Tweet
Where to start on this ludicrous piece of flamebait...
The Marquez fights were 4 years apart. So either you were in a coma or are just making something up, and actually haven't been following boxing for too long.
Really? *Goes to check the record*
Yup, looks like it is still a draw and a win for Pacquiao. Hey, did you watch the fights in full yet? Or are you just making up that he lost both times because that's what critics like to say?
I watched them both back in full the other day and, to be honest, the only reason people say Pacquiao was lucky is because Marquez's corner tell him he is winning the fight so he's upset when he doesn't win. I scored them both round by round as impartially as possible, and both times I had Pacquiao up. He did the most damage in both fights, and Marquez only tended to win rounds that Pacquiao "had off".
In fact, if you check the official records, Pacquiao should have really won both fights - the draw was down to a mistake by the 113-113 judge who scored the first round 10-7 when a 3 knock down round should be scored 10-6.
Download those two fights (easy to find for a boxing fan) and watch them. You might learn something.
I don't think any boxing fan or critic with an ounze of sense would suggest Roy wasn't an incredible boxer with unmatched talents and very impressive accomplishments. Pacquiao won more belts at more weights though, and he didn't fight lumps like Ruiz, so I'd argue that Pacquiao's win vs Cotto is more impressive than RJJ against Ruiz.
Easy tiger.
Unfair comparison. Roy is American. PPV is a largely American product.
Pacman gets higher fees from Filipino TV stations. So does that make him better than RJJ?
Pacman won the WBC Flyweight title before he was 20 years old in 1998.
Pacquiao is displaying more intelligence than Roy and has interests outside of boxing. Staying in the game too long is not admirable. Ask Muhammad Ali.
RJJ in his prime would have won that comfortably. Going in against another guy with a padded record and getting beaten up for 9 rounds when he should have won it in 3 is nothing particularly impressive.
Hatton was over the hill? With 1 loss on his record at 30 years old? Don't think so. Cotto? 1 loss on his record and 28. Don't think so. De La Hoya? Yeah, but it made Pacman money and gave him fame. Most of Pacman's opponents were either close or just past their prime. Few other than DLH were over the hill.
Nobody is dis*****g that Roy is a top p4p fighter. I'm not sure why you are defending him? His legacy doesn't need defending.
BHop will beat him though, sorry to break it to you. Age refined BHop, and shattered RJJ. He's still good but not close to a younger RJJ who was untouchable.
The Marquez fights were 4 years apart. So either you were in a coma or are just making something up, and actually haven't been following boxing for too long.
Really? *Goes to check the record*
Yup, looks like it is still a draw and a win for Pacquiao. Hey, did you watch the fights in full yet? Or are you just making up that he lost both times because that's what critics like to say?
I watched them both back in full the other day and, to be honest, the only reason people say Pacquiao was lucky is because Marquez's corner tell him he is winning the fight so he's upset when he doesn't win. I scored them both round by round as impartially as possible, and both times I had Pacquiao up. He did the most damage in both fights, and Marquez only tended to win rounds that Pacquiao "had off".
In fact, if you check the official records, Pacquiao should have really won both fights - the draw was down to a mistake by the 113-113 judge who scored the first round 10-7 when a 3 knock down round should be scored 10-6.
Download those two fights (easy to find for a boxing fan) and watch them. You might learn something.
I don't think any boxing fan or critic with an ounze of sense would suggest Roy wasn't an incredible boxer with unmatched talents and very impressive accomplishments. Pacquiao won more belts at more weights though, and he didn't fight lumps like Ruiz, so I'd argue that Pacquiao's win vs Cotto is more impressive than RJJ against Ruiz.
Easy tiger.
Unfair comparison. Roy is American. PPV is a largely American product.
Pacman gets higher fees from Filipino TV stations. So does that make him better than RJJ?
Pacman won the WBC Flyweight title before he was 20 years old in 1998.
Pacquiao is displaying more intelligence than Roy and has interests outside of boxing. Staying in the game too long is not admirable. Ask Muhammad Ali.
RJJ in his prime would have won that comfortably. Going in against another guy with a padded record and getting beaten up for 9 rounds when he should have won it in 3 is nothing particularly impressive.
Hatton was over the hill? With 1 loss on his record at 30 years old? Don't think so. Cotto? 1 loss on his record and 28. Don't think so. De La Hoya? Yeah, but it made Pacman money and gave him fame. Most of Pacman's opponents were either close or just past their prime. Few other than DLH were over the hill.
Nobody is dis*****g that Roy is a top p4p fighter. I'm not sure why you are defending him? His legacy doesn't need defending.
BHop will beat him though, sorry to break it to you. Age refined BHop, and shattered RJJ. He's still good but not close to a younger RJJ who was untouchable.
Comment