How come Pacquiao never fought Guzman??

Didn't see this post @ 1st, but spot on. I was wondering why you posted that letter. I was confused for a second. :lol1:

Your as good as your last fight. MAB proved he was better than JMM but was robbed so this was the toughest opponent at that weight. MAB would of beaten Soto and Guzman. Why did Trinidad fight Whitaker? Pacquiao never fought someone as faded as that. Pac has a much better resume. Morales was pretty faded. But, yes Pac has a much better resume. He's a much greater fighter than Tito. Hell Floyd ranks higher than Tito too. But, like I said before they're no Tito when it comes to fighting risky fighters. The run that Tito had in 99-01, that type of run, hasn't been seen since. However, Pac had a pretty good run though from 08-09. But, his 06-07 run was kind of lame, and how his 2010-current run is just an embarrassment. I don't get what you trying to do with the Tito statement? Did you have a point of some kind?

Your as good as your last fight. MAB proved he was better than JMM but was robbed so this was the toughest opponent at that weight. MAB would of beaten Soto and Guzman. Why did Trinidad fight Whitaker? Pacquiao never fought someone as faded as that. Pac has a much better resume. Pac fought Morales because Morales exercised his right for a third fight. Pac was obligated to take a rubbermatch. Pac's 2007 was insignificant because he was tied down with a promotional battle between GB and TR. He couldnt fight anyone from the GB stable (Guzman's promoter) because of the court case. Thus he fought Solis. If you want to criticize him. You can criticize him for fighting Barrera the second time. But that was the only money fight that Pac had for 2007. For me, I dont blame him for taking that fight since it was just the first big fight that he had since 2006, and given the money he was spending for the congressional seat(which he lost), and the lawyer's fee, I felt that he needed to take the fight. And he fought Marquez immediately after that so that was acceptable to me.

So you're saying Guzman was too risky so was avoided for an easier fight in Solis? Possibly. None of us were part of Manny's camp so we wouldn't know why Solis was chosen. Most boxers and their management teams aren't actually looking for the hardest fight possible every fight.

MAB was coming of a disputed loss to JMM. Alot of people thought MAB won that fight. MAB was undefeated since Pac beat him the first time. Barrera was coming off a lost, also had weak showing against Juarez. I mean if you're going to go with disputed and what a lot of people thought then you have the mention the disputed win against Juarez who a lot of people thought he lost. Barrera was already faded, there was no need for a 2nd fight. It was actually unnecessary. Especially considering when there were more deserving, worthy foes.

pac-guzman just wasn't meant to be. they both want to fight each other but business and promoters prevented it from happening. ideally, it's a fight that should have happened but boxing as a sports is far from ideal. business is a big part of it and the presence of promoters is making it more difficult for some fights to happen the way boxing fans want it to be. let's be real here...pac did not duck guzman or vice versa.

MAB was coming of a disputed loss to JMM. Alot of people thought MAB won that fight. MAB was undefeated since Pac beat him the first time. What does that have to do with Pacquiao? The bottom line is, he not only dominated, but KO'ed Barrera while he still had something left in him. So why fight a clearly declining version of him when there were fresh guys like Guzman and Soto? Heck, people were even demanding Pacquiao-Valero more than a MAB rematch.

Solis was a replacement after the MAB fight fell through. They probably wanted someone easier so they could still settle with Golden Boy and get a rematch with MAB. So you're saying Guzman was too risky so was avoided for an easier fight in Solis?

They were useless in terms of providing close competitive boxing between two evenly matched fighters. And, that's all that should matter to boxing fans. Everything else is for the people that will get a cut of the pie. useless fights.

i can't be sure about the outcome of this fight if they fought. they pretty much have the same style. footwork, stamina, can turn things around from a difficult situation. they're both explosive. don't know why we didn't see a lot of guzman.

yes...hindsight is great aint it? what a wonderful tool for monday morning QBs like yourself It is great. Too bad I wasn't using it, making this post senseless.

Why are people saying he opted to fight Marquez instead? This is NOT true. Manny fought Marquez the second time in 2008. In 2007, he had four choices for the fall. Humberto Soto, Joan Guzman, Edwin Valero and a Barrera rematch. Soto: Just beat the crap out of Manny's little brother Joan Guzman: Coming off of a victory against Barrios Edwin Valero: As Manny put it, his resume consisted of cab drivers and wasn't worthy yet Marco Antonio Barrera: What's the point? Manny already KO'ed him, and he was coming off of a loss to Marquez. Obviously the best choices would be Soto because he beat up Manny's little brother and was a good name, along with Guzman who had a title. Manny chose Barrera, which was probably the dumbest choice of the four. Even Valero would have been better in my opinion. Sure it wouldn't have done that much for him, but neither did fighting Barrera again or Solis.

That's all fine and dandy. I don't give a pass to Floyd for choosing money fights over fighting the best fights and I don't give a pass for Pac either. It is what it is. I like one way more than the other but I treat both fighters the same. The third fight was Morales was useless, the 2nd fight with Barrera was useless. He should had fought Guzman/Soto around this time. They were useless in terms of providing close competitive boxing between two evenly matched fighters. They were very successful in making money though.

Sigh...Uselsess fights man but whatever. Explain after the 3rd fight with Morales, when he became Guzman mandatory why fight an unranked Solis instead of Guzman? Guzman would have been more money than the no-name Solis, and would since being an undefeated title holder in his 3rd division would have been better for his legacy than an un-ranked Solis. He could of had both but didn't...Why is that? Solis was a replacement after the MAB fight fell through. They probably wanted someone easier so they could still settle with Golden Boy and get a rematch with MAB.

You are reading something into my post that was not there. I want to see the best fights because I am a boxing fan. However, reality is the people making the fights happen are doing so because it is their job and they want to make as much as possible. Sometimes the biggest money maker is the best fight. Sometimes it isn't. That is just part of boxing. That's all fine and dandy. I don't give a pass to Floyd for choosing money fights over fighting the best fights and I don't give a pass for Pac either. It is what it is. I like one way more than the other but I treat both fighters the same. The third fight was Morales was useless, the 2nd fight with Barrera was useless. He should had fought Guzman/Soto around this time.

I guess it's just names now. It doesn't how matter if they were just faded as **** at the time of the fight. As long as if you were great at one polnt you could be shot to **** and it still will be considered great for your legacy to beat a shot fighter. I mean how great of a win is JCC for Kostya? Doesn't matter if JCC was a shot fighter. At one point in time he was a great fighter. smh.

Oh well there we go again acting like Floyd fans. I hope Pac pays you well, since you must be part of the team to care about how much money they make, not about making the best fights possible. You are reading something into my post that was not there. I want to see the best fights because I am a boxing fan. However, reality is the people making the fights happen are doing so because it is their job and they want to make as much as possible. Sometimes the biggest money maker is the best fight. Sometimes it isn't. That is just part of boxing.

And legacy wise barrera and morales are lightyears better than some obscure dominican. Who lost to fuking funeka by the way! The 3rd Morales fight and 2nd Barrera fight did nothing for Pac's legacy, IMO. Personally, I would have prefered to have seen him fight Guzman but as I stated I'm really not bothered the fight didn't happen. But apparently he chose payday's instead. And that's cool.

He is the same as every fighter, a little of both. Manny wasn't rich at this point by any means. The fight with Morales was his first million dollar payday. He was just really trying to use MAB and Morales drawing power as a springboard for his own stand alone PPV career. Sigh...Uselsess fights man but whatever. Explain after the 3rd fight with Morales, when he became Guzman mandatory why fight an unranked Solis instead of Guzman? Guzman would have been more money than the no-name Solis, and would since being an undefeated title holder in his 3rd division would have been better for his legacy than an un-ranked Solis. He could of had both but didn't...Why is that?

He is the same as every fighter, a little of both. Manny wasn't rich at this point by any means. The fight with Morales was his first million dollar payday. He was just really trying to use MAB and Morales drawing power as a springboard for his own stand alone PPV career. Oh, ok. Thanks for clearing that up. There's a rumour going round Pacqiuao doesn't fight for money and only legacy.