Why didnt pac ever fight zahir raheem?
Collapse
-
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
lol not all fighters who likes to move around the ring gets better when they're on the move. ali and leonard are 2 good example of fighters who gets better when moving around because they can throw punches/combinations even while on the move that's why they got to baffle their opponents and oftentimes catched them off-balance. raheem is not that kind of fighter...he likes to move but he needs to stop to throw punches and he doesn't throw a lot of punches anyway that's why he lost to guys like juarez and freitas.Of course I do!
But you don't think I took note of how ordinary Pacquiao looked against Solis and Cotto (When Cotto decided to move in the late rounds)? That to me was very telling. I still question how Pacquiao would have fared against Guzman, who's offensive arsenal wasn't in Marquez's league, but Guzman had the far superior hand speed, defense, footwork and he wasn't content on trading. He, unlike Marquez, would actually tie his man up. Raheem also had some of those same attributes. So I would have loved to see it...in that Pacquiao hasn't faced that kind of style. Wouldn't you?Comment
-
shut the fcuk up...your boy raheem can't even beat a smaller juarez at 130. you're only all over his nuts because he beat an unprepared morales. after that win he got beat by freitas and then totally embarassed by funeka.there is a lot of excuse being brought up in this thread. Why team pacquiao didn't even try and make a fight with raheem after he dispatched Morales?
why has pacquiao not fought Morales after win? Do yall realize how much of a shadow of himself that morales was in the pacquiao trilogy. and despite this slippage, he was still able to defeat pacquaio!!!! Some FOTD!!!
why is this even up for discussion anyway...pac is todays p4p best while raheem has gone to oblivion. if he's that good how come he's not successful? says it all really.Comment
-
You already know brick. You have posters on BS who live their lives everyday to pick apart pacquiao's legacy. Sadshut the fcuk up...your boy raheem can't even beat a smaller juarez at 130. you're only all over his nuts because he beat an unprepared morales. after that win he got beat by freitas and then totally embarassed by funeka.
why is this even up for discussion anyway...pac is todays p4p best while raheem has gone to oblivion. if he's that good how come he's not successful? says it all really.
...
Comment
-
DUDE. Will you guys stop with this. Pac didnt fight Raheem because
1) He had a date with Morales, Raheem was a tuneup gone wrong.
2) There was way, way, way more demand and money for him to rematch Morales.
You guys need to quit with this ****. Use the search function, weve covered this hundreds of times.Comment
-
If you refer to a Trilogy, you treat it as a single thing. So if you were asked who won it, it will always be Pacquiao, and Morales never won that Trilogy because he lost the deciding match.
However, you can only say that Morales won in one match out of three fights. But you can never say Morales > Pacquiao, as in Morales defeated Pacquiao.
Or else, you purposely blind yourself to the fact and make a fool of yourself.Comment
-
Comment
Comment