Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comments Thread For: Potential Crawford Conquest Adds New Layer To Pac-Mayweather Debate

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by BillyBoxing View Post

    Yes, but Pacquiao is overall a smaller dude than Floyd. Pac fighting at 147 is like Floyd fighting at 160. That's just my personal opinion.

    Some think they are about the same size, I don't for pretty obvious facts.
    I think pac is shorter and has a much smaller reach but I do think his body structure is bigger than Floyd’s. He has bigger legs, calves, hands , wrists arms. I think it was Floyd’s style that most problematic for pac.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by daggum View Post

      was he really better head to head...really? if you watch that fight now with the emotions taken out of it floyd doesnt really do much at all. if you are just going by punches it was a pac win since he landed far more clean shots while floyd struggled to land anything cleanly. there was just too much emotional attachment for people to handle in that one. they wanted a pac whirlwind attack it seems and when they didnt get it...oh i guess floyd is outboxing him...cept he wasnt. he was being hit with the cleaner shots.
      ———

      So ALL the judges and boxing analysts got it all wrong. Once again Manny was robbed. Just like he was robbed against Horn and Bradley.
      Also Marquez landed a lucky punch so basically, PAC has never lost.

      Comment


      • #43
        The real question is : by who would you rather be entertained?
        blowblow likes this.

        Comment


        • #44
          Pac always wins who's greater polls
          blowblow likes this.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by steeve steel View Post
            The real question is : by who would you rather be entertained?
            Thats not the real question its actually irrelevant other wise the likes of early Butterbean trumps them all, what a ridiculous way to evaluate fighters not everybody is entertained by the same movie, the real question here can only one question thats relative to the subject matter boxing, who is the better boxer and Floyd wins that by a landslide with the insiders of boxing which are the people that know what they are looking at, trainers referees and real fighters are the ones that have the experience to know., Manny and Floyd fought a number of common opponents every one states Floyd is the best how the fck can fanboys ignore stuff like that, I know they more fangirl than fanboy.

            Fans which are for the vast majority casuals that have never set foot into a boxing ring are too much into hype and BS like schoolgirls and a pop band.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by Liondw View Post
              Good read, and Floyd is an all-time great.

              Although, let's not forget he lost the first fight against Castillo, and had close fights with Oscar and the first one with Maidana, and a rather underwhelming fight against Pacquiao.

              Pacman also a legend, and nothing against him if he doesn't fight Crawford.
              You mean Pacquiao had an underwhelming fight against Floyd.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by LeOoze View Post

                You mean Pacquiao had an underwhelming fight against Floyd.
                They never look at it this way yet Manny is an aggressive pressure fighter and Floyd is a defensive genius, Floyd turned up and fought just like so many of his previous fights a cautious counter puncher always on the move and step ahead of his opponent and Manny was shut down to nothing but hot air, yet according to the haters the cause of a lack lustre fight was all Floyds fault, if this was a legitimate trial all the evidence shows it was Manny that did not show up which they agree with but try and save face by swallowing all this lame ass shoulder after market BS as the reason, its a fcn joke what these braindead haters will try to fly with.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Pac-Man is more popular and popularity outshines talent in most cases. We all know who was better in the ring. The fact that we keep having this debate is because one fighter is more like able and popular. It’s like comparing Jimmy Carter to Hitler. Who ran his country better during their first four years while in office. Most ppl would say Jimmy Carter because they think Hitler was evil but if you compare Germany’s power and economic strength during hitlers first four years compared to Jimmy Carter’s time. It’s hitler by a long shot. For those people who don’t know history. Hitler took over Germany right after they got whopped in WWI and were in massive debt. Jimmy took over a USA after a bad economic downturn and inflation so it’s pretty even comparable.

                  short answer no body will believe the truth if a lie is more entertaining. Floyd had the better career.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    This was a biased article. Mayweayher being American and Afro. Pacman is more exciting, powerful, fun, and great boxer to watch. Mayweather should have lost vs JL Castillo, Oscar DLH, Maidana, ate least. They both fought Marquez and the latter KOed and fought Pacman in his prime, Mayweather avoided Pacman fora a long time and their fight could have gone either way. Floyd Mayweather´s fight were basically a running and hugging contest. Sure, Mayweather defeated Canelo but Canelo was forced to use the gloves Floyd wanted, was weight drained and most importantly, Canelo got confused with a style he didn´t know since there are no Black boxers in Mexico. Canelo has said that Floyd never hirt him, had no power and basically just scored points like in the Olympics. Why didn´t Mayweather fight gave Canelo a rematch? Because Canelo was now sparring AFro-Americans with a similar style of Floyd. Floyd preferred to fight Berto, McGregor, etc. GGG also called Mayweather and he was willing to fight at a catch weigh but Floyd said no.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by JcLazyX210 View Post
                      Pac-Man is more popular and popularity outshines talent in most cases. We all know who was better in the ring. The fact that we keep having this debate is because one fighter is more like able and popular. It’s like comparing Jimmy Carter to Hitler. Who ran his country better during their first four years while in office. Most ppl would say Jimmy Carter because they think Hitler was evil but if you compare Germany’s power and economic strength during hitlers first four years compared to Jimmy Carter’s time. It’s hitler by a long shot. For those people who don’t know history. Hitler took over Germany right after they got whopped in WWI and were in massive debt. Jimmy took over a USA after a bad economic downturn and inflation so it’s pretty even comparable.

                      short answer no body will believe the truth if a lie is more entertaining. Floyd had the better career.
                      Yes, we know who was better, it was Pacman. And Mayweather will never have a record like Chavez, nor his power. Floyd was overhyped by American media and Afro agendas. He was fast and had a a great defebse but had no power, hugged all the time without ever receiving at least a warning, used his elbows to hit his oponent, made his oponents use the gloves he wanted and the in the weight he wanted because he was the " A " side, which was a lie, too. Peopl paid to watch him lose, not win, like the westler who is a villian.
                      blowblow likes this.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP