Manny Pacquiao Vs Prince Naseem Ahmed at 126 ??

[nujabes77]

What he isn't realizing is that Hamed's style is what's going to be his downfall.

Hamed's style, while entertaining, would never be a style that could beat any atg. It was great for throwing off tomato can's.

Hamed would have had to have beat Barrera or at least gone toe to toe, and beat Morales, or at least go toe to toe, to convince me that he has a chance against Pac. The fact that he got destroyed by Barrera in a landslide decision (even with Marco's point deductions) shows that he really shouldn't be mentioned in conversation with greats from his weight class.

thats what pisses me off man, like they always compare the two like they are on the same level...


you gotta love all these so called boxing historians/experts in the forum... like that ****** flicker

[F l i c k e r]

barrera/morales/marquez could not beat a raw pacquiao, what makes you think a clown like hamed would? someone barerra toyed with?


hamed slick but agressive? what does that mean? listen to yourself...


calling me a *******? well i take that as a compliment, he deserves such passionate fans like myself

You don't know what slick but aggressive is? Hard to hit but will engage.

Similar to differences between a defensive couner-puncher(mayweather) and an offensive counter-puncher(Jmm).

You accepting that is fine but it just makes your opinion null because no matter what you can't see past your nose.

[CarlosG815]

I keep reading about all of Manny's downfalls at 126, but the fact remains he was undefeated until he fought Morales, then came back and destroyed him.

Not only that but he fought EVERYBODY. He fought all the best and won, and very convincingly (aside from JMM).

Get off the "Pac wasn't skilled at 126 like he is today" argument because it's bull**** guys.

I'm not a *******. The reason I had red k before this thread is because I've spoken out about Pacquiao and got attacked on this forum for it.

I call it like I see it.

Pacquiao beats Hamed KO before 10.

[nujabes77]

That's fine. I respect that because at least you have a reason for your opinion.

I just think Hamed gets the nod from me because his style doesn't play into Pacquiao's style at 126, who was also quite sloppy as well, difference being he was easy to hit. While Hamed was slick and not as easy to hit. At least not when you don't got your fundmentals down like MAB and EM did. Pacquiao didn't have the assets he has now back then.

well you can have that opinion... but dont preach it like its a proverb

[TOBYLEE1]

You had to have great balance to beat Hamed, at that time Manny use to fall in into his punches, it would had been right into Hamed's strength. At the same time Naz didn't face young top fighters, Pac was young enough, fast and busy enough to get to him. Pick-em fight if you ask me

[nujabes77]

You don't know what slick but aggressive is? Hard to hit but will engage.

Similar to differences between a defensive couner-puncher(mayweather) and an offensive counter-puncher(Jmm).

You accepting that is fine but it just makes your opinion null because no matter what you can't see past your nose.

call that slick, ******? again listen to yourself... cause all i see is nothing but a clown

[CarlosG815]

You don't know what slick but aggressive is? Hard to hit but will engage.

Similar to differences between a defensive couner-puncher(mayweather) and an offensive counter-puncher(Jmm).

You accepting that is fine but it just makes your opinion null because no matter what you can't see past your nose.

I see where you're coming from but the difference is, if Hamed made an attempt to engage Pacquiao, he would find that Pacquiao would move around him, light him up, then bounce back out.

I don't think Hamed has what it takes to engage a guy like Pac, that would lead to certain destruction very fast if you ask me.

Naseem would have to box him outside and keep him away but I don't think he has that kind of style.

Naz threw many counter punches while leaning backwards and that's not a mistake you can afford to make against a guy like Pacquiao.

Barrera about lifted him off the ground when he tried that **** on him.

[Khalid X]

I keep reading about all of Manny's downfalls at 126, but the fact remains he was undefeated until he fought Morales, then came back and destroyed him.

Not only that but he fought EVERYBODY. He fought all the best and won, and very convincingly (aside from JMM).

Get off the "Pac wasn't skilled at 126 like he is today" argument because it's bull**** guys.

I'm not a *******. The reason I had red k before this thread is because I've spoken out about Pacquiao and got attacked on this forum for it.

I call it like I see it.

Pacquiao beats Hamed KO before 10.

1. Manny had lost to turcampo (sp) and sigurat(sp) so he wasn't undefeated when he lost to Morales

2. If you think Manny was as skill back then as he is today...I really don't know what to tell you. Freddy Roach, Boxing analyst, and just about everyone who follows boxing disagrees with that statement.

[nujabes77]

I keep reading about all of Manny's downfalls at 126, but the fact remains he was undefeated until he fought Morales, then came back and destroyed him.

Not only that but he fought EVERYBODY. He fought all the best and won, and very convincingly (aside from JMM).

Get off the "Pac wasn't skilled at 126 like he is today" argument because it's bull**** guys.

I'm not a *******. The reason I had red k before this thread is because I've spoken out about Pacquiao and got attacked on this forum for it.

I call it like I see it.

Pacquiao beats Hamed KO before 10.

unpolished/raw pac beat the likes of mab/jmm/em... i have no clue why these ******s think that this clown stands a chance

[CarlosG815]

thats what pisses me off man, like they always compare the two like they are on the same level...

Which you cannot do because Hamed's resume isn't CLOSE to Manny's.

If Manny's got a 4.0 on his transcript, Hamed's a 1.8.