How come Pacquiao never fought Guzman??

[BoxerDood]

MAB was coming of a disputed loss to JMM. Alot of people thought MAB won that fight. MAB was undefeated since Pac beat him the first time.

What does that have to do with Pacquiao? The bottom line is, he not only dominated, but KO'ed Barrera while he still had something left in him. So why fight a clearly declining version of him when there were fresh guys like Guzman and Soto? Heck, people were even demanding Pacquiao-Valero more than a MAB rematch.

[brick wall]

pac-guzman just wasn't meant to be. they both want to fight each other but business and promoters prevented it from happening. ideally, it's a fight that should have happened but boxing as a sports is far from ideal. business is a big part of it and the presence of promoters is making it more difficult for some fights to happen the way boxing fans want it to be. let's be real here...pac did not duck guzman or vice versa.

[jrosales13]

MAB was coming of a disputed loss to JMM. Alot of people thought MAB won that fight. MAB was undefeated since Pac beat him the first time.

Barrera was coming off a lost, also had weak showing against Juarez. I mean if you're going to go with disputed and what a lot of people thought then you have the mention the disputed win against Juarez who a lot of people thought he lost.

Barrera was already faded, there was no need for a 2nd fight. It was actually unnecessary. Especially considering when there were more deserving, worthy foes.

[Eastbay Giant]

That's all fine and dandy. I don't give a pass to Floyd for choosing money fights over fighting the best fights and I don't give a pass for Pac either.

It is what it is.

I like one way more than the other but I treat both fighters the same.

The third fight was Morales was useless, the 2nd fight with Barrera was useless. He should had fought Guzman/Soto around this time.

Dear Mr. Pacquiao: Magnificent. Stupendous. Flawless. That is how you performed Saturday night in Las Vegas against Erik Morales. I write first to congratulate you on a brilliant fight.

Second, I write you, Pacman, to remind you that I believe I am the world's best at 130 pounds. I am sure we can agree to disagree and that and that your fans will similarly disagree with mine on that same point.

As you know, I am the WBO champion and you are the #1 mandatory. I have a title defense upcoming in my homeland, the Dominican Republic on December 18 as a part of the biggest boxing show ever held there. Should I be successful in that bout, I have made it clear to my manager, Jose Nunez, and to my co-promoters that I want them to work to make Guzman vs. Pacman for March, 2007..

There can be no doubt now that you and I are the world's best two fighters at 130 pounds. The question that must be answered is who is the better man in that ring, me or you? It is a super fight and a fight fan's dream.

Let's settle this one in March. All the best to you and your legion of loyal fans.


Sincerely,

JOAN GUZMAN
UNDEFEATED WBO JR. LIGHTWEIGHT CHAMPION

[Ilov80s]

So you're saying Guzman was too risky so was avoided for an easier fight in Solis?

Possibly. None of us were part of Manny's camp so we wouldn't know why Solis was chosen. Most boxers and their management teams aren't actually looking for the hardest fight possible every fight.

[Eastbay Giant]

The time to make the Guzman was like around the fall of 2007. Maybe in November of that year. That was the perfect time to make that fight.

The rematch with Barrera was unnecessary. Not only was the first fight just a dominating performance. And, not only was Barrera coming of a LOSS. But, he had showed he had slowed down a lot. The way he struggled with Rocky Juarez in the first fight. He just wasn't the same fighter.

There was no need for a Barrera rematch at that time. Nobody was asking for it. NOBODY. At that time if you were going to have a rematch with anybody, it was going to be a rematch with JMM not Barrara.

At the time he fought Barrera the top 3 at 130, was Pac, JMM, and Guzman. Guzman was undefeated and the WBO title holder. Before the Pac-Barrera II match happened. Guzman wrote a letter asking, challenging, begging for a fight against Pac.

Also lets not forget that Pac was Guzman mandatory after KO'ing Morales in the third fight. And, Pac being the #1 contender for Guzman title, instead of challenging the champ he fought an un-ranked Jorge Solis on a Top Rank independent PPV.

Guzman's open letter to Pacquiao after he knocked out Morales in 3 and before Pacquiao decided to fight an unranked Jorge Solis:



And, Guzman wrote other letters challenging Pac as well.

Didn't see this post @ 1st, but spot on.

[pacquia0]

Barrera was coming off a lost, also had weak showing against Juarez. I mean if you're going to go with disputed and what a lot of people thought then you have the mention the disputed win against Juarez who a lot of people thought he lost.

Barrera was already faded, there was no need for a 2nd fight. It was actually unnecessary. Especially considering when there were more deserving, worthy foes.

Your as good as your last fight. MAB proved he was better than JMM but was robbed so this was the toughest opponent at that weight. MAB would of beaten Soto and Guzman.

Why did Trinidad fight Whitaker? Pacquiao never fought someone as faded as that. Pac has a much better resume.

[mikemurni]

Your as good as your last fight. MAB proved he was better than JMM but was robbed so this was the toughest opponent at that weight. MAB would of beaten Soto and Guzman.

Why did Trinidad fight Whitaker? Pacquiao never fought someone as faded as that. Pac has a much better resume.

Pac fought Morales because Morales exercised his right for a third fight. Pac was obligated to take a rubbermatch.

Pac's 2007 was insignificant because he was tied down with a promotional battle between GB and TR. He couldnt fight anyone from the GB stable (Guzman's promoter) because of the court case. Thus he fought Solis.

If you want to criticize him. You can criticize him for fighting Barrera the second time. But that was the only money fight that Pac had for 2007. For me, I dont blame him for taking that fight since it was just the first big fight that he had since 2006, and given the money he was spending for the congressional seat(which he lost), and the lawyer's fee, I felt that he needed to take the fight. And he fought Marquez immediately after that so that was acceptable to me.

[jrosales13]

Your as good as your last fight. MAB proved he was better than JMM but was robbed so this was the toughest opponent at that weight. MAB would of beaten Soto and Guzman.

Why did Trinidad fight Whitaker? Pacquiao never fought someone as faded as that. Pac has a much better resume.

Morales was pretty faded. But, yes Pac has a much better resume. He's a much greater fighter than Tito. Hell Floyd ranks higher than Tito too. But, like I said before they're no Tito when it comes to fighting risky fighters.

The run that Tito had in 99-01, that type of run, hasn't been seen since. However, Pac had a pretty good run though from 08-09. But, his 06-07 run was kind of lame, and how his 2010-current run is just an embarrassment.

I don't get what you trying to do with the Tito statement? Did you have a point of some kind?

[jrosales13]

Didn't see this post @ 1st, but spot on.

I was wondering why you posted that letter.

I was confused for a second.