If Floyd beats Pac, Pac is not the best of this era, please stop that non sense.

[JohnCIV6]

The fact of the matter is people just throw Floyds accomplishments out the window, when in reality they are fairly similair, with pac havin maybe a fight over mayweather in Cotto.

This fight in my mind and most experts mind wil determine the best fighter of the era. If people need Floyd to beat shane also, im ok with that assumption.

READ THIS IT SHALL HELP YOU UNDERSTAND:

A weekly boxing list compiled by Michael Rosenthal. This week: 10 reasons Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr. should fight.

1. It would settle the debate over who is the pound-for-pound king.
2. It would settle the debate over who is the best fighter of the decade.
3. It would generate a tremendous amount of money for all involved.
4. Pacquiao would cement his place among the all-time greats with a victory.
5. Mayweather would prove he’s as great as he says he is with a victory.
6. The event would be a tremendous boost for boxing.
7. How often do the Nos. 1 and 2 fighters in the world have an opportunity to meet?
8. We want to see Mayweather in a competitive fight.
9. We want to see Pacquiao in a competitive fight.
10. We want to see how high pay-per-view numbers can get.

http://www.ringtv.com/blog/ SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM.

[FeFist]

The thread starter is right.

The majority of you are calling up fights that were huge upsets, as in the fighter who ended up winning wasn't in that individuals class. Eg. Tyson and Buster Douglass.

Floyd achievements are nothing to joke about, he's currently ranked no. 2 in the world. Pacquiao's achievements edge Floyd's(I'd put this down to Floyd taking a year off if he thought Mosley and Cotto in the lay off period and came out on top then they'd be about balanced), he's ranked no. 1.

Overall they're not that far from each other and a win over the other would settle the score so to speak. That's partially why people are hyping the fight so much, people want to see who is number one.

[jrosales13]

The thread starter is right.

The majority of you are calling up fights that were huge upsets, as in the fighter who ended up winning wasn't in that individuals class. Eg. Tyson and Buster Douglass.

Floyd achievements are nothing to joke about, he's currently ranked no. 2 in the world. Pacquiao's achievements edge Floyd's(I'd put this down to Floyd taking a year off if he thought Mosley and Cotto in the lay off period and came out on top then they'd be about balanced), he's ranked no. 1.

Overall they're not that far from each other and a win over the other would settle the score so to speak. That's partially why people are hyping the fight so much, people want to see who is number one.

Is Duran-Benitez or Duran-Leonard huge upsets?

[charlieg]

It always amazes me how few people are able to look at an issue like this with any objectivity whatsoever.

Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao are both great, accomplished boxers with impressive records. To seriously describe either of them as lucky is just incredulous.

However, the question at the top of the thread, if Mayweather beats Pacquiao does that define him as the best of this era - or, as Floyd himself has on occasion suggested, of all time?

The answer isn't a straightforward yes or no for me. It's all about 'how'.

If Mayweather uses his size - and he is a natural WW and Pacquiao is not, hence the catchweight vs Cotto - and takes a narrow decision, then it won't prove that he is, P4P, better tha Pacquiao. He's bigger, he'll be more than half a stone heavier on the night. There's a reason we have weight divisions in the sport, it's because size does matter. Pacquiao is unusual in that he has transcended so many weight classes often beating the recognised best at each weight (only Diaz/135 was arguably a weak opponent).

Mayweather beat the best at Super Featherweight (130) and Lightweight (135) in a very impressive first 8 years in the sport, forming the foundation of his legacy. Then he started to get choosier in his opponents. At light welterweight (140) he beast Gatti, Corley, and Brusceles, and whilst Gatti was a big draw, they were all pretty limited fighters. At welterweight there was Judah (arguably in decline, after losing to Baldomir), Baldomir (with 9 defeats prior to fighting Mayweather), Hatton (a light welterweight) and Marquez (who they put on steps during the promotion to sell the fight because he was that much smaller than Mayweather). Respect is definitely due for meeting De La Hoya at 154 and beating him, but other than Judah his welterweight exploits are, well, exploitative.

Pacquiao was busy winning the Flyweight title (112) nearly 20lbs lighter than Mayweather in 1998. After losing it in '99 he jumps up to Super Bantamweight for 3 years, taking on all comers, before moving up to Featherweight to take on the 2 best - he beat Barrera and controversially drew against Marquez (worth watching again, I put Pacquiao 5 pts up, and the judge who scored a draw made an error in the 1st - the judge who gave rounds 3 thru 12 to Marquez... must have been blind). His first fight at Super Featherweight is his last loss, against Morales who'd just lost to Barrera. Pacquiao would go on to beat him twice, effectively retiring Morales. He would beat Barrera again, Marquez in the rematch, and Solis before moving up to take the lightweight title from a limited Diaz. Then a weakened De La Hoya at Welterweight before beating Hatton at his best weight (Light Welterweight). He then beat Cotto at a catchweight of 145, for a Welterweight title.

So... career analysis aside, what conclusions are there to draw?

Mayweather went up in weight for reasons more natural than anything else. He dominated at his first 2 weights, before getting more selective once he established himself at 140/147. He is now a natural at 147lbs.

Pacquiao went up in weight for the challenge. Having beaten all the best including rematches at 122-130, he had to move up to really make the mega fights. He fought two of the best at 140 (Hatton) and 147 (Cotto) around a couple of easy fights (Diaz, DLH). He is probably best suited to 140lbs and could still fight at 135lbs if there were credible opponents. He is at 147lbs for the challenge.

So, Mayweather, who puts himself on a pedestal with his self belief, will he be better P4P than Pacquiao if he beats him? Only if he gives him a beating, in my opinion. If it is close, even a Mayweather victory might give critics cause to sympathise with the smaller Filipino. I doubt Pacquiao's reputation will be particularly hurt by a loss to FMJ unless it is heavy and one sided.

For me, for Mayweather to stake his claim as the best P4P fighter of our era, he has to pitch a near shut out or (better) knock out Pacquiao. That will cement his legacy. Anything else will leave big questions still to be answered (perhaps against Mosley or Williams) and a loss will be disastrous as far as his ego is concerned because it will put him 2nd to Pacquiao for eternity.

[theplayerpimp]

If Floyd beats Pacman, it doesn't matter, Pac is still the best of this era.. Umm, no he isn't. If Floyd beats him, he isn't better then Floyd in this era. Therefore Floyd is the best of this era.

You can't have it both ways. Sorry.

Go ahead and say that pac has accomplished more in the era.. That's fine, because he has. In no way is he the best fighter though.. No ****ing way if he loses. He has proven to be a legit WW. Floyd is also a leg it WW. The fight is completely even, and there will be no excuse like before.

Mark my words, but this fight will determine the fighter of the decade, aka the best fighter of this decade.

Im a neutral fan, and I very much like both fight ers, so im real with this. Im so sick of Pac fans it's ridiculous.

yeah I agree all the Floyd haters gota stop. If Floyd beats PAC then he is the best boxer in the era but that doesn't mean that he has accomplishe more than PAC but it means he is a better boxer. And if he wins he better get the credit for doing it.

[Chups]

Your the biggest flaming home on this forum.. All your posts suck. Please suck mannys **** and leave, as I will never reply to you again until you change that gay ass ****ing avatar you have up. God I hope thats not you.

A noob making a veteran bscene poster leave. Good luck bud.

[jrosales13]

yeah I agree all the Floyd haters gota stop. If Floyd beats PAC then he is the best boxer in the era but that doesn't mean that he has accomplishe more than PAC but it means he is a better boxer. And if he wins he better get the credit for doing it.

Why get credit when all I hear is that nobody at 147 or below has a chance of beating Floyd. Which Floyd is just cherry picking his fights.

[Chups]

The fact of the matter is people just throw Floyds accomplishments out the window, when in reality they are fairly similair, with pac havin maybe a fight over mayweather in Cotto.

Floyd's best fight is Corrales........ far from being a HOF. Who else is a HOF in Mayweather's resume besides DLH??

JCC though fought a lot of bums had more HOF fighters he beat than Floyd.
JCC>>> Floyd


Pac has already surpassed JCC in greatness.

[jrv1932]

I dont know how people think pacs resume is SOOOO much better than floyds. Maybe slightly but a mayweather win definitely moves him ahead. Pacs losses count for something as well. I think the winner is the greatest of last 20 years. All respect to roy hes the most talented athletically that ive ever seen but his resume isnt good enough.

[hugh grant]

I know some people think Pac is a machine. But how many times can a boxer scale those heights before peaking off?

Performed as well as anyone could against Diaz, and then DLH, and then Hatton and finally against Cotto. There must be a bad performance due sometime and if PBF beats Pac it would be an off day that is due him. Just like it was due SRR against Randolph turpin.

PBF on the other hand has been work man like and methodical, not really scaling any particular heights or putting in spectacular performances.