Floyd would have always beaten Pacquiao.

[Sctrojan]

Floyd agreed to fight in 2009. It was Pacquiao who ducked because of a little drug testing. Freddie Roach is even on record saying they were the ones to blame.

This has been covered and rehashed many times.

That's not the way it unfolded in my view but fans of either are gonna have their stance on why and that's fine. All I know is we got robbed of fight,between ATG "prime" boxers,that would've left no doubts. Instead we witnessed a glorified sparring match and were left with a bunch of "what if's",atleast in my opinion.

[deathofaclown]

Absolutely. I’m pretty much neutral, I don’t prefer one over the other, I just believe Floyd was all wrong for him at any point.

It’s always worth remembering that Floyd was the older man when they fought.

People will always point out that Floyd fought him after he lost to Marquez. But had Floyd beaten him earlier, People would’ve just said Manny had lost to Morales in the past and never beat JMM convincingly etc etc.

So Floyd was never gonna get full credit, whether he beat him in 2009 or 2014.

[blowblow]

I saw what I needed to see when they fought.

Mayweather was 36 by then and at his age I thought he might have trouble dealing with Pacquiao's footwork and in-and-out movement (like Keith Thurman did years later.) But Floyd actually had the faster, smoother, more intelligent feet which shocked me.

It also helped that he has such a long reach. With those two attributes he was able to control the distance of the fight.

In my opinion it would have been an even more dominant win had they faced off when Floyd's was closer to prime.

2009-2010 will be a different story.. 2015 pac had more damaged taken in his previous bouts. that's where floyd had his advantages..

[blowblow]

100% Floyd and Pac were never career Rivals only fans and the media made it appear that wayt Pac's career Rival was Marquez who also proved to be better than Pac. Oscar Delahoya was Floyd's true career rival. And they still hate each other till this day. Floyd beat pac and went on holiday to the philipines. he sat with Pac and negotiated the contraft to their fight.

marquez isn't any better than pac.. it took him 4 fights to get the best punch of his life. anyone who were given so many times/ chances can pull off a win along the way. marquez only drop pacquiao in their 4th fight under memo's help which we all know gave marquez a prohibited stuff.

also, floyd's win against pac doesn't settle the "WHO's the best".. rematch may result differently/same but we didn't get the chance to see that.. floyd didn't give pac a chance why? he might be scared it will resulted the other way the next time.. that also happened to ODLH.

they were rivals back then when both are the top p4p. #1 pac and #2 floyd.. too many excuses and demands floyd were asking.

[blowblow]

Yep I agree, Floyd would of always beaten Pac. I also feel that Floyd delayed and delayed until Pac started to look like he was diminishing as a fighter cuz Floyd rolls like that, it wasn't marination.

But it needn't of been delayed as Floyd would of always had the upper hand in a fight between the two of them

not in 2009-2010. floyd really delayed it. it's his plan against his every opponents. he's constantly fighting under his advantages and conditions. even a simple things like gloves which he was willingly paid maidana.

[4truth]

Arguable opinion but that's not how I would have bet it. The fight when it finally happened didn't mean much. It was kinda like watching SRL/Duran 3, a big so what?

[blowblow]

It was Pac who dragged the fight out, let's be honest. He always need Floyd much more than Floyd needed him. Half of his legacy is just being Floyd's rival. He owes much of his finical success to Floyd. If Pac had lost to Floyd in his prime (which he would have) there'd be no excuses and the public would have moved on to a new boogeyman.

p4p rankings #1 pac #2 floyd.. he didn't even need floyd to achieve that.. that's also the time floyd ducked pac and demand so many stuff.. and floyd didn't want any part of prime pac so that's already an excuse for floyd.

[blowblow]

Absolutely. I’m pretty much neutral, I don’t prefer one over the other, I just believe Floyd was all wrong for him at any point.

It’s always worth remembering that Floyd was the older man when they fought.

People will always point out that Floyd fought him after he lost to Marquez. But had Floyd beaten him earlier, People would’ve just said Manny had lost to Morales in the past and never beat JMM convincingly etc etc.

So Floyd was never gonna get full credit, whether he beat him in 2009 or 2014.

you forgot about the damage taken by hiding it in their ages. floyd might be older than pac but pac was already taken so much damage which really affected his explosiveness and fighting style. unlike floyd who didn't mind if he's unentertaining or boring just to keep safe. so your claim about the age is invalid. there are so many older people in this world that had a upper hand against younger fighters.. ex. pac-thurman.. and you can't apply triangle theory in boxing.

[hugh grant]

It's possible Floyd could beat pac 10 out of ten times. Maybe 100 times out of 100 times even.
But instead because Floyd didn't rematch Pac we don't even know if Floyd could beat pac 2 out of 2 times even. Or even in a trilogy of fights could Floyd stop Pac winning 2 out of 3, like Pac did against morales and bradley? All speculation.
Floyd s one apiece with maidana and castillo as it is. Many don't even think Floyd beat pac also.
But I'm kind to floyd, I will say floyd beat pac one time at least. But in 3 fights Pac would have 2 wins over floyd.

[STREET CLEANER]

They way how Marquez handled Pac and Floyd being a better, bigger faster version of that assured me that Pac would had never beaten Floyd. It took Floyd to go up to him in a basketball game to get the fight going.