People who think Pac will crush Mosley are completely ignoring the size and styles of these fighters. Mosley has a much better chance against Pac than against Floyd. Mosley and Floyd are about the same size whereas Mosley is clearly a weight class bigger than Pac and noticeably taller and stronger. Each of Pac's last 4 opponents has been stronger than the preceeding one and Mosley is stronger and faster than all of them. Pac couldn't drop Clottey or Margarito; he has no choice of dropping Mosley. If Mosley lands THAT punch on Pac, then it could be lights out.
when will this stop being a valid argument in reference to pac??? im tired of hearing how much smaller he is. doesnt matter speed + good chin > size.
How is it not a valid argument? If it isn't, then why bother having weight classes. Pac is clearly not in the same weight class as Shane; in fact, he's smaller than most of the top junior welterweights. And yes, Pac did look slower in the last fight, and Mosley is definitely faster and stronger than Margarito.
When they announced the tournament, I thought Mares would win it and I see no reason to change that prediction. Agbeko is stronger, but I think Mares will outbox him to take a close decision (like he did against Vic).
A lot of people keep mentioning Donaire, but I doubt either of these guys will actually fight him. There's a difference between good fighters and great ones and the promoters recognize that. We'll probably see the winner fight Anselmo. Of course Bob Arum will try his hardest to lure one of them to fight the Flash.
I'm not sure who Burner is, but Margarito is a natural 154 and Sergio is about 5 pounds bigger. Doesn't that make them almost the same size? Or do they have to be less than 3 pounds apart?
I hate it when people apply triangle theories by completely ignoring crucial facts. Sometimes a triangle theory does make sense; for example, if a great fighter beats a good fighter and that good fighter beats a bum, then you can correctly assume that the great fighter will also beat that bum. But the triangle breaks down if the great fighter is not the same fighter when he fights the bum.
People said how amazing Dawson was when Adamek started beating cruiserweights and heavyweights but completely ignored the fact that Adamek was weight drained when he fought Dawson. Froch beat Pascal at 168, but both are better fighters today and the younger, faster Pascal would be the favorite in a rematch. Also, Pascal beating a 45 year old Hopkins doesn't mean anything; he might as well beat an old Calzaghe or Jones. Hopkins losing to Pascal doesn't mean he "suddenly" got old. He's been old since he fought Taylor. A prime Hopkins, the one that sent Tito into retirement, would have smoked Taylor and probably beaten Calzaghe. Sorry about the long rant, but I just wish people would stop ignoring key facts just to make one guy look better and another look worse.
Styles differ dude. It is not the same for every boxer. No excuse for Morales, but Froch has never in his career, probably entire career took more punishment than the 3 fights Morales had with MAB. With your logic of thinking, then Singurat is P4P #1 because he beat Pac. Do you see what I mean? You can't compare or say a different boxer can do it, because another one did it and had success. Some need tune ups some don't. I think this "styles" excuse is also used a lot. Morales lost to Pac b/c he was washed up and weigh drained; it wouldn't matter how many tune ups he took. As for Froch vs Abraham, both guys were coming off losses. Someone had to win and it was Froch.
I am worried about the officiating in any sport I watch these days. Everything is crooked.Let's be honest, nobody seriously thinks Hopkins will win this, even though we all want to see boxing history. Crooked judging tends to occur when there's a chance the hometown fighter will lose: Froch vs Dirrell/Kessler, Bradley/Witter, Judah/Matthese, Sturm/Oscar and a whole bunch of title fights in Germany. Nobody in Montreal is thinking Pascal's in any danger tonight.
We are talking different circumstances-it isn't so black and white as you are implying.In fact,what I am talking isn't about just a mere loss by a debatable decision...I am talking about losses that may have damaged the fighter's mental state/psychological state and changed the way they approach fights.In some cases,when you are knocked out drastically-your punch resistance is severely changed...with fighters who are normally aggressive,they seem to fight more cautious.
Manny's opponents were only 1-2 fights from taking severe beatings...they weren't just faded back into the mix of fighting the elite-they were thrown in the deep end,and if they had anything left-they were asked for a catchweight just for good measure and advantage for Pac.I personally like to see fair fights.... "mental state/ psychological state" - what does this mean exactly? If you're talking about fights that occur once a fighter's gotten old, then "coming off a loss" is just an excuse. They're losing b/c they're old.
Well Im just a nobody who is speaking his personal opinion. Im pretty sure, the majority of the boxing world would agree, about tune ups. Some need them some don't. Just like how you have your personal opinion, its your personal opinion. I don't think you should call yourself a nobody, I just which people on these threads would give opinions based on all the facts and not just facts that suit their fighter. I think before the tune ups and styles excuses are used, people need to consider more concrete facts like the age, size, and maybe fight location.
I personally believe and had Dirrell WINNING the Froch fight and the similarity between both Dirrell and Froch's losses were that they both felt they won their losses (they both felt they got robbed by being in the opponents hometown)....not to mention that they didn't get ko'd! VERY big difference in losses that we are talking about-don't be so oblivious.
Your "prime" can certainly be ended by one devastating loss.Fighters become more hesitant when they would initially go all out,because they are worried about getting hit again or second guessing themselves.Punch resistance can ultimately drop after a major ko as well and a fighter can be more inclined to get sparked by punches that never used to phase them.... I had Dirrell winning as well against Froch, but Froch did lose to Kessler. However, Dirrell did become more aggressive against Abraham, Froch became less reckless and boxed more. They both clearly learned from their losses, instead of using them as an excuse to lose again.
Now im not saying it is best for them to take a tune up. All im saying is that, it is not uncommon to take a tune up after a loss. Please read before accusing. Good for Zab, Dirrell, and Froch for their comeback. Now would it be wise for Jermaine Taylor to rematch Abraham immediately? Or Khan tomake an immediate rematch with Prescott? Not every fighter is the same, and styles differ.I'm not sure what I accused you of. A fighter can take a tune up if he wants, but can't use the "coming off a loss excuse" if he doesn't take one. As for Taylor rematching Abraham, he would get KO'd regardless of how many tune ups he take b/c he's a washed up fighter. I'm asssuming in this thread that the fighters under consideration are both in their prime and same weight class.
LOL all im saying is that when a guy loses they usually take a tune up fight. Geez relax. That's what the topic is about isn't it, about guys coming off losses? Pac had a tune up after Morales. He fought Hector Velasquez.The "coming of a loss" excuse is nonsense. Both Dirrell and Froch came off losses to pull off upsets over Abraham. It's up to a fighter to take a tune up if he wants; if he doesn't, then that means he's ready to go. Zab Judah came off a loss to Baldomir when he stepped in with Floyd and gave Floyd a lot of trouble in the first few rounds. But then Floyd kicked it up a notch and dominated Judah. The Baldomir fight didn't affect anything. So many fighters have won immediate rematches b/c they learn from the loss. IF anything, a loss should make a fighter improve, not get worse.
Well,if Manny fought these type of guys as an isolated instance,it would be one thing,but he has made his name off of it in his last several fights while "moving up" in weight divisions-and all consecutively!!!He is definitely on a different level to disadvantaged and beaten-up opponents,I agree! Every fighter that Pac has beaten in the last couple of years has been coming off a win, except for Clottey who lost a split decision. As for beaten up opponents, Pac himself has gone through a lot of tough fights in his career. As for people hating Floyd, how impressive was Mosley in his fight with Margarito before getting beat up by Floyd? You can say Mosley lost b/c he was old, but it's not about style or tune ups or PEDs or whatever.
If I have to explain this again after a series of posts,then I give up.Re-read my previous posts,maybe then you will understand....or maybe you will still be in denial and believe in your "that's just an excuse" theory to glorify some of Pac's pattern picked opponents.For me and many others,there is a definite pattern of opponent and circumstances with them-only a fool cannot see it. I don't know why you keep going back to Pac. Why do all these threads get infested with Pac/Floyd haters? I was hoping you could explain your point of view w/o sounding like a psychologist/lawyer; in other words, a point of view based on something concrete like a fighter's age, size, or speed, and not things like heart or mental state.
My opinion is boxing in general, atleast I think it is. Im talking about all fighters not just one. Point Im trying to get across is some need tune-ups others don't.
Now if your talking about biased opinions I think your partners opinions are Pro-Pac. And yours also to a certain extent. Seems like you guys are trying to justify, and convince everyone that losses don't affect the defeated. When clearly they do. Not all but they do. Now im pretty sure Goosen Tutor, has just a little bit more experience than you in the fight game, and is wise to not want to let Paul Williams go for an immediate rematch. More than likely going to have a tune-up. I'm not sure which of my opinions are biased; i'm not Fillipino, American, or European, but there are definitely a lot of pac/floyd haters asserting their BS on these threads. Be honest, is Hopkins losing tonight have anything to do with styles or is it b/c of his age? As for Williams,I picked him to beat Martinez in their first fight like everyone did, but I picked him to lose the rematch b/c of how impressive Martinez was in his fights with Williams and Pavlik. That devestating KO reminds us that Williams is not a middleweight. When the eventual 3rd fight happens in a couple of years, I'll be going with Willilams b/c by then he'll be an actual middleweight and Martinez will be past his prime.
ur one of the idiots im talkin about
and yea, ricky hatton was doing great, but he lost to pac because he could never beat him to begin with
and how quickly did jones run back to the ring? was'nt it obvious he was pumped? i guarantee you he trained his ass off to erase that defeat by tarvers hand, but like i said, people can become too eager and hungry and at that point might miss the whole picture, but they are in the best shape of their lives and mentally bloodthirsty
getting ko'd twice in a row after giving your all like that is what will shatter most mens ego's, but the first loss is rejuvanating for most Jones lost to Tarver and everyone else b/c he was old. It had nothing to do with eagerness, hunger, or ego. A prime Jones would have destroyed Johnson and Danny Green. As for Hatton, he was coming of a couple of wins and looked good against Paulie, but like you said Pac is just at another level.
The styles is an excuse now? Lol. I don't know but I will stick with the boxing historians, and professional analysts about styles. "Styles make fights" You can stick with the analysts and their excuses. Both Dawson and Hopkins have the style to beat Pascal but it didn't and won't happen. Hopkins is just too old; it has nothing at all to do with style and location or whatever else you can think of.
Pac has the perfect list of opponents that relate to this subject.In fact,they are consecutive.I doubt it is a coincidence.
My friend can tell you from his direct experience training and helping boxers... but then again,you would still fail to believe him as well (he has been affiliated with elite fighters whom I won't name).
Again-go back and read my previous posts that you have obviously neglected to read,since you didn't respond to them.I don't feel like parroting myself too much longer to people who can't seem to let things "sink in". Everyone here seems to have a friend who's in the business. As for Pac's "careful selection" of opponents, this is just stuff people come up with AFTER Pacquiao wins. We all knew Oscar was old and therefore would be weight drained against Pac, but we still picked Oscar to win. It was Pac that came up 2 weight divisions. And Hatton was the top fighter at 140, not exactly a safe choice. Cotto was arguably the best fighter after Mayweather at 147 and many of the experts felt Pac was in over his head choosing to fight Cotto. People also come up with excuses to dismiss Mayweather's victories. Some are valid - Mosley was old - but could Marquez and Hatton have beaten the 135/140 version of Floyd? It would be more competitive, but would they have actually won?
You gotta remember that the first post used Pac and Froch as examples. I know, but I don't understand why every post becomes about dismissing Pac/Floyd's accomplishments instead of actually discussing the thread's topic.
Disagree. Vitali hasn't yet fought at 40 and his next fight is against a natural cruiserweight. I seriously doubt he'll be champion at 45 like Foreman was.
If Pac is better/worse than Floyd, then he's only slightly better/worse. The oddmakers aren't dumb; they're correct about 80% of the time. They realize the difference in skill isn't significant between the two, but Pac isn't a real welterweight and thus is the underdog. I'm not sure who's better, but I would also expect the naturally bigger/taller Floyd to win.
Floyd gets in major trouble in the 1st. Ortiz goes all out. Floyd survives and takes control of the fight by the end of the 3rd. Too many counters slows ortiz to the point where floyd begins dominating with leads. Team ortiz stops this fight around the end of the 10th.
Ortiz will not be physically overwhelmed it will be the mental breakdown that leads to the stoppage
The only outcome that would shock me would be Floyd stopping Ortiz. This isn't the same Ortiz who lost to Maidana - quitting is not an option. Floyd is years past his prime; Ortiz is younger, taller, and stronger. Floyd wins a competitive decision.
He could and should be doing much more at HW
He did beat Valuev. I'm not sure if a win over Adamek or Povetkin would be more impressive than Valuev - perhaps as impressive, but not more.
Khan reached his potential already. He does some things really well but hes not well rounded, hes got weaknesses. I dont think he will ever be back on top or ever be the best in a division again. One loss you could write off as bad luck but its happening over and over, its a trend.
Donaire though, I dont think he is living up to his potential by fighting guys like Arce. He is incredibly skilled but he isnt challenging himself. He could beat mares if he could be bothered to make that fight.
Dawson I think did about as good as he can do. He is skilled but not everyone can be an ATG.
The only thing Khan needs is a defence, but if his career has in fact peaked then his talent's been wasted. Then again, he's made millions of dollars so no need to feel bad for the guy.
Donaire's knocking out old guys at 122, but that's who Arum keeps putting in front of him. However, he did blast out a lot of top guys from 112-118 and he's likely to fight Rigo next (but we can't give credit for that until he actually beats him).
Dawson is a mystery to me. He has everything a fighter needs to be great, but he's stuck at good.