 or fight Valero at 135. Maybe he isnt proven but youmust have forgotten that Pac won the title back in the day as a fill in everyone needs a shot. Pac has joined the golden boy club. He only fights for checks not for legacy

LMAO at these stupidass double standard threads. Haters hate and huggers hug. It happens wit every name fighter cuz none of em are universally liked.

Because usually, to some people, Pac's opponents have looked bad or didnt perform as well in their previous fights, where as Pac has continued to look good fight after fight due to the clever selections of Roach and Arum.

It seems as if every time Pacquiao fights somebody it's always.. "Well it's because he's dried up, washed, out past his prime" and this one I always love "His opponents been in way too many wars.." Which is the case of what people are saying with his hopefully upcoming fight with Cotto. Pac's been in wars himself how come nobody ever takes that into account? Why is there always a bad reason for every opponent he fights? Or a reason that people can't just give him his due for moving up in weight and dominating as he has been? That he's avoiding somebody?? It's gonna be the same with Mosley if he decides to fight him. Too old, past his prime, etc.. What is it gonna take for some fanboys besides the pacmaniacs, to give him respect? Fight Valero? Marquez again? Who is he avoiding?? Let's see.. Valero's last 6 opponents.. Pitalua, Shimada, Zavaleta, Honmo, Lozada, Mosquera, Pac's last 6 opponents, Hatton, De La Hoya, Diaz, Marquez, Barrera, Solis And five of them are future hall of famers. Marquez's last 6: J. Diaz, Casamayor, Pacquiao (arguably lost), Juarez, Barrera, Jaca. Juan Diaz's last 6: Marquez, Katsidis, Campbell, Julio Diaz, Freitas, Angulo, Let's see.. Is there anyone else that Pacquiao is evidently avoiding that has a better resume?? mosley would fight him tomorrow if he could,and hurt him too

nate campbell and joan guzman who cares if nate's biggest win is juan diaz or that joan guzman likes buffets...its manny's fault he never fought them Both of them have better resumes?? Campbell: Funeka, J Diaz, Acorro, Quiles, Zegan, Hlatswayo.. Are you serious? Guzman: Ameth Diaz (Whoever he is), Soto, Davis, Barrios, Jauregui, Jandaeng. .....