I probably wouldn't order an Ortiz rematch as I think the statement was made in the first three rounds Ortiz is by far and inferior fighter and floyd still isn't showing his age. The only way I saw ortiz having a chance is if Floyd made a distinct decline. I regret the way the fight ended because that would have been a beautiful beating had the fight had continued on especially after that headbutt.
I was shocked but quite excited. I thought, okay Ortiz don't care about points now, he's gonna turn it into a dirty war. Bring it!!! But... How wrong I was... two seconds later he was trying to kiss Floyd and make up. I just don't get it. I guess Ortiz is mentally weak... Anyway, the rest is history. I don't blame Floyd for the chump punch, Ortiz freakin asked for it, I just feel a like we got robbed out of something much more interesting.
My sentiments exactly soooo disappointing...
The Catch-weight Chronicles of Pacquiao - F. Roach
Pacquiao's Unknown Allergic Reactions To Random Style Drug Testing -
A. Ariza
The Chemical Constituents of Dat Mutha****in A-Side Meth - Roger Mayweather
Reasons Why I Think Pacquiao Is A Homosection - Big Floyd Sr.
LMAO at the last one... classic
Lundy's defense is horrible. It's just that he looks good against a slow Molina. Look how high he keeps his hands. Imagine if he was facing a good body puncher. He'd get murdered.
Yeah but it could be his hands are that high because he knows there isn't much danger of molina goin to the body so you can't really judge off that. lol finally got caught bein too cocky. He was way too comfortable instead of just fighting... stupidity.
Could be wrong, but it looked like Lundy was saying the KD was a slip. Lol, if he was.
Lundy running around that last round.
LOL yeah he said he tripped him naw bro you just got clocked no tripping about it.
I hate when guys talk shit and then get in the ring and perform like that smh... makes shit talkers look bad lol. The little things are often the difference between top fighters and mediocre fighters... and the small thing in this case was focus... gotta have focus.
Lundy needs to keep using the jab. That lead straight left isn't doing any damage and all it does is put him out of position and open him up. Its snappin Molina's head back though but the right jab is just as good and doesn't put him out of position IMO.
That's all Floyd do is easy pick. :D
Anyway...I do agree with you that Floyd would have taken it if he didn't had a 2 year layoff.... Floyd is the king of fantasy. :fing02:
LOL this guy
Get over the fact that Pac is the No1 fighter of the decade.
No2 isnt neccesarily PBF.
PBF will have to fight out no2 spot with DLH and SSM and a few others.
Naw Floyd is definitely #2 that shouldn't be debatable but I would like to see your reasoning.
Ricky should get more respect than he does. He's a very good fighter who got that ass whooped by two great ones... nothing wrong with that. Don't call this cat a bum that's an insult to him and to the sport in general. He also had the guts to step it up and fight two fighters not out of their prime instead of spending his whole career in the UK and then fighting old fighters... *cough*calzaghe ahemmm...
:stooges:
All Mayweather Jr fans can do is cry and cry all day
Bob Arum and Team Pacquiao are smart.
Pacquaio is the fighter of the decade
after Mayweather jr turned down Dallas, the rest of negotiation is actually over
Arum is not interested at all in getting the fight done.
Pac will not fight FMJ until 2011 to ensure Pac becoming fighter of the decade.
Arum just simply put FMJ legacy in the garbage can :drive:
FMJ can still be fighter of the decade !!!!!!! 2011-2020 After Pac retires :lol1:
It's funny this thread actually sparked some interesting arguments and viewpoints. You should check it out you might learn a few things.
point taken. what i'm trying to explain here tho is the fact that people are saying like morales was severely washed up when pac fought him. sure, he didn't look that great against raheem but that was also after his first fight with pac which was brutal as hell. you can say that it might have been the result of all his wars with MAB but did he really look as bad until after he fought pac?
and yeah i'd like to add that the manner of how he beats them should be also added for all those criteria.
Alright I see your argument and I agree with the bold not sure why I left that out. You do have a point on the Morales statement but the fact of the matter was he didn't beat morales. He lost that fight definitively and won the second fight after morales was coming off a loss to raheem and pac never fought raheem. I don't give credit just for fighting a guy you only get credit if you win in my opinion and IMO Morales was without a doubt shot after the first pac fight debatable whether he was shot or not after the barrera wars. The only truly great win was against barrera the first time. That win you can make a case to be a more meaningful win than any in floyd's career but its still just one. Floyd was on top of the sport for a majority of the decade while manny wasn't so it is very much a worthy thread and question to ask.
exactly....and this our fighter of the decade??? Bs....thei what have u done for me lately has no merit in regards for criteria for the fighter of the decade.
2000 -2003, he fought no one!!! Towards th end of the decade, he fights floyd's leftover and now he greater than srr....gtfoh!!!!
I don't think it does but it was a big reason I think and it like most things in this world was somewhat political. More people like pac soooooooo... There is a very strong argument for floyd on this though for the people who say just bump this thread. The fighter of the decade is not as important to me anyway personally. I hope you guys aren't surprised manny got it...floyd's always been treated like an ugly step child by "the powers that be". He's like the Allen Iverson of Boxing.
If floyd didn't take those years off it should have been an easy pick for him but I think its part favoritism and mostly a what have you done for me lately type of thing. but I do think that the MAB II and Morales victories were very overrated and IMO not even as great as floyd beating DLH at 154...I mean think about it...but thats just me.
He may have carried him a little, but I don't think May could have KO'ed Hatton without the turnbuckle's help.
Lmao at the turnbuckle comment even though you might have been serious lol good stuff but yeah I agree he may have carried him a little but thats just how floyd is he sits back and frustrates guys he doesn't sell out for an early KO its not his style. Both choices were incorrect in my opinion with the poll. He definitely didn't have a tough time with hatton.
last time i checked he won against jmm the second fight didn't he? jmm was at the proper weight class, was on the list of top p4p, the timing wasn't bad, sure he didn't decimate JMM that time, but that can still be considered as a great win right? or are you going to list all those boxingsites/reporters/pinoys who had jmm winning that fight?
imo pac and pbf's claim over the fighter of the decade award was pretty much even until the end of 2009. i get the impression that they leaned towards pac not just because of his recent dominating victories but also the fact that he seemed to want it more.
who can blame them? you have a guy who was on top of his game, had ATG skills way ahead of his generation, but instead of further establishing his claim, retired a few times... and you have the other who was seemingly one dimensional at first but tried to prove himself over and over to the point of even catching the attention of some critics enough to accuse him of using PEDs. i know achievements alone should be seen for judging who deserves that award, but i'd be lying if i tell you right now that pac's drive alone could've swayed maybe one or two writers' opinions.
I agree that was a very good win but I felt he lost personally lol but its a win against a great so there you go. You make some very good arguments here though. When you look towards the entire body of work I would still give it to floyd but your arguments are merited and I imagine was the BWAA's reasoning on giving it to manny.
The DLH win wasn't better than Morales II. DLH-Mayweather was a pedestrian outing from Floyd, a fundamentally sound, no risks performance. Pacquiao-Morales II sometimes gets overlooked but was a good fight. Morales wasn't shot; he was competing and in the fight until Manny found his right and a body attack and beat it out of Terible. It wasn't just that he beat him; he stopped a guy whose will was as awesome as any fighter I've ever seen.
I still feel DLH at 154 was better seeing as though all the cards were in DLH's favor, floyd didn't even come close to 154(he was 149 on fight night) while DLH was more than likely well over 160, and although one of the scorecards disagree with me he won definitively. Yeah it was a play it safe type of fight but it was also against the champ coming off a KO victory in a division floyd really didn't belong in weight wise. With those things considered it was a better victory IMO even when you factor in Oscar being a part time fighter.
i agree
alota ppl on this site swore rickyw ould win
including myself
how come im the only 1 left admitting it????
the polls were closee if i recall
This is true. A lot of people were giving him a good chance to win. Hell people might of sounded more optimistic than they are with mosley right now. lol
Pac fought these guys more than once genius
I don't view MAB 2 or Morales 3 as big wins
they look nice on paper but the 1st wins on those guys are what counts
what did Floyd do that was better?
and get off the JMM "won" shit
he lost twice, only a judge robbed Pac the 1st time
IMO the corrales, DLH, castillo, and probably even hernandez were greater wins than either of the moralez wins but Barrera I agree is a more meaningful win than any of floyds and as far as JMM winning I looked at the fight and felt Marquez won enough rounds to overcome the KD's in the first round of the first fight so personally I don't view the scorecards as a booster for my argument. The second fight was a close victory for JMM as well IMO so with that being said I see that win as very good as opposed to great.
In the end it may not matter what happened in recent awards. If they meet one day and Floyd wins (I think he would), then historians will inevitably re-evaluate this time period as Floyd's. Floyd gave away the immediate perception game as much as anything.
In the end, you have two fighters with great wins over good and great fighters in their time, both headed to the Hall with a bullet. Both have had dips in comp and peaks; for the first half of 2010, Mayweather will have the opponent advantage for the night.
I agree whole-heartedly with the in bold statement.
gotta love hindsight. i'm pretty sure you had the same line of thought before each of those fights were made amirite?
most of those fights, pac was either an underdog or the odds were pretty even, he just beats his opponents so bad that they look waay worse after his fights.
He wasn't an underdog because they were soooo good at the time he was underdog because pac's career was so mediocre and he lost to mediocre guys before then. I think too many people on here measure fights by who's the underdog... a win should be measured simply by the opponent, the timing, and the state of the opponent... not whether you were expected to win or not.