A fighter coming off from a loss. Do you believe on this crap?

A fighter coming off a loss is never the same fighter like he once was. May i ask then is it ultimately throughout his entire career? What i mean is should he avoid fighting an elite: EVER!? If that is the case then maybe he should retire. Hatton Hoya, cotto shouldn't have faced pac knowing they ain't the same anymore. Then it could have robbed us watching this great fights unfold and these idiots in the forum would jump on the gun and label pac as a coward for avoiding this fighters. Pac then, is not on a win-win situation on whatever scenario that may happen. And don't blame pac for beating their asses after a loss. Weather this term is true coz like i said it's only mab and clottey who came off from a loss. Don't blame arum or the fighter's own promoters. Blame these fighters themselves. They know in their heart with the sacrifices that they did in the ring would help them win against pac, but still they lost. They have their chance, they took up the challenge, prepared for it but still lost. Are we going to blame pac for it, or like do we blame mayweather for hatton's loss to pac, coz like what this floydettes saying all along floyd "softened him up" no matter how ridiculous it may sound. Is he softened all the way up to the fight with pac then?! Jeez. Pac won on this men fair and square. They signed the contract, knew pac's capabilities, prepared for it but came up short. They gave their hearts to it. Saying they lost because they came from a loss is disrespect to this men's preparedness in facing pac and disrespect to pac as well as it seems you will never ever give pac his due credit. It's such a shame. And this is not coming from a pactard "ts is a pactard".. yeah i am a pacfan. But this goes out to all fighters as well, whoever he may be. Respect a fighters win and respect a fighters loss and don't come up with excuses that in the first place shouldn't be an excuse either.

Is it jealousy OR racism? Or are you claiming both? :lol1: I guess the Nazi's were jealous of the Jews. The KKK are jealous of the Blacks. Depends on who i'm referring to. If i'm talking about you, for example, definitely BOTH apply to you.

You gotta remember that the first post used Pac and Froch as examples. I know, but I don't understand why every post becomes about dismissing Pac/Floyd's accomplishments instead of actually discussing the thread's topic.

I don't know why you keep going back to Pac. Why do all these threads get infested with Pac/Floyd haters? I was hoping you could explain your point of view w/o sounding like a psychologist/lawyer; in other words, a point of view based on something concrete like a fighter's age, size, or speed, and not things like heart or mental state. You gotta remember that the first post used Pac and Froch as examples.

Pac has the perfect list of opponents that relate to this subject.In fact,they are consecutive.I doubt it is a coincidence. My friend can tell you from his direct experience training and helping boxers... but then again,you would still fail to believe him as well (he has been affiliated with elite fighters whom I won't name). Again-go back and read my previous posts that you have obviously neglected to read,since you didn't respond to them.I don't feel like parroting myself too much longer to people who can't seem to let things "sink in". Everyone here seems to have a friend who's in the business. As for Pac's "careful selection" of opponents, this is just stuff people come up with AFTER Pacquiao wins. We all knew Oscar was old and therefore would be weight drained against Pac, but we still picked Oscar to win. It was Pac that came up 2 weight divisions. And Hatton was the top fighter at 140, not exactly a safe choice. Cotto was arguably the best fighter after Mayweather at 147 and many of the experts felt Pac was in over his head choosing to fight Cotto. People also come up with excuses to dismiss Mayweather's victories. Some are valid - Mosley was old - but could Marquez and Hatton have beaten the 135/140 version of Floyd? It would be more competitive, but would they have actually won?

ts is a pactard. pac was undeniably great in his super feather weight days but light weight through welter weight has been carefully directed. LOL-be careful-the "pactards won't notice that you complimented Pacquiao-they only notice negativity being directed towards his recent fights and get agitated!

I don't know why you keep going back to Pac. Why do all these threads get infested with Pac/Floyd haters? I was hoping you could explain your point of view w/o sounding like a psychologist/lawyer; in other words, a point of view based on something concrete like a fighter's age, size, or speed, and not things like heart or mental state. Pac has the perfect list of opponents that relate to this subject.In fact,they are consecutive.I doubt it is a coincidence. My friend can tell you from his direct experience training and helping boxers... but then again,you would still fail to believe him as well (he has been affiliated with elite fighters whom I won't name). Again-go back and read my previous posts that you have obviously neglected to read,since you didn't respond to them.I don't feel like parroting myself too much longer to people who can't seem to let things "sink in".

ts is a pactard. pac was undeniably great in his super feather weight days but light weight through welter weight has been carefully directed. I agree.Pac's earlier career outweighs his current career imo.It seemed less paved and he appeared more eager to fight anyone out there....nowadays his career has more protection than birth control!

If I have to explain this again after a series of posts,then I give up.Re-read my previous posts,maybe then you will understand....or maybe you will still be in denial and believe in your "that's just an excuse" theory to glorify some of Pac's pattern picked opponents.For me and many others,there is a definite pattern of opponent and circumstances with them-only a fool cannot see it. I don't know why you keep going back to Pac. Why do all these threads get infested with Pac/Floyd haters? I was hoping you could explain your point of view w/o sounding like a psychologist/lawyer; in other words, a point of view based on something concrete like a fighter's age, size, or speed, and not things like heart or mental state.

Paul Williams' next opponent will be expected to win based on stupid idiots' theory. You'd wonder why promoters still had to make such fights happen. Training and long hours of preparation mean nothing according to these stupid idiots' assumptions. I'm glad I'm not into this stupid theory and I can still enjoy boxing as it's always been. So make no mistake. If P Will loses in his next fight, no credit will be given to his opponent. Otherwise, his opponent gotta be one of the weakest fighters in the world. See how stupid it is? I would say,unless William's next opponent is a complete bum,I would not bet money on William's.Too much to lose and there will be question marks over him after that ko....that is the kind of ko that can change a fighter.That is why these fighters normally don't fight elite competition directly after a severe ko-it is negligent to the fighter's safety.

ts is a pactard. pac was undeniably great in his super feather weight days but light weight through welter weight has been carefully directed.

"mental state/ psychological state" - what does this mean exactly? If you're talking about fights that occur once a fighter's gotten old, then "coming off a loss" is just an excuse. They're losing b/c they're old. If I have to explain this again after a series of posts,then I give up.Re-read my previous posts,maybe then you will understand....or maybe you will still be in denial and believe in your "that's just an excuse" theory to glorify some of Pac's pattern picked opponents.For me and many others,there is a definite pattern of opponent and circumstances with them-only a fool cannot see it.

ur one of the idiots im talkin about and yea, ricky hatton was doing great, but he lost to pac because he could never beat him to begin with and how quickly did jones run back to the ring? was'nt it obvious he was pumped? i guarantee you he trained his ass off to erase that defeat by tarvers hand, but like i said, people can become too eager and hungry and at that point might miss the whole picture, but they are in the best shape of their lives and mentally bloodthirsty getting ko'd twice in a row after giving your all like that is what will shatter most mens ego's, but the first loss is rejuvanating for most LOL!!!! Yeah,I'm an idiot...yet you say Hatton looked great after his stoppage from Floyd! Unbelievable... Again-you said fighters are better after a loss-Jones got ktfo and Hatton looked like dung against Juan Lazcano,who he got sent on queer street against! How was he not able to take powder puff Lazcano's punches,yet ate everything Kostya Tszyu dished out to him???? Fighters CAN be changed after getting knocked out....why you fail to notice this is beyond me....yet you call me an idiot...lmfao btw-do you think Jones looked "bloodthirsty" as you say in the 3rd fight with Tarver-lmao! You are a true clown.

Paul Williams' next opponent will be expected to win based on stupid idiots' theory. You'd wonder why promoters still had to make such fights happen. Training and long hours of preparation mean nothing according to these stupid idiots' assumptions. I'm glad I'm not into this stupid theory and I can still enjoy boxing as it's always been. So make no mistake. If P Will loses in his next fight, no credit will be given to his opponent. Otherwise, his opponent gotta be one of the weakest fighters in the world. See how stupid it is?

ur one of the idiots im talkin about and yea, ricky hatton was doing great, but he lost to pac because he could never beat him to begin with and how quickly did jones run back to the ring? was'nt it obvious he was pumped? i guarantee you he trained his ass off to erase that defeat by tarvers hand, but like i said, people can become too eager and hungry and at that point might miss the whole picture, but they are in the best shape of their lives and mentally bloodthirsty getting ko'd twice in a row after giving your all like that is what will shatter most mens ego's, but the first loss is rejuvanating for most Jones lost to Tarver and everyone else b/c he was old. It had nothing to do with eagerness, hunger, or ego. A prime Jones would have destroyed Johnson and Danny Green. As for Hatton, he was coming of a couple of wins and looked good against Paulie, but like you said Pac is just at another level.

lmao-so Ricky Hatton looked at his best after Floyd stopped him? You must have preached that rhetoric to Roy Jones (I am not counting the Montell Griffin fight) cause he hasn't been "prime" since his first ko either,yet you seem to think these beat-up fighters will be even better than ever! lol ur one of the idiots im talkin about and yea, ricky hatton was doing great, but he lost to pac because he could never beat him to begin with and how quickly did jones run back to the ring? was'nt it obvious he was pumped? i guarantee you he trained his ass off to erase that defeat by tarvers hand, but like i said, people can become too eager and hungry and at that point might miss the whole picture, but they are in the best shape of their lives and mentally bloodthirsty getting ko'd twice in a row after giving your all like that is what will shatter most mens ego's, but the first loss is rejuvanating for most

We are talking different circumstances-it isn't so black and white as you are implying.In fact,what I am talking isn't about just a mere loss by a debatable decision...I am talking about losses that may have damaged the fighter's mental state/psychological state and changed the way they approach fights.In some cases,when you are knocked out drastically-your punch resistance is severely changed...with fighters who are normally aggressive,they seem to fight more cautious. Manny's opponents were only 1-2 fights from taking severe beatings...they weren't just faded back into the mix of fighting the elite-they were thrown in the deep end,and if they had anything left-they were asked for a catchweight just for good measure and advantage for Pac.I personally like to see fair fights.... "mental state/ psychological state" - what does this mean exactly? If you're talking about fights that occur once a fighter's gotten old, then "coming off a loss" is just an excuse. They're losing b/c they're old.

I had Dirrell winning as well against Froch, but Froch did lose to Kessler. However, Dirrell did become more aggressive against Abraham, Froch became less reckless and boxed more. They both clearly learned from their losses, instead of using them as an excuse to lose again. We are talking different circumstances-it isn't so black and white as you are implying.In fact,what I am talking isn't about just a mere loss by a debatable decision...I am talking about losses that may have damaged the fighter's mental state/psychological state and changed the way they approach fights.In some cases,when you are knocked out drastically-your punch resistance is severely changed...with fighters who are normally aggressive,they seem to fight more cautious. Manny's opponents were only 1-2 fights from taking severe beatings...they weren't just faded back into the mix of fighting the elite-they were thrown in the deep end,and if they had anything left-they were asked for a catchweight just for good measure and advantage for Pac.I personally like to see fair fights....

Yes just like what you say there's a lot of ifs and buts, But i don't believe in fighters being broken just because of losing that precious 0... If that's the case Ali should have stopped when he lost his ZERO to Frazier, or Leonard when he lost it to Duran, or Cesar Chavez when he lost it to Randall and many other greats, if this fighters stopped fighting they wouldn't have reached their full potentials and wouldn't have been the ATG's that they truly are... You can NEVER say every fighter is effected the same way-there are certain circumstances in fights where ko's will damage fighters.To ignore this is negligent-that is why Cotto was put in against a bum for the belt.In fact,most fighters are put in against easy fights after beatdowns to guage where they are at in their careers both physically and mentally.The idea is to fade the beaten fighter into better competition-not throw them in the deep end when they are not ready. The era of boxing you are talking is a much different one with fighters who are in fact ATGs.I wouldn't consider the opponents of Manny's to be as elite as the fighters you have mentioned.

I personally believe and had Dirrell WINNING the Froch fight and the similarity between both Dirrell and Froch's losses were that they both felt they won their losses (they both felt they got robbed by being in the opponents hometown)....not to mention that they didn't get ko'd! VERY big difference in losses that we are talking about-don't be so oblivious. Your "prime" can certainly be ended by one devastating loss.Fighters become more hesitant when they would initially go all out,because they are worried about getting hit again or second guessing themselves.Punch resistance can ultimately drop after a major ko as well and a fighter can be more inclined to get sparked by punches that never used to phase them.... I had Dirrell winning as well against Froch, but Froch did lose to Kessler. However, Dirrell did become more aggressive against Abraham, Froch became less reckless and boxed more. They both clearly learned from their losses, instead of using them as an excuse to lose again.