Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comments Thread For: De La Hoya: Manny Pacquiao Will Probably Go Down As Greatest Fighter We've Ever Seen

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    Originally posted by I have no ears View Post
    Projecting much fake grandpa? Your getting absolutely owned on here again and everyone can see u for who u are, bout fkn time for that new account now ay son!! You'll always be a try hard p*ssy though so its gonna be easy to pick u out again, so maybe take sidefx advice and get out the basement and change your whole mentally and personality, you'll feel better for it, outside isn't as scary as u think u little b1tch





    there is nothing fake about me shlthead

    you are the little fanboy clown who joined yesterday... and you are the lame little phaggot who fell in love with your hero Manny LMAO

    stop embarrassing yourself by making it CLEARLY obvious that you are just a spotty little ***wit who likes talking tough on the internet

    crawl back to your hole scumbag







    ...

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by aboutfkntime View Post






      Ray Leonard... is one of the very best fighters to ever lace em up

      he performed incredible feats... against other fighters, who are also right up there among the very best... EVER

      1) you are a total ass-monkey, for not being aware of that fact

      2) Pacquiao did nothing even remotely close to that, you ass-monkey... he failed against his biggest rivals, and those rivals were not on the same level as the Fab 4... so how could he be on their level?




      Leonard - Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Benitez

      Duran - Leonard

      Hearns -
      Leonard, Duran, Benitez

      Hagler - Duran, Hearns




      FACT: Pacquiao has not climbed to the same height that those legends scaled, simply because he does not have the same caliber wins... in fact, above 130 Pacquiao only ever fought the best ONCE... and he LOST!!

      you are not a boxing fan... you are just a Pacquiao fan

      you silly pac-tards ALWAYS go too far... and 'too far' ALWAYS involves disrespecting other fighters and the sport

      you clowns are ignorant disrespectful ass-monkeys... which is why boxing fans hate you







      ...
      Pac is the only boxer who has done things boxers and humans shouldn't do as history proves that. Should nt be winning titles in 8 divisions. Shouldn't be winning titles at 147, let alone 154 because former flyweights simply just dont. Those former flyweightsts also don't best great, prime undefeated wws at 41. Only 4 time WWchamp to boot.
      These are the stats that are relevant, not embellishing certain wins to suit your agenda like you do. The weight ranges and longevity ranges are unbeatable when it comes to valuing a fighters worth
      Pac s broke about 5 different record's on the go, greedy git is pac. Opposite to pac is floyd whose done nothing others have nt done already. Well, looking at what Floyd's done is best quite a few champions with home advantage, anything to get all things in his favour, be it cws, glove choice, with IV, you name it Floyd's got it covered. Floyd's smoke and mirrors
      Pac inarguably best of era.
      Last edited by hugh grant; 08-27-2021, 04:00 AM.

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by hugh grant View Post
        Pac is the only boxer who has done things boxers and humans shouldn't do as history proves that. Should nt be winning titles in 8 divisions. Shouldn't be winning titles at 147, let alone 154 because former flyweights simply just dont. Those former flyweightsts also don't best great, prime undefeated wws at 41. Only 4 time WWchamp to boot.
        These are the stats that are relevant, not embellishing certain wins to suit your agenda like you do. The weight ranges and longevity ranges are unbeatable when it comes to valuing a fighters worth
        Pac s broke about 5 different record's on the go, greedy git is pac. Opposite to pac is floyd whose done nothing others have nt done already. Well, looking at what Floyd's done is best quite a few champions with home advantage, anything to get all things in his favour, be it cws, glove choice, with IV, you name it Floyd's got it covered. Floyd's smoke and mirrors
        Pac inarguably best of era.







        that is garbage

        not only is that garbage... it is disrespectful, and it is totally ignorant

        that is disrespectful... to both the sport, and to great fighters of the past... and it is ignorant... because it does not reflect the ENTIRE boxing landscape, it favors the fighter you love

        the reason why many observers hate pacfans, is because you clowns are not boxing fans you are hero-worshipers... hero-worshipers who would happily burn this sport to the ground if it reflected well on Pacquiao

        honestly, most of you sound like you will never watch another fight after Manny retires

        you based your entire post on this... " the only boxer who has done things "... but you do not have the brains - or the integrity - to add context that is absolutely vital when evaluating TRUE greatness across all era's, and over all fighters

        seriously, who the fcuk do you think you are... ?

        anyone who appoints himself qualified to judge ANYTHING, let alone boxing... has to fulfill two criteria (minimum)... first, you would need to be fair... and second, you would need to be knowledgeable... but as I am about to point out, you are neither of those things

        I will take the time to explain this, in a manner which I KNOW you will understand... in order to be fair, and knowledgeable... just like I am asking you to be fair and knowledgeable when in you assess the boxing landscape

        also... if my simple, detailed, HONEST, explanation... does not affect the way you view this situation... then I am fully justified in removing my gloves, and will use another approach


        to summarize so far... the two criteria for judging ANYTHING, is fairness and knowledge... I am sure you agree... well put it this way, I know you cannot disagree



        fairness
        [fernəs]
        NOUN
        1. impartial treatment without favoritism or discrimination


        knowledgeable
        [nol-i-juh-buhl]
        adjective
        1. possessing understanding; being well-informed




        when judging ANYTHING, especially boxing... impartial treatment without favoritism or discrimination... means that a judge cannot define criteria that would apply to one fighter, but not to another... because that would be discrimination... it is discriminating, if you are not fair and impartial... criteria must apply to EVERY SINGLE FIGHTER in history

        FACT: when you attempt to include the number of divisions that a fighter represented as criteria for greatness, you are neither fair or knowledgeable

        that is just silly nonsense, here is why...

        "
        After the split in the 1960s between the WBC and the WBA, the divisions were narrowed, creating more champions simultaneously, and making it easier for fighters to move between different weight divisions."

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight_class_%28boxing%29


        using criteria that does not apply to ALL fighters equally, is discriminating against EVERY fighter who represented the original 8 divisions... that is not impartial, that is not knowledgeable, and it most definitely is not honest... it is disrespectful, and ignorant... like I pointed out at the start of this post

        you simply cannot reward a fighter by using criteria that makes it easier to succeed, disadvantaging other fighters in the process

        which is why...


        FACT: there has only ever been one criteria for greatness... " WHO did you beat, with consideration given to when/how "... with some consideration given to losses

        losses are less relevant than wins when determining ATG status... because unless a fighter has monumental wins, he is not even involved in that discussion... but losses are definitely relevant when distinguishing between PROVEN great fighters... which is why they are given consideration

        applying the criteria... " WHO did you beat, with consideration given to when/how "... is the ONLY way you can compare fighters across EVERY era, and across EVERY division... which is why boxing historians exclude everything else

        FACT: if it did not apply to John L Sullivan, then it does not apply to Manny Pacquiao... nor to anyone else... that is the ONLY way to be fair and knowledgeable when comparing across different era's


        using ANY other criteria lacks fairness, lacks knowledge, and lacks honesty,,, you MUST compare apples with apples when judging EVERYTHING in life

        which is why there are boxers who rank higher than Pacquiao, despite only ever representing one division

        e.g.

        Willie Pep is greater than Pacquiao, and he only ever fought in one division

        so is Muhammad Ali, and he only ever fought in one division


        you need to stop using flawed logic, and irrelevant criteria... because that is not fair, or impartial, or honest

        and the same point applies to world titles...
        the number of titles that a fighter wins, is NOT criteria for greatness

        back in the day there were only 8 champions, PERIOD... today, there are 89 champions

        a recent article accurately describes the problem...

        " With 17 weight classes in boxing and four major sanctioning bodies that bestow world titles, keeping track of who holds each of the belts can be difficult -- especially when there are sometimes multiple titlists in each organization because of interim and secondary belts.

        https://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/...champions-list

        you simply cannot reward a fighter by using criteria that makes it easier to succeed, disadvantaging other fighters in the process

        FACT: Rocky Fielding was NOT a genuine super-middleweight champion lol... and there are PLENTY of other examples


        FACT: Charley Burley never won a single title... but he was better than a lot of recent world champions

        which brings us back to the main point...

        FACT: " WHO did you beat, with consideration given to when/how
        "

        nothing else matters... otherwise, you cannot compare across era's... and nothing else is required... because, evaluating the quality of a win accurately defines how high a fighter climbed up the boxing ladder

        using any other criteria is neither fair, nor knowledgeable... it is ignorant, and dishonest


        that is how old-school veterans like me can
        EASILY evaluate new posters who join this forum... anyone who starts wanking on about divisions, titles... quoting numbers like boxing is some type of math game... quickly separate themselves from hardcore fans who know better

        my final point...

        when referring to divisions, you said... " These are the stats that are relevant "... you were wrong, I just proved that... but just for one second, lets pretend that you were right...

        Hugh, I repeat...
        YOU WERE WRONG... the following comment is hypothetical, just to further prove my point...

        lets pretend that Manny is a genuine 8 division champion... despite the fact that he never won a title at featherweight... despite the fact that Margarito was not even a genuine JMW, let alone a JMW champion... and despite the fact that above 130 Pacquiao only ever fought the best once, and he lost

        so, in our pretend conversation... Manny won titles in 8 divisions over the course of a 20 year career

        Hugh...

        Henry Armstrong held titles in 3
        ORIGINAL divisions... CONSECUTIVELY !!

        did you hear that Hugh... ?

        in today's boxing landscape...

        Armstrong held titles in 6 divisions...
        AT THE SAME TIME !!... against GENUINE champions, NOT named Margarito

        1) had Armstrong been given the nod against Cerefino Garcia - and many observers thought he won that fight - that would be the equivalent of winning titles in 8 divisions on todays boxing landscape... and that would be against GENUINE world champions, not against second-rate guys like David Diaz and Antonio Margarito

        2) boxing was much tougher back then... simply because, life was much tougher back then


        FACT: Manny Pacquiao has never done anything even remotely close to that... even using your twisted, incorrect, logic

        it gets worse...

        many genuine historians do not rank Armstrong in their list of top 5 fighters

        personally, I do... but many others do not, and I am not a genuine historian... that takes a wealth of knowledge that I - and most definitely you - do not possess

        knowledgeable
        [nol-i-juh-buhl]
        adjective
        1. possessing understanding; being well-informed



        the reason why a wealth of knowledge is required to judge ATG status, is because the key to using the ONLY criteria that counts... " WHO did you beat, with consideration given to when/how "... is understanding the opponents... that is the key

        you must have a great level of knowledge and understanding about the lesser-known opponents in EVERY division, in EVERY era... in order to be a good historian... so... how can you say that Pacquiao is greater than Henry Armstrong, when you probably cannot even name the guys he beat to win lineal titles, let alone his lesser opponents?

        how can you do that Hugh... ?

        HOW... ???


        Hugh... I am not anti-Manny... I am pro-boxing... there is a HUGE difference

        and fcuk Gayweather, this has nothing to do with him... but fcuk ignorant casual-fans who shlt on this sport, even more

        like I have said many times... neither Pacquiao, nor Gayweather... are top 10 ATG fighters... they just aren't

        I hope you understand, and I hope you develop a genuine love for boxing one day... but I have a feeling that you are going to reply with a post telling me how much you love Manny

        take care man









        ...

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by aboutfkntime View Post






          there is nothing fake about me shlthead

          you are the little fanboy clown who joined yesterday... and you are the lame little phaggot who fell in love with your hero Manny LMAO

          stop embarrassing yourself by making it CLEARLY obvious that you are just a spotty little ***wit who likes talking tough on the internet

          crawl back to your hole scumbag







          ...
          Nothing fake about u except the fact that u have to pretend your 60+ years old to carry on a lie u made on here to make it seem like your opinion somehow carries more weight than others cos u once got into a ring in 1979 during a stellar amateur career... Unfortunately u were so dumb to not work out dates properly and now u have to continue your absolute clown world claim to be in your 60s whilst at the same time typing out posts like your 14 years old, couldn't make it up, it's fkn hilarious. And the fact your only rebuke to other ppls arguments are there fanboys of other boxers shows your limited knowledge of boxing and life in general, I'm far from a pac fan, or a Golovkin fan which u claimed last time, there both not even in my top 20 favourite boxers but that's all u got to throw at ppl cos your unintelligent and clearly a basement dwelling twenty something whose only outlet is to make up lies on a forum to make there life seem a little less pointless than it actually is, u should end yourself tyler

          Comment


          • #55
            He won't.

            Losses at every stage of his career. There was an ongoing debate about who the best of this generation was, when he fought Mayweather, he lost.

            When future boxing fans look at his career, it won't be difficult to find his limitations as a fighter and the fighter in his own generation that is better than him.

            Nevertheless, he had a stellar career.

            Comment


            • #56
              Floyd's claim to fame is beating a load of questionable quality former and current champions who probably weren't the toughest opponents available.
              When he best maidana, ortiz, guerrero, bert o you can guarantee they weren't toughest available. Beating former or current champions don't automatically make them great wins, or better than wins over fighters who aren't even champions.
              His supposedly 2 best wins floyd fans go on about are with home advantage, with no rematchas with cws, IVs and green kids. Supposedly the wins are so off the scale great that the 2 cheated fighters can't do anything to equal them? If that's the case, can they have a rematch with floyd if beating floyd is the only route to be as good as floyd? No chance. Easy beats don't get rematches?
              That's why floyd isn't taken serious as a fighter. He's a wannabee, all smoke and mirrors.
              Even in losing to Ugas, Pac showed his quality, he shouldn't really be competive. Yet floyd fans trying to use reverse psychology with will pac drop down the ATG ratings after losing to Ugas? Not losing like that he wont.
              Last edited by hugh grant; 08-27-2021, 02:34 PM.
              Toyman Toyman likes this.

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by I have no ears View Post
                Nothing fake about u except the fact that u have to pretend your 60+ years old to carry on a lie u made on here to make it seem like your opinion somehow carries more weight than others cos u once got into a ring in 1979 during a stellar amateur career... Unfortunately u were so dumb to not work out dates properly and now u have to continue your absolute clown world claim to be in your 60s whilst at the same time typing out posts like your 14 years old, couldn't make it up, it's fkn hilarious. And the fact your only rebuke to other ppls arguments are there fanboys of other boxers shows your limited knowledge of boxing and life in general, I'm far from a pac fan, or a Golovkin fan which u claimed last time, there both not even in my top 20 favourite boxers but that's all u got to throw at ppl cos your unintelligent and clearly a basement dwelling twenty something whose only outlet is to make up lies on a forum to make there life seem a little less pointless than it actually is, u should end yourself tyler





                FACT: I never said I was 60+

                link... ?

                the reason why you cannot provide a link... is because you are just another lame spotty little phaggot, who loves to open his ****-warmer


                crawl back to your hole scumbag

                I have never seen you make an intelligent comment about boxing

                you are just another joined-yesterday phaggot with a big mouth

                ho hum... seen it all before







                ...

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by aboutfkntime View Post






                  FACT: I never said I was 60+

                  link... ?

                  the reason why you cannot provide a link... is because you are just another lame spotty little phaggot, who loves to open his ****-warmer


                  crawl back to your hole scumbag

                  I have never seen you make an intelligent comment about boxing

                  you are just another joined-yesterday phaggot with a big mouth

                  ho hum... seen it all before







                  ...
                  Thousands of people saw the thread where u made your preposterous claim, your reputation is in tatters, u know what u claimed and now predictably your going back on it, u said u started an amateur boxing career in 1979, u can't start an amateur career til the earliest age of 13 these days but it could have been later back then, who knows, u certainly don't, but I'm guessing your fantasy wasn't started at 13 so let's say u were 20, 20 years old in 1979 makes u born in 59, the year 1959 makes u at least 62, see this is what happens when u do maths correctly, u should take note fake grandpa, it will be useful to u in your next bs account u make and inevitably the new lies u come up with during that pathetic endeavor, peace out tyler

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by I have no ears View Post
                    Thousands of people saw the thread where u made your preposterous claim, your reputation is in tatters, u know what u claimed and now predictably your going back on it, u said u started an amateur boxing career in 1979, u can't start an amateur career til the earliest age of 13 these days but it could have been later back then, who knows, u certainly don't, but I'm guessing your fantasy wasn't started at 13 so let's say u were 20, 20 years old in 1979 makes u born in 59, the year 1959 makes u at least 62, see this is what happens when u do maths correctly, u should take note fake grandpa, it will be useful to u in your next bs account u make and inevitably the new lies u come up with during that pathetic endeavor, peace out tyler







                    " Thousands of people saw "


                    stop talking shlt... you little phaggot butt-monkey !!


                    LINK !!


                    FACT: you are a little crybaby phaggot... who has never made one valuable comment on boxing, EVER !!



                    even your dopey username makes you sound like a dribbling shlthead LMAO








                    ...

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by aboutfkntime View Post








                      " Thousands of people saw "


                      stop talking shlt... you little phaggot butt-monkey !!


                      LINK !!


                      FACT: you are a little crybaby phaggot... who has never made one valuable comment on boxing, EVER !!



                      even your dopey username makes you sound like a dribbling shlthead LMAO








                      ...
                      It was a thread over 2 months old, u know it's gone now, that's why your asking for a link, I told u I was gonna bring it up everytime your on here talking your utter **** though, and yes over two thousand ppl read your hilarious self own! It must be hard knowing your laughed at online and in real life, I would pity u but your such a lying bellend it's hard to even do that

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP