8 fights against 3 hall of famers

What happens when we get to the 20's? Does that go from 2021-2030, and if so, are we in a new modern calender?:lol1: what are you talking about

Well done! a lot of flomos failed to answer this simple question.:banana: to be honest dude I work midnights, can't just sit around all night. and dude I'm not a flomo, I have more sense and logic then some of these dudes out here, I just tell it like I see it, just happens I'm a mayweather fan.

rephrase that dude. and what does this pertain to. decade is ten years, and depending on who you ask, depends on when it starts and ends. as far as I'm concerned a decade would be for example 2001-2010, based off the fact our modern calendar started in the year 1, but some people would argue 2000-2009, that's based off when we talk about the 60's. decade or the 70's, etc we consider those decades from 60-69 and so forth. Well done! a lot of flomos failed to answer this simple question.:banana:

rephrase that dude. and what does this pertain to. decade is ten years, and depending on who you ask, depends on when it starts and ends. as far as I'm concerned a decade would be for example 2001-2010, based off the fact our modern calendar started in the year 1, but some people would argue 2000-2009, that's based off when we talk about the 60's. decade or the 70's, etc we consider those decades from 60-69 and so forth. What happens when we get to the 20's? Does that go from 2021-2030, and if so, are we in a new modern calender?:lol1:

:rofl:..............WTF is this? It took him 16 minutes and 5 seconds to find his lil sister.:D

rephrase that dude. and what does this pertain to. decade is ten years, and depending on who you ask, depends on when it starts and ends. as far as I'm concerned a decade would be for example 2001-2010, based off the fact our modern calendar started in the year 1, but some people would argue 2000-2009, that's based off when we talk about the 60's. decade or the 70's, etc we consider those decades from 60-69 and so forth. :rofl:..............WTF is this?

If you can answer this simple question without asking your kindergarten sister, you win. How many years in one decade and when this is start and end? rephrase that dude. and what does this pertain to. decade is ten years, and depending on who you ask, depends on when it starts and ends. as far as I'm concerned a decade would be for example 2001-2010, based off the fact our modern calendar started in the year 1, but some people would argue 2000-2009, that's based off when we talk about the 60's. decade or the 70's, etc we consider those decades from 60-69 and so forth.

lol so wins = prime? prime equals at your very best, your peak. just stop dude my god. every boxer Pac ever faced was prime, there end thread, straighleft's knowledge supersedes all others. was he prime when Khan beat him too. If you can answer this simple question without asking your kindergarten sister, you win. How many years in one decade and when this is start and end?

Castillo beat Floyd, 8 rounds to 4. well then Castillo is guaranteed a spot in the hof. explain how Castillo beat mayweather. landing arm punches? getting your punches rolled, getting beat on the inside. Mayweather beat Castillo at his own game not once but twice

:sleeping: Barrera won his next 8 fights after the Morales fight then after the Pacquiao fight he won his next 6 fights. LOL past prime your ass. I thought my boxing knowledge was like a primary school in comparison. I'm so happy there were others like.......... lol so wins = prime? prime equals at your very best, your peak. just stop dude my god. every boxer Pac ever faced was prime, there end thread, straighleft's knowledge supersedes all others. was he prime when Khan beat him too.

not a flomo just telling it how I see it, not living in a fantasy world like you. and to reply to the other dude how long do you think boxers stay in their prime? 61 fight prime? Because Barerra beat kelley, hamed and Morales he had to be prime. Kelley is no feat, hamed didn't come to box thought he could do like he had been, and Barerra at that point had Morales number, so no Barerra was not prime. Pac is doing his thing, no doubt he turned into an animal, but its not only who you beat, its when you beat them. :sleeping: Barrera won his next 8 fights after the Morales fight then after the Pacquiao fight he won his next 6 fights. LOL past prime your ass. I thought my boxing knowledge was like a primary school in comparison. I'm so happy there were others like..........

We don't know yet. If Castillo makes it to the HOF, and Hatton makes it to he HOF. Then Mayweather would 6 fights against 5 HOF'ers. Not bad. Of course this depends if Castillo and Hatton make it to the HOF. Cause Mosley, DLH, Marquez are future HOF'ers, I think. Castillo beat Floyd, 8 rounds to 4.

Another butt hurt flomo here. Take note, it wont change the fact no matter how you try..Floyd is a coward and Pac resume will shet Floyd resume bigtime. not a flomo just telling it how I see it, not living in a fantasy world like you. and to reply to the other dude how long do you think boxers stay in their prime? 61 fight prime? Because Barerra beat kelley, hamed and Morales he had to be prime. Kelley is no feat, hamed didn't come to box thought he could do like he had been, and Barerra at that point had Morales number, so no Barerra was not prime. Pac is doing his thing, no doubt he turned into an animal, but its not only who you beat, its when you beat them.

Wow really, is the hate for Pacquaio that bad that now even his early wins are being discredited and re-visioned?

Barerra and Morales were both past their prime, Manny did beat them though. its not only who you beat but its when you beat them. was it or is it pacs fault he was fought boxers at their career low points, maybe then again maybe not. I put blame on Arum and Manny just follows along collecting checks. so he beat "bigger" guys, its not about size to an extent. Marg is slow, DLH was drained and slow, Hatton is not much bigger than him, Clottey is huge but slow and defensive minded. I mean he has the names on his resume, but is he beating prime versions on these guys doubtful. Marquez was prime the first two times, diaz was prime even though he is ****ty, But it really don't matter, the names are their and the fan.boys will justify every win. Barrera past his prime? Are you talking about the 2nd fight? If you are referring to their first fight, that refined and polished version of Barrera was definitely in his prime.

Barerra and Morales were both past their prime, Manny did beat them though. its not only who you beat but its when you beat them. was it or is it pacs fault he was fought boxers at their career low points, maybe then again maybe not. I put blame on Arum and Manny just follows along collecting checks. so he beat "bigger" guys, its not about size to an extent. Marg is slow, DLH was drained and slow, Hatton is not much bigger than him, Clottey is huge but slow and defensive minded. I mean he has the names on his resume, but is he beating prime versions on these guys doubtful. Marquez was prime the first two times, diaz was prime even though he is ****ty, But it really don't matter, the names are their and the fan.boys will justify every win. Another butt hurt flomo here. Take note, it wont change the fact no matter how you try..Floyd is a coward and Pac resume will shet Floyd resume bigtime.

screw the 3rd Terrible fight, it's a win but not impressive the rest of those fights are legit Barrera pulled a Mosley, but was game in his previous fight JMM robbed Barrera past prime Terrible beat Pac prime JMM lost twice prime Barrera almost got killed just shows how great Pac and Terrible are Pac beat all these guys twice What does that have to do with Pacquiao? And no, JMM beat Barrera...the knockdown whether you count it or not would not have made a difference. :nonono:

Hatton and Castillo will both get in. possibly Corrales and Gatti if anything based off their tragic deaths, Judah could make a case for being undisputed Welter champ. but all those names are well down the line and there are still boxers more deserving in front

Barerra and Morales were both past their prime, Manny did beat them though. its not only who you beat but its when you beat them. was it or is it pacs fault he was fought boxers at their career low points, maybe then again maybe not. I put blame on Arum and Manny just follows along collecting checks. so he beat "bigger" guys, its not about size to an extent. Marg is slow, DLH was drained and slow, Hatton is not much bigger than him, Clottey is huge but slow and defensive minded. I mean he has the names on his resume, but is he beating prime versions on these guys doubtful. Marquez was prime the first two times, diaz was prime even though he is ****ty, But it really don't matter, the names are their and the fan.boys will justify every win.

Pac fought a slow, fat, and old Barrera twice in two divisions which Barrera should never belong in. The Hall of Famer was past his prime definitely when he chose the midget as an easy fight. He lost due to Pac's unsportsmanlike behavior hitting behind the head, low blows, and headbutts were his tactics to win against the great Barrera. Pac fought an anorexic and bulimic, over-the-hill, past his prime, and dehydrated Morales. Morales exposed Pacquiao to be the hyped job that he was at Featherweight. Only reason why Pac won against this Hall of Famer is he dehydrated the aging Morales three times. Pac lost all two matches against Marquez. Pac never improved as a fighter. He is and will be remembered as a one dimensional, one arm, little midget who won through a split decision against the Hall of Famer Marquez. Pacquiao is a hype job. Anyone he fought were hand delivered to him to win easily against. Come at me, bro! Pac fought Barrera in a division he doesn't belong? Pac fought Morales in a division he doesn't belong? and yet when he fought at the division you think he was not weighed drained he got kicked his butt twice back to 130. Pac beat Marquez once and one was a draw. If you want to discredit Pac, do it properly by not looking like an idiot and ignorant clueless fool.