Manny pacquiao: The man who reinvented boxing

"I say this to you today and I really believe it and its true, that since Ali, there hasn***8217;t been a better fighter, better boxer than Floyd Mayweather. This young man has the teqhnique and the ability which puts him in my book ahead of such greats as Sugar Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Marvin Hagler and all the other great fighters that I***8217;ve seen in my career. And there is NOBODY that combines all the skills of Floyd mayweather." -BOB ARUM :dance: Arum said this when he was promoting Floyd...by the time Pac was his main guy, he said Pacquiao is the greatest fighter he ever promoted. So the point of your post is?

Youre right, i just dont believe human beings (none ever on record has) have growth spurts at 28, 29. I believe he's a cheater and because of my background in pro sports, you know when someone at that age starts to get faster and stronger, they cheated and it takes away from the guys who do it the right way, takes food out of those mouths who trained and worked hard and did it the right way, so I hate those guys cause ive seen them fool fans and take jobs away from hard workers. He cheated on his wife and kids, its not a far reach to believe he would do the same in sports. Remember when arod was blasting homeruns? and other short stops were hitting 50+ homeruns and people thought it was natural? :sad2: then he gave up a fight he claims to have wanted and 40mil over a drug test.......come on and now he hasnt had a ko since he's been doing testing............. Bro, that's pure speculation on your behalf. You can say what you want but it is not matter of fact that Pacquiao did any cheating. But I agree. Shame on those who have been caught undoubtedly cheating. And as far as him cheating on his wife, who's to say Floyd didn't? Pro athletes of all sports are known as heavy adult trists. MJ was a chronic cheater but never was accused of cheating within the sport of basketball. So that's not a valid arguement.

Pacquiao relies heavily on his athleticism. He has TERRIBLE balance, he lunges, and he drops his hands when he throws. SAY IT AGAIN! :hail::boxing::hail:

Pacquiao relies heavily on his athleticism. He has TERRIBLE balance, he lunges, and he drops his hands when he throws. And there's never been a southpaw as adept at using angles as Pacquiao? What about Calzaghe?

Let's break it down: Didnt Ali reinvent boxing? How can Pacquiao reinvent it? Is Pacquiao better than Ali? The writer doesn't know SH*T about Boxing. :boxing: :boxing:

Didn't this same author do one of these about Floyd a couple weeks ago and the pacfans decided he DKSAB and was an idiot flom?

"I say this to you today and I really believe it and its true, that since Ali, there hasn’t been a better fighter, better boxer than Floyd Mayweather. This young man has the teqhnique and the ability which puts him in my book ahead of such greats as Sugar Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Marvin Hagler and all the other great fighters that I’ve seen in my career. And there is NOBODY that combines all the skills of Floyd mayweather." -BOB ARUM :dance: Yeah, Floyd is also another boxer that is held with high regard even by the people who have been around watching special fighters of yesteryear. But this thread isn't about Floyd or his comparison to Manny. So..........?

I have talked to multiple people (family & family friends) who have followed boxing closely since the 60's. They ALL say Manny can hang and bang with the best around his weight. Guys that have watched Pryor Leonard Hearns Hagler Duran so on and so forth. I'll side with those guys opinions over the 20 somethings who post on this forum.

I kind of agree and disagree. He definitely has more skill than people give him credit for. The way he creates and uses angles is incredible and certainly something to see. However I could never say that he has reinvented boxing.

Lunging in has its time and place in plenty of combat scenarios. If it works great, if it fails then too bad. Take fencing for example. It is a combat sport where virtually every attack is designed with the intent to kill or end an opponent's life. Nearly all of the offensive thrusts involve some sort of lunging in. But if you miscalculate an attack, then you probably die. The author doesn't talk about fencing per se, but it's obvious he recognizes and acknowledges an esoteric (look it up in the dictionary) quality to Pacquiao's boxing. Again, your scope and understanding on the topic is clearly ignorant and limited. That's not to say you're clueless because I do believe you know plenty about boxing and I respect that. That being said, you should also respect that that there is a heck of a lot more to boxing than just boxing. Great fucking post, green!

An over the top article but it touched on one very important key point: all of Pacs greatest wins are NOT a result of just pure athletism, it's a result of his exceptional skills has an all round boxer. Pacquiao can hit and move, get in and out of range and has damn good defence. He is an all rounder, not the brawler some have made him out to be.

pacquiao balls sniffer.you call getting put to sleep by marquez is reinventing boxing?

Not oblivious to the bold but Pacquiao is guilty of doing that a lot. Lunging in off balance discredits Pacquiao's understanding of footwork regardless. At the very least you have to admit that. Again, the point I'm attacking is "There might not have been any boxer to date with the same understanding and discipline in footwork". There isn't anything that can back that up, if anything what we've seen says otherwise more so than not. But does it work or not? Evidently it does but it comes with risk (Marquez) other than that he has success with it.

Lunging in has its time and place in plenty of combat scenarios. If it works great, if it fails then too bad. Take fencing for example. It is a combat sport where virtually every attack is designed with the intent to kill or end an opponent's life. Nearly all of the offensive thrusts involve some sort of lunging in. But if you miscalculate an attack, then you probably die. The author doesn't talk about fencing per se, but it's obvious he recognizes and acknowledges an esoteric (look it up in the dictionary) quality to Pacquiao's boxing. Again, your scope and understanding on the topic is clearly ignorant and limited. That's not to say you're clueless because I do believe you know plenty about boxing and I respect that. That being said, you should also respect that that there is a heck of a lot more to boxing than just boxing. Not oblivious to the bold but Pacquiao is guilty of doing that a lot. Lunging in off balance discredits Pacquiao's understanding of footwork regardless. At the very least you have to admit that. Again, the point I'm attacking is "There might not have been any boxer to date with the same understanding and discipline in footwork". There isn't anything that can back that up, if anything what we've seen says otherwise more so than not.

Lunging in has its time and place in plenty of combat scenarios. If it works great, if it fails then too bad. Take fencing for example. It is a combat sport where virtually every attack is designed with the intent to kill or end an opponent's life. Nearly all of the offensive thrusts involve some sort of lunging in. But if you miscalculate an attack, then you probably die. The author doesn't talk about fencing per se, but it's obvious he recognizes and acknowledges an esoteric (look it up in the dictionary) quality to Pacquiao's boxing. Again, your scope and understanding on the topic is clearly ignorant and limited. That's not to say you're clueless because I do believe you know plenty about boxing and I respect that. That being said, you should also respect that that there is a heck of a lot more to boxing than just boxing. Exactly, this is the problem with Fl0mos and boxing hipsters in general, great post. Pacquiao's style comes with risk at times but it is highly effective.

In his understanding, in that sense understandable but judging by what we see I say that's highly questionable since he lunges in. Regardless, you can't back that statement up either. Lunging in has its time and place in plenty of combat scenarios. If it works great, if it fails then too bad. Take fencing for example. It is a combat sport where virtually every attack is designed with the intent to kill or end an opponent's life. Nearly all of the offensive thrusts involve some sort of lunging in. But if you miscalculate an attack, then you probably die. The author doesn't talk about fencing per se, but it's obvious he recognizes and acknowledges an esoteric (look it up in the dictionary) quality to Pacquiao's boxing. Again, your scope and understanding on the topic is clearly ignorant and limited. That's not to say you're clueless because I do believe you know plenty about boxing and I respect that. That being said, you should also respect that that there is a heck of a lot more to boxing than just boxing.

In his understanding, in that sense understandable but judging by what we see I say that's highly questionable since he lunges in. Regardless, you can't back that statement up either. Just because it's unconventional doesn't mean it isn't highly effective. It's a risky technique but it works well for him. Pacquiao's footwork is incredible, I've never understood the idea that it's bad, against De La Hoya (yeh I know drained blah blah) the way he pivoted and created angles was unreal, against Rios, Cotto too.

The author is obviously referring to "discipline" as a branch of knowledge or a specific subject of study. Not discipline as in behavior or control as most people associate the word. You are clearly in the majority group of boxing people who are ignorant to Pacquiao's esoteric approach to pugilism. In his understanding, in that sense understandable but judging by what we see I say that's highly questionable since he lunges in. Regardless, you can't back that statement up either.

None of those statements were accurate at all. Whitaker worked the angles a lot better. Also, how can he say there might not have been a fighter with a better understanding and discipline in footwork when Pacquiao is known to get off balance, at times look like an ice skater as a result? Rigondeaux has a better understanding of it and he's clearly more disciplined with his footwork. Calderon is another southpaw I can remember who was more disciplined as well. Mind you, he said there might not have been any fighter, I could have easily name conventional fighters with better discipline so I did you a favor. The author is obviously referring to "discipline" as a branch of knowledge or a specific subject of study. Not discipline as in behavior or control as most people associate the word. You are clearly in the majority group of boxing people who are ignorant to Pacquiao's esoteric approach to pugilism.

Very few boxing fans, boxers and trainers understand or recognize the source and concepts of Pacquiao's footwork. The author is correct with his remarks on this matter and is one of the few people out there who recognizes Pacquiao's discipline. None of those statements were accurate at all. Whitaker worked the angles a lot better. Also, how can he say there might not have been a fighter with a better understanding and discipline in footwork when Pacquiao is known to get off balance, at times look like an ice skater as a result? Rigondeaux has a better understanding of it and he's clearly more disciplined with his footwork. Calderon is another southpaw I can remember who was more disciplined as well. Mind you, he said there might not have been any fighter, I could have easily name conventional fighters with better discipline so I did you a favor.