Manny Pacquiao Is in Trouble Once the Hype Vanishes

[Pacquiao'd]

Relax and think objectively. Yes Genaro Hernandez and angel manfredy were in 1999. Corrales was 01 Castillo was 02.But when you take almost 2 yrs off its hard to be fighter of the decade.

floyd had 7 years of dominance in the 2000's by 07 already in the bank. so what are you talking about?

on the other had, look at pacs resume. they dont even compare. not even close

[immortal tech]

Article from bleacherreport.......don't agree with about 50% of it (he calls Raheem, Rahman??)....but he brings up some good points about PAc @ the lower weights.


Manny Pacquiao Is in Trouble Once the Hype Vanishes

by CJ James


This is how boxing works. If you have a lot of fans, who buy a lot of magazines, and visit a lot of web sites, then the media just spends most of their time telling you how great he is.

Please come back tomorrow.

You have entire web sites these days, like the Examiner.com, which are only in business as they've devoted their entire editorial to sucking the collective balls of Asia.

Even this site has a policy of promoting Pacquiao articles in this section. In the grand pursuit of reads.

The problem being, once you retire, and the bandwagon jumpers find another knock-out merchant to follow, you lose the hype, media cheerleading, and have to rely on what's actually on your resume.

Pacquiao reminds me of Mike Tyson, in regards to legacy. We had 70 percent of the planet trying to ram "Mike is the greatest Heavyweight of all time" down our throats in the 1980s and early 1990s.

The media. The fans. Everyone.

Only those who were real students of the sport, were thinking "yeah, but he's never boxed Holyfield or Lewis yet, and will probably lose to both."

Now he's retired and the band-wagoners are gone, and the media are no longer in love with him, it's just us and his resume.

And it ain't too pretty.

Honestly. I scratch my head reading coverage of Pacquiao. It's Tyson all over again. Journalists with a gun to their head, chasing the all important fan reads.

When you actually look at the guy's career, I can almost guarantee that the guy will lose at least 30 places on an All Time Great list as soon as he retires, and the casual fans move on to the next hero.

Seriously. These things happen.

He won the WBC flyweight title. Made one defence, and then lost it to Singsurat. Did he go for a re-match? No, he just ducked the guy, and ran away.

He won the IBF Super-Bantamweight title, made one defense, and then lost again. I say lost, he was actually given one of the more sickeningly corrupt decisions I've ever seen in boxing.

He was actually down on all three cards at round five, with his face completely battered from numerous bombs he'd taken. The referee suddenly decides to deduct Sanchez TWO points in two consecutive rounds, bringing Pacquiao level. He then decides to stop it on cuts immediately, and announces it a draw.

He beats Barrera. I have no qualms about this bout. It was a good win.

In his very next bout, he faces Marquez. You won't find a pundit or TV company in the world who didn't give that bout to Marquez by at least two rounds. Most had him four rounds up.

Guess what. Another corrupt draw saves Pacquiao.

So let's tally up the career so far. Every single title he was won so far, he's either lost it in the very next defense or managed to hang on to it by being given a corrupt draw.

So Manny has managed to hold on to his title, by an Arum-decision, when he lost the bout by a long way. It doesn't matter, because he gets schooled again two fights later by Morales and loses it again anyway!

Honestly. Manny Pacquiao's career up until 2006 was just losing. Well, either losing to every top fighter he faced, or getting corrupt draws to save him.

So please, shut up about this "seven weight world champion" like he was a dominant fighter at the lower weights.

So what happens after he's been schooled two times in his last three fights, against Marquez and Morales?

Well he refuses to re-match Marquez. He actually refuses to re-match Marquez for five years after the draw, as he knows the only chance he has is if the guy's 34 years old, and has lost a bit.

Do you get that? After the Marquez draw he wouldn't face him again for five years. Imagine if Mayweather did that after the questionable Castillo win?

Pacquiao originally doesn't want to re-match Morales either, and doesn't. Until the guy loses to journeyman Zaheer Rahman, by a long way.

So he re-matches an old Morales, coming off his big loss, and wins. Just look at the score cards by the way. Rahman beat Morales by on average, six rounds, on the score cards. On one card he won by eight. When the bout was stopped, Manny was only two rounds ahead of Morales.

What a legendary win. Doing worse than Zaheer Rahman.

Marquez, still chasing his rematch after three years, gets snubbed again for Morales. A guy who'd lost three of his last four fights, and who was obviously shot.

That doesn't matter. Manny loves facing old names, coming off of losses.

Six months after Pacquiao beat him, the guy lost to David Diaz...Manny's wins over Morales are sandwiched in between the guy losing to Zaheer Rahman and David Diaz.

Has to tell you everything about that. Just facing and old, shot name.

Next bout, an old shot Barrera has just been schooled by Marquez. Marquez won every round on one card.

So I'm guessing Pacquiao takes on Marquez?

Hell no! Barreras is an old, shot name, coming off a huge loss. Let's face him instead. Marquez is still 33. He still might be dangerous.

Finally, five years after the original controversial draw, Pacquiao gives Marquez a rematch. Even though the guy has been divisional No. 2, and PFP top 10 for at least three years behind you.

What happens? He gets an even more corrupt decision to hang on to his belts. Does he re-match this one immediately? Hell no, he runs away again!

Honestly. Manny Pacquiao only faced four elite opponents at the lower weights. As in, peak-ish guys, who hadn't just been beaten by a lesser fighter.

Morales (first)—he lost

Marquez (first)—he lost

Barrera (first)—he won

Marquez (second)—he lost.

He ducked re-matches against almost all of the guys he lost to at the lower weights. Including Marquez.

After being whupped by Marquez, Manny had no love. He was well exposed as a tough brawler, who came unstuck against quality, technical counter punchers.

So what did his people do? They do as all losing fighters do. Just move divisions, and hand pick more beatable opponents, to re-build the reputation.

First lightweight, where the PFP No. 2 criminally hand picks the worst world champion in the division.

He then moves to 147, and faces a guy who hadn't even boxed there for 11 years, in a shot, Oscar de la Hoya. The Oscar de la Hoya who nearly got knocked out by Steve Forbes in his warmup for God's sake!

Was facing an old, shot guy, who hadn't made weight below 154 in 11 years easy enough?

Hell no. Let's put in his contract that Oscar will have to pay fines for every pound he enters the ring over 147 as well. Make the guy have to box at the exact same weight as Pacquiao.

Oscar's last in ring weight before Pacquiao = 168 pounds.

In ring versus Pacquiao = 147 pounds!

Next, hand picking Ricky Hatton over guys like Mosley, Williams, Bradley, and Marquez b because the guy was old, shot, and coming off a big loss. That and the fact that he nearly got knocked out in his bout with Juan Lazcano (a Mayweather sparring partner).

Another shot name, coming off a loss, hand picked for his style.

Next, exactly the same. An old, brawler, in Cotto, coming off a big loss. And he took this fight over the PFP No. 3 Shane Mosley!?

Shane turned up at the guy's gym to get the fight. He said he'd box for 20 percent to make the bout happen.

The biggest bout in boxing at the time. Roach hand picks Cotto as, in his words: "It would be a boring fight with Mosley. He runs. Cotto comes to fight."

Translated, Shane's too slick for Pacquiao, and like Marquez, may beat him.

Let's just look at the facts.

Pacquiao didn't dominate at any lower weight. He lost at most of them. I'd argue that he wasn't even the best 130 fighter when he was there. He either lost, or got very lucky in at least 50 percent of his big bouts there.

All he's done since being taken to school by Marquez, is face easier opponents. Hand picked brawlers, without the skill or speed to cause him problems.

Marquez. Ducked

Mosley. Ducked

Williams. No

Bradley. No

Mayweather. He pulled out of it, and fought Clottey instead.

Nearly all of Pacquiao's big wins are against old, shot names, coming off of losses. Guys who have already lost to Grade B opposition.

As soon as the bandwagon jumpers have moved on to their next guy, as soon as Pacquiao retires or loses, it will just be him, and his lousy resume.

thats a ***** move

[Chups]

floyd had 7 years of dominance in the 2000's by 07 already in the bank. so what are you talking about?

on the other had, look at pacs resume. they dont even compare. not even close

7 years of dominance? Roy dominated the early 2000-2002, then Bernard Hopkins.......then Mayweather.....then Pac. Mayweather dominated 2 or 3 years in the decade.

Pacquiao 3 fighters of the Year, Mayweather 1. It's not even close.

[Pacquiao'd]

7 years of dominance? Roy dominated the early 2000-2002, then Bernard Hopkins.......then Mayweather.....then Pac. Mayweather dominated 2 or 3 years in the decade.

Pacquiao 3 fighters of the Year, Mayweather 1. It's not even close.

fighter of the year means nothing when the opponents were **** quality or pac lost to JMM and got schooled by a shot EM the first time around

the same bhop that was fighting smaller guys?
same roy that was juicing?

[The Big Dunn]

Yesir:

we agree. but its fighter of the decade. 2000-2010. Get it? what you do in 1999, 2011, 1875 doesn't matter. Read what I wrote, think then come at me. I never said Pac had a better resume from 00-10. I said he won IMO, primarily b/c he fought the whole decade and floyd took 2 yrs off.

I have just as many redk's from pac fans as you. Relax.

[Pacquiao'd]

the exact same thread can be made for mayweather and other top boxers

coralis, people had him losing yet he got a gift

he fought oscar after oscar was way past his prime

he fought marquez by forcing him up and him being old and all

he fought mosley after refusing to fight him for 10 years until mosley was nearly 40

mayweather fought hatton forcing him up to 147

mayweather fought zudah who was coming off a bad loss

mayweather rejected fights with a young mosley, margo and retired to avoid tough guys like cotto

see how anything positive can be turned negative? that is what your article is doing, total rubbish just like the stuff I typed about mayweather

dude, slap yourself for the ******ity of each line you wrote.


you are ******ed, simply

[Ryn0]

yes but people have torn his resume apart since his retirement b/c the hype around him died down and people saw his resume for what it was...not good

same will happen to pac and thats the point of the article

Tyson is still recognised as a top 10-15 ATG HW, you can literally tear anyone's resume up using Boxrec.

I feels as if the writer was angry the entire time he wrote it.

[Da Hammer]

there's alot of tripe in there......but he is right about Pac not reamtching opponents who give him close fights immediately.......

He offered marquez an immediate rematch after the first marquez fight and marquez refused. instead ended up fighting in Indonesia for a lot less money that he would have made fighting Pac. So much for that argument.

[Pacquiao'd]

Tyson is still recognised as a top 10-15 ATG HW, you can literally tear anyone's resume up using Boxrec.

I feels as if the writer was angry the entire time he wrote it.

and a debate begins when someone states that b/c people think his resume is ****

[da beatdown]

Really biased article. Marquez turned down the re-match because he wanted more money. Sure Mayweather is gonna put on a boxing clinic but thats no reason to down play Pac's accomplishments in this sport. When He's in the ring he gives his all (hgh or not) and that's all we really want from a fighter.