Simply put, Manny Pacquiao is a leopard and Floyd Mayweather is a lion.

Manny quits on his stool in the second vs Floyd, the mans level of cowardice knows no bounds.

Who are the Tigers and Bears?? Oh MY!!!

don't know why floyd apologists don't seem to get tired arguing pu55y boy floyd is better than pacman. it would be much better if they direct all that energy into making pbf fight pacman. it seems to be okay to them that the fight never happens. fantasy fights are enough. these are the same clowns who keep telling us floyd is the best. here they are being denied the chance by their idol to see him school pac in the ring. i'd be furious if i were a floyd fan and would organize a worldwide boycott and start picketing around the guy's house. pbf keeps screwing them up by having to justify every roadblock pbf dumps in the fight. it must be pretty tiring to do that. ending these debates is so simple. make them fight and see who is the best. but pbf can't seem to find the courage to fight the amateurish midget from asia. you can say floyd is the best all you want, but who is going to believe that when he still hasn't found balls to fight pacman? "take the test and we'll have a fight", according to pbf just a few months ago. now he wants 80/20 split. what a coward. :haha: http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/b8rQ4pEvE0M/default.jpg :bigeyes:

When the OP is right, he's right http://i43.tinypic.com/34hcb9z.jpg Oh sh**, that's it, game over.

:lol1: :lol1: floyd is such a f@g :lol1: funny but true that floyd's a f@g. :lol1:

In the lion world, the females r the true hunters ;)

When the OP is right, he's right http://i43.tinypic.com/34hcb9z.jpg LOL....brilliant

I can't really agree w/ 1A and 1B because numbers show that the best tiger would have almost every advantage over the best lion. Sure, maybe a lion can get lucky and win one for the pride, but 9/10 or 8/10 times, the Tiger should be victorious. So for me that's hardly a competition. I think the only reason a Lion seems to have a chance in people's minds is because the Lions have had better "marketing" through the years. I had this same convo, last week, with some co-workers who didn't believe for a second that a tiger would beat a lion in a one on one fight. I think the only advantage a lion has is it's mane, which would slow down the process of the tiger breaking his neck. Other than that I agree, a tiger destroys a lion.

When the OP is right, he's right http://i43.tinypic.com/34hcb9z.jpg

I would say Floyd is like a dragon that pisses lava, and Pacquiao is like.... Krillen from DBZ, only on steroids.

Mayweather is not a lion, he won't even talk about Martinez, whether he bests him or not. Mayweather is a black bear, he picks cherries. Obviously strong, but when a Wolverine such as Pacquiao is around, he will climb trees and run like the wind. Floyd doesnt like talking about Sergio does he and will try change the topic of converation if a interviewee brings the name Sergio up. Pac fans get a lot of critism but Floyd fans do make up some silly threads dont they?

While I have always hated cliches one thing springs to mind, can a leopard change its spots? The obvious answer is no, I say no but a leopard can bathe in mud to temporarily mask them, then when the rain season comes that mud is washed away and the leopard is laid bare; spots and all. Now while many thought we had a lion, the kind of beast that commands the respect of the entire plain, I initially thought we had a leopard. Alas I was tricked, but I believe the rain season has come and laid bare the reality. We have a leopard, and it certainly cannot change it's spots. Now some will say a leopard is what we want; what we need. Elegance is guaranteed with style and panache in equal measure, and you also get a predator. But really, is leopard top predator? Of course not. While many fear it there is a select few who don't, and even more than that instill the kind of fear in the leopard that is reserved only for the lowliest of herbivores. Tell me this, if leopards are so formidable why do they need to climb trees? To get off the plain where the true beasts rule supreme. Now I am all for leopards, but people need to realise that if we really want to rule the plain we need lions, tigers, rhinos etc. Not lowly leopards. You are obviously unaware that every lion expert agrees that the lion is actually one of the most cowardly of the major beasts, and it's the lioness which is the brave one of the family. The lioness also does all the hunting, unless the lion is solitary, having been driven out of the group. There are many well known accounts of hunters and explorers, having found themselves in the presence of a lion, who have chased it away merely by making a sudden movement or shouting and waving arms.

Well, to me they're about the same. They're like 1A and 1B. They have about the same bite force. I like Tigers more though. Out of 10 fights between a Lion and a Tiger, i'm sure the Tiger would win more often. tiger vs lion is a mismatch, tigers hunt by themselves, they are beasts, lions are spoiled brats who fight about 10 times their entire lives and then just sit around all day while a tiger will fight everyday besides being much better fighters, tigers are stronger, bigger, faster and i have not seen a report of a lion beating a tiger, but im sure there is one, my point is just it's very rare i mean there are reports of female tigers making male lions their *****es, just no contest

Well, to me they're about the same. They're like 1A and 1B. They have about the same bite force. I like Tigers more though. Out of 10 fights between a Lion and a Tiger, i'm sure the Tiger would win more often. I can't really agree w/ 1A and 1B because numbers show that the best tiger would have almost every advantage over the best lion. Sure, maybe a lion can get lucky and win one for the pride, but 9/10 or 8/10 times, the Tiger should be victorious. So for me that's hardly a competition. I think the only reason a Lion seems to have a chance in people's minds is because the Lions have had better "marketing" through the years.

You do know that most experts agree that 1v1, a tiger would kill a lion right? Well, to me they're about the same. They're like 1A and 1B. They have about the same bite force. I like Tigers more though. Out of 10 fights between a Lion and a Tiger, i'm sure the Tiger would win more often.

"Tigers normally balance on their hind legs and use both front paws to fight, giving them a huge advantage. Tigers also use "trickery", keep their heads back, and use well thought-out moves when fighting, while lions are known for blindly charging." Floyd=Tiger.

The Leopard is not even better than the Tiger, who's second to the Lion. What are you talking about. King of the Jungle. Remember who that title belongs to, Animal experts. You do know that most experts agree that 1v1, a tiger would kill a lion right?

I like Tigers more than Lions though. Tigers are beasts, Bengal Tiger is probably better than the Lion. Tigers would crush Leopards easily.

Pick up your brain at the keebler factory. looooool, you still butthurt I owned you in this thread? :lol1: get a life you troll. :peeright:

King of the Jungle. Remember who that title belongs to, Animal experts.