If Marquez beats Pacquiao, will you still be interested in Mayweather-Pacquiao?

[Boxingtech718v2]

Can we get Mayweather vs Marquez II as an option.

If JMM wins then I think he deserves the opportunity to avenge his loss to Floyd.

[Johnwoo8686]

Wow, lots of people calling me up on this, when all i was doing was drawing attention to the fact that Floyd landed so many punches yet barely was able to knock bloated JMM down. Whereas Pac knocked him down 3 times with 3 punches nearly.
Nothing to boast about really with Floyds one knockdown. Other common opponents did Floyd outland Pac against SSM and DLH as well?
When Floyd on the surface does quite well, people are quite quick to let everyone know arent they, and all the ducking and diving and dodging is temporarily forgotten about. How convinient.

LOL nice save..... NOT. A knock down is still a knockdown and we weren't talking about choice of opponents because Pac could be criticized on that as well.

[Brother Jay]

The perfect anology is how many punches marquez (the counter puncher) landed on Pacquiao and pacquiao on him. Floyd vs Marquez is counter puncher vs counter puncher which had Marquez doing something he isnt acostumed to and was coming forward, throwing first and trying to cut off the ring. That fight has no meaning in this comparison. If Marquez was to do the same thing he did with Floyd against pacquiao, he wouldnt last 3-4 rounds.

Just want to let you know, I'm not in favor of Pacquiao here nor do I think he will beat Floyd, I'm just saying that comparing how many punches Pacquiao & Mayweather landed on Marquez is meaningless cuz they are different matchups.

I disagree to a point.

Granted, different styles competing against a common opponent do not reflect how well either would do against each other.

However, Cash Cow has shown us that against elite competition, who is more effective. You cannot disregard a comparison of the value of tools just because the two tools are different.

Its called "efficiency".

One tool or approach is preferred over another because it gets the job done with less effort and without as much risk of damage. Same thing with boxing approaches and styles.

Floyd takes much less damage while completely nullifying his opponents offense. Floyd has to take less chances to score than Pacquiao, and has proven to be more accurate against a man who fought both men the same way.

I do understand what you are saying, boricuajr23. Really I do.

Its just that the only way to determine styles and skills is to astutely study what each fighter does well and rate the value of that skill.

For instance, Manny Pacquiao takes many more chances. Some people would see that as an asset, but some would also see it as Manny leaving openings in which he can be countered often.

Manny Pacquiao relies on a straight left that has worked well against the plodders that he has faced. That may be seen as an asset by some, but that has also given rise to the accusation that Pacquiao avoids slick fighters all together because of their ability to read footwork and hit without being hit.

Those two examples alone play right in to an honest analysis of what Mayweather does well. Floyd capitalizes on openings better than anyone, and he is about as slick a fighter as they come.

When one examines the "how" of Manny Pacquiao's success, if they are honest with themselves they must admit that Pacquiao's strengths will be weaknesses against a man who is a master of dealing with the very type of offense that Manny employs.

Its no coincidence that Manny has purposely avoided slick fighters. When facing Morales for the second time, Pacquiao's true opponent should have been Zahir Raheem. However after seeing Raheem pitch a virtual shut-out against Morales, Pacquiao wanted absolutely no part of the man who had truly earned that fight against him. So Manny fought the freshly dominated Morales instead and never sought out Raheem at any point.

I said all this to say that while styles make fights, exhibitions against different styles reveal the holes in one's own style to those who are actually paying attention and not just waiting to be wowed by knockdowns and knockouts.

I appreciate the solid point that Cash Cow made. I think that if you consider what both he & I wrote, you would as well.

Its not written in stone, but the numbers given do support the notion that Marquez, who is not the slickest boxer in the world but definitely the slickest boxer Manny Pacquiao has ever fought in his career, gave Manny tremendous trouble simply because he was able to box and move better than anyone else Pacquiao has faced.

That alone is telling you a story if you are open to reading it. Mayweather is slicker, faster, stronger and larger than Marquez. Marquez did most things right and outboxed Pacquiao in both fights. Now just imagine if Floyd does all the things Marquez did right and then some.

I believe that was the underlying point that you missed, my man.

Good talk.

[Cash Cow]

Can we get Mayweather vs Marquez II as an option.

If JMM wins then I think he deserves the opportunity to avenge his loss to Floyd.

Naw i doubt anyone wants to see that fight again. The outcome would be worse.

[Cash Cow]

If you watch the second fight. Marquez took the fight to Pacquiao multiple times especially in the latter half of the fight. He also tried to counter Floyd but wasn't able to because Floyd slipped and ducked his punches. He easily was able to counter Manny because of Manny's lack of defense. Marquez had more success pressuring Manny and countering Manny if you watch that fight closely.

(no ****)


But this is a perfect post.

[Cash Cow]

Wow, lots of people calling me up on this, when all i was doing was drawing attention to the fact that Floyd landed so many punches yet barely was able to knock bloated JMM down. Whereas Pac knocked him down 3 times with 3 punches nearly.
Nothing to boast about really with Floyds one knockdown. Other common opponents did Floyd outland Pac against SSM and DLH as well?
When Floyd on the surface does quite well, people are quite quick to let everyone know arent they, and all the ducking and diving and dodging is temporarily forgotten about. How convinient.

[IronDanHamza]

For sure people would still want to see it, because they have been pleading for it for ages, and if they dont fight, people will think all their pleas counted for nothing. But as for the credit Floyd will get, it will be considerably less as you can imagine.

As for Floyd landing so many punches. Shame he couldnt knock JMM down having landed so many punches. And i suppose its easier to land punches on someone who is bloated. Im suprised Floyd didnt land more than Pac.

You really should start watching Boxing some day.

[ADP02]

I disagree to a point.

.........
.........

Its no coincidence that Manny has purposely avoided slick fighters. When facing Morales for the second time, Pacquiao's true opponent should have been Zahir Raheem. However after seeing Raheem pitch a virtual shut-out against Morales, Pacquiao wanted absolutely no part of the man who had truly earned that fight against him. So Manny fought the freshly dominated Morales instead and never sought out Raheem at any point.

.........
.........

Good talk.

lol!

Zahir Raheem was fighting at 135 and Manny just moved up that year and LOST at 130 to Morales .

1) Can't really be serious that one would expect Manny to move up to 135 at that point.

2) If Manny actually moved up to 135, people would be saying that Manny ducked Morales!

To those who don't believe point #2, see below example:

Manny fought 2 good close fights with Marquez then moved up in weight. Until this day, even though they fought TWICE, people have said that Manny ducked Marquez even though Manny has done pretty good for himself since then.

[JDezi4]

Absolutely... If not that, than what? Mayweather/Marquez II?

[boxer.exposed]

Marquez fights differently than Floyd and will always give Pac some problem. Floyd style of fighting will get overwhelm by Pac activity. So why not?