Your Analysis of Mayweather Vs Pacquiao

[fabie]

Pac takes Floyd out early or Floyd wins a SD/ Close UD.

At least some realism here... I concur.

[fabie]

One of the key ingredients in truly objective analysis is one must put aside emotion because 99.9% of the time emotion detracts from rational thought. However, in contrast passion will almost always enhance rational thought because it drives one to educate oneself in a matter.

Lets give it a try…I have always admired Pacman since his fight with Barrera. It was so refreshing to see the passion in a young fighter like Pacman displayed against a smart and technically sound fighter like Barrera. Pacman is a great fighter period. The excitement buzz and passion he brings to a fight ..and lets not forget the huge “Heart” is what has catapulted Manny to the top of the boxing game today.

Yet, even with all these attributes Manny will not beat “Mayweather”. And we will see this fight make no mistake about it! Here are the reasons in order of importance:

1. Defensive brilliance.

2. Speed and all important “Timing”.

3. Boxing intelligence. (watch the Marquez fight again)

4. Ability to take a “bomb” actually two.. (The Mosley fight)

5. Strength (Mosley was shocked at the “strength of “Mayweather” ..he could not muscle “Floyd” around the ring… and Floyd stood toe to toe throughout the fight. Margarito could not do this against “Shane”).

6.Ability to adapt in the ring.

7. Unprecedented connect percentage… Manny takes too many punches…and he will be hit often and clean.

Summary: Remember this reply…it will serve as a blue print and a round by round breakdown of the “Fight”.:

I await your responses..............

BTW if you want an explanation for the red K, I will provide you with one via PM.

Kudos to your objectiveness in ridding the side show....would have repped you more but couldn't at the moment. But I repped you with your ALI banners as your sig pic.

[poeticlsykuac]

When has Pacman ever been a counter puncher Fabie? I have seriously never seen him as a counter puncher. If he does that he will be thinking and I see that as an autoloss if he is in the ring with PBF. His best chance in my opinion is not tactics at all. Be Pacman, leave it all out there just unload. Screw the technical analysis, if Pacman tries to counter or think in the ring he has no chance at anything but a loss. I understood all your post and it was a long well thought out post but I just can't see Pacman having a chance unless he throws 1000 punches and never stops coming, never stops getting deterred no matter how hard he gets hit. If he tries countering or pivoting or thinking of foot work, or using one tool over the other he loses, I can't see it any other way. Pacman is not nor will he ever be a technical fighter.

[fabie]

When has Pacman ever been a counter puncher Fabie? I have seriously never seen him as a counter puncher. If he does that he will be thinking and I see that as an autoloss if he is in the ring with PBF. His best chance in my opinion is not tactics at all. Be Pacman, leave it all out there just unload. Screw the technical analysis, if Pacman tries to counter or think in the ring he has no chance at anything but a loss. I understood all your post and it was a long well thought out post but I just can't see Pacman having a chance unless he throws 1000 punches and never stops coming, never stops getting deterred no matter how hard he gets hit. If he tries countering or pivoting or thinking of foot work, or using one tool over the other he loses, I can't see it any other way. Pacman is not nor will he ever be a technical fighter.

In my humble opinion, you have stereotyped Pacman.

He isn't a strictly a counter-puncher and yet have floored many opponents with his counter. Is that fair to say? The classic response is just look at the way he stunned Hatton, that was a counter punch. Enough said.

Another one is that you have claimed that Pacman is "not nor will he ever be a technical fighter". Using your own terminology, I can see your own ungrounded assumptions again. I humbly think that because of Pacquiao's dynamic bravado in much of his career, you made it seemed that he simply overpowers his opponents and not owing anything much to his technical maturity most specially in his last 5 fights.

This seemed redundant. Pacquiao being not a technical fighter and yet has beaten opponents with techniques can also be said.

But both of your points leads to what? That Pacquiao is neither a counter-puncher and a technical fighter....

And?

The thread's author asked for unbiased points on how we see this mythical Pacquiao - Mayweather fight. You came up with your own surmation without enough grounds, I think.

To say that Mayweather, for example, doesn't "slug it out" is as much as a stereotyping either because in his last fight against Mosley, he did just that. He stayed put and didn't run away. He outpunched and slugged it out against a great fighter.

And guess what, the supposed defensive master in Mayweather also had some offensive weaponries of his own.

It is a fallacy to coin a fighter as strictly this or that. No one in the magnitude of a Mayweather or a Pacquiao would ever even dream of being a top rank fighter without their mastery of the wholeness of the pugilistic arts, namely offensive and defensive strategies and techniques. Brute strength and finesse...

All in one package.

[| THE KING |]

In my humble opinion, you have stereotyped Pacman.

He isn't a strictly a counter-puncher and yet have floored many opponents with his counter. Is that fair to say? The classic response is just look at the way he stunned Hatton, that was a counter punch. Enough said.

Another one is that you have claimed that Pacman is "not nor will he ever be a technical fighter". Using your own terminology, I can see your own ungrounded assumptions again. I humbly think that because of Pacquiao's dynamic bravado in much of his career, you made it seemed that he simply overpowers his opponents and not owing anything much to his technical maturity most specially in his last 5 fights.

This seemed redundant. Pacquiao being not a technical fighter and yet has beaten opponents with techniques can also be said.

But both of your points leads to what? That Pacquiao is neither a counter-puncher and a technical fighter....

And?

The thread's author asked for unbiased points on how we see this mythical Pacquiao - Mayweather fight. You came up with your own surmation without enough grounds, I think.

To say that Mayweather, for example, doesn't "slug it out" is as much as a stereotyping either because in his last fight against Mosley, he did just that. He stayed put and didn't run away. He outpunched and slugged it out against a great fighter.

And guess what, the supposed defensive master in Mayweather also had some offensive weaponries of his own.

It is a fallacy to coin a fighter as strictly this or that. No one in the magnitude of a Mayweather or a Pacquiao would ever even dream of being a top rank fighter without their mastery of the wholeness of the pugilistic arts, namely offensive and defensive strategies and techniques. Brute strength and finesse...

All in one package.

Awesome post once again. You put those words together very well.

[fabie]

Agreed pare!..

You know how it is here though. Just a bunch of posters having fun.. just some take it personal for some reason.

At the end of the day (i have said this from time to time), this fight is very hard to call. I would like to call it 50/50 with even a slight edge to mayweather because of his defensive adjustments and underrated offense. However, I think people also tend to underrate Mannys boxing abilities. You don't destroy the fighters he has been running through (making them look like sparring partners) without boxing abilities. Manny is just as elite as mayweather, but more on the offensive spectrum.

Just waiting for the fight to be signed.

To say that Pacquiao is a media creation is the most fallacious of all. The media can create all its want and wantonly but if their fighter cannot fight, then it will be short-lived.

What is happening here is that seeing a dramatic transformation from a one-bit strong left cross boxer to one of the most complete over 7 weight divisions as he topple big names along the way, is simply put - PHENOMENAL in this day and age.

Mayweather has been labeled as a cherry-picker as well and thus their fight must happen inorder to validate to the eyes of the "fans" of who is the real deal.

Boxers, trainers, and serious afficionados within the boxing communities don't need much confirmation that both of these now-household name fighters are just that in the serious ring also....they are mere beyond "good fighters" and both defining the age of boxing in this era.

That is they have to fight.

[| THE KING |]

To say that Pacquiao is a media creation is the most fallacious of all. The media can create all its want and wantonly but if their fighter cannot fight, then it will be short-lived.

What is happening here is that seeing a dramatic transformation from a one-bit strong left cross boxer to one of the most complete over 7 weight divisions as he topple big names along the way, is simply put - PHENOMENAL in this day and age.

Mayweather has been labeled as a cherry-picker as well and thus their fight must happen inorder to validate to the eyes of the "fans" of who is the real deal.

Boxers, trainers, and serious afficionados within the boxing communities don't need much confirmation that both of these now-household name fighters are just that in the serious ring also....they are mere beyond "good fighters" and both defining the age of boxing in this era.

That is they have to fight.

Couldn't have said that any better... seriously.

Do you think the fight will be made? Too much money involved, I'm thinking an announcement soon after the world cup is finished.

[fabie]

Couldn't have said that any better... seriously.

Do you think the fight will be made? Too much money involved, I'm thinking an announcement soon after the world cup is finished.

As much as I would want them to really fight....I am seriously doubting now. I would hope to be proven wrong. If they are both setting this hype and drama inorder to capture the imagination of the boxing and non-boxing fans alike, then they're doing a great job. It will be the modus-operandi of the lifetime!

I can see the gradually waning of both fighters also (yes it is a blasphemy) but I see them just past their primes now but yet very potent. If this fight is to be postponed for another year, they are really pushing it.

Pacquiao is now a congressman and while not even mentioning all his extra-curricular activities – it is pulling him in all directions. This is his decline now, sad to say that. If he can only muster the next 3 years strictly towards boxing, it would not only put him into the stratosphere of the boxing immortals (potentially) but defining the sport itself for decades to come.

Mayweather also fights once a year and in that rate he isn't getting any younger, faster and stronger. But he is getting wiser.

And so would we want a past-prime Mayweather vs a past-prime Pacquiao? HELL YES!

Just make it happen. Yes, much money is involved (and hopefully they can help out the poor more) but namely for boxing's posterity sake, they would fight.

The 70s had the Thrilla in Manila (Ali vs Frazier), the 80s had the Sugar Ray vs Duran / Hagler vs Hearns / Sugar Ray vs Hearns / Hagler vs Sugar Ray, and the Mike Tyson Era...the 90s have the Roy Jones era and the 2000s, the Mayweather culminating to Pacquiao's decade...

This is one for the ages.

If not then it would simply be the most mythical fight for the ages and sad boxing fans anywhere.

[poeticlsykuac]

In my humble opinion, you have stereotyped Pacman.

He isn't a strictly a counter-puncher and yet have floored many opponents with his counter. Is that fair to say? The classic response is just look at the way he stunned Hatton, that was a counter punch. Enough said.

Another one is that you have claimed that Pacman is "not nor will he ever be a technical fighter". Using your own terminology, I can see your own ungrounded assumptions again. I humbly think that because of Pacquiao's dynamic bravado in much of his career, you made it seemed that he simply overpowers his opponents and not owing anything much to his technical maturity most specially in his last 5 fights.

This seemed redundant. Pacquiao being not a technical fighter and yet has beaten opponents with techniques can also be said.

But both of your points leads to what? That Pacquiao is neither a counter-puncher and a technical fighter....

And?

The thread's author asked for unbiased points on how we see this mythical Pacquiao - Mayweather fight. You came up with your own surmation without enough grounds, I think.

To say that Mayweather, for example, doesn't "slug it out" is as much as a stereotyping either because in his last fight against Mosley, he did just that. He stayed put and didn't run away. He outpunched and slugged it out against a great fighter.

And guess what, the supposed defensive master in Mayweather also had some offensive weaponries of his own.

It is a fallacy to coin a fighter as strictly this or that. No one in the magnitude of a Mayweather or a Pacquiao would ever even dream of being a top rank fighter without their mastery of the wholeness of the pugilistic arts, namely offensive and defensive strategies and techniques. Brute strength and finesse...

All in one package.

While that was a counter punch against Hatton that isn't consistent with in his style of fighting. Pacman is a aggressive fighter, it is why we love him. I have to say it like this use what got you here, do what you do best and that is just scrap, screw thinking.

I understand what you are saying but if he tries to fight PBF technically do you honestly think he stands a chance? I understand that Pacman has a lot better fundamentals than he use to and is a lot more technically sound. My point is that I can't see him winning a technical match, I can't no matter how I see it he is not smart enough, make no mistake I want Pacman to beat down PBF but the only way he does it is by coming in head first. Not allowing a technical fight.

Slugged it out with Mosley? I disagree my friend, he stayed in the pocket used great defense(shoulder rolls, philly shell, bobbing, weaving, and ducking) and countering. It was a very technical fight, just because PBF stayed in the pocket doesn't mean he wasn't technical. PBF was always one step ahead, Mosley was always looking for a way in, while PBF was always shutting down the opening. Used a lot of lead rights when Mosley was off balance. We have all known that PBF is a complete fighter inside and outside he is above just about everyone.

Pacman is far more talented than he is technical. Pacman has improved immensely since his 122 pound fight when I started watching him, that said he always falls back into his opening up style and flurrying which is fine because that is why I love him but if he tries to outsmart PBF he will be confused, heart broken, and embarrassed.

Sorry if you disagree, you did a great job of breaking down my statements.

By the way if you want to use his last 5 fights to go over how much more technical he got I will break down his opponents. Hatton isn't a technical fighter. DLH are you kidding? He wasn't technical he was overwhelming. Diaz? Need I say more a guy that should have lost against a washed up Morales. Clottey is a punching bag, and he still got a busted up face, he was so technical he got his face pummeled by a boxing bag. A weight drained Cotto is the only fighter I would say didn't have diminished skills, though I would say Cotto has lost a lot mentally. I have always questioned Cotto's heart, with out his power being effective he seems to give up. And the fight before that most of us felt he lost to a actual technical fighter. Fact is Pacman does not win with his technical abilities even if they have improved.

[fabie]

While that was a counter punch against Hatton that isn't consistent with in his style of fighting. Pacman is a aggressive fighter, it is why we love him. I have to say it like this use what got you here, do what you do best and that is just scrap, screw thinking.

I understand what you are saying but if he tries to fight PBF technically do you honestly think he stands a chance? I understand that Pacman has a lot better fundamentals than he use to and is a lot more technically sound. My point is that I can't see him winning a technical match, I can't no matter how I see it he is not smart enough, make no mistake I want Pacman to beat down PBF but the only way he does it is by coming in head first. Not allowing a technical fight.

Slugged it out with Mosley? I disagree my friend, he stayed in the pocket used great defense(shoulder rolls, philly shell, bobbing, weaving, and ducking) and countering. It was a very technical fight, just because PBF stayed in the pocket doesn't mean he wasn't technical. PBF was always one step ahead, Mosley was always looking for a way in, while PBF was always shutting down the opening. Used a lot of lead rights when Mosley was off balance. We have all known that PBF is a complete fighter inside and outside he is above just about everyone.

Pacman is far more talented than he is technical. Pacman has improved immensely since his 122 pound fight when I started watching him, that said he always falls back into his opening up style and flurrying which is fine because that is why I love him but if he tries to outsmart PBF he will be confused, heart broken, and embarrassed.

Sorry if you disagree, you did a great job of breaking down my statements.

I think I understand what you are saying, but does PACMAN have to resort to being a "technical fighter" inorder to beat Mayweather? Is that the only way?

I don't know why you're so fixated on being technical, is it because Mayweather is a supreme boxer and defender that the only way is to outfinesse him?

Not the only way. It is about timing, pacing and the "kill"...at least for Pacquiao.

As much as Corley and Zudah have given Mayweather some really stiff challenge, I can also see Pacquiao utilizing some of those. Pacquiao being a southpaw to begin with challenges Mayweather to the core also.

But I am also a fan of Mayweather. A big fan due to Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard in him...both.

But for every thesis, there is an anti-thesis. We can't just overly intellectual to justify our thoughts. Such is life, we tend to overly think what we do and what is much underrated is the simplicity and the sheer enjoyable experience of living that it defeats the purpose of the purported definition of "success".

Same thing in this match up if it would ever happen. We can cut it, dissect it, argue over it and disagree with it. But this match can also be a bore or simply one-sided.

Or it can end in the most seemingly out-of-script kind of a fight: by one punch.

We would never know. We can only speculate. This isn't much of disapproving your points or as much as a chest-thumping point over you.

This is just a thread that we can all culminate and argue. Your points well-taken.

I would rather have the fight actually happen than talk about it.