Comments Thread For: McGirt: Mayweather, Marquez - The True Greats of Our Era

[maguirre]

I'm sure Buddy McGirt knows more about boxers greatness then manny's diehard fans. Not everyone thinks manny is great.

Yeah, that's what I don't understand about Floyd and his fans. He's the best yet he can't find balls to fight the average boxer for more than $100 million. It's becoming extremely embarrassing now.

[The Big Dunn]

Yeah, that's what I don't understand about Floyd and his fans. He's the best yet he can't find balls to fight the average boxer for more than $100 million. It's becoming extremely embarrassing now.

Thats like saying you dont understand why manny fans think he is the best but he can't find the balls to fight a ducker for $40 mil. Buddy just doesn't think manny is great. I disagree but what does floyd have to do with how mcgirt sees Manny?

[Brother Jay]

Yeah, that's what I don't understand about Floyd and his fans. He's the best yet he can't find balls to fight the average boxer for more than $100 million. It's becoming extremely embarrassing now.

Well that's abundantly clear at this point.

[bojangles1987]

I didn't get that from what he wrote.

It seemed to me that Tony B. was saying that you cannot excuse losses when its convenient for you to do so.

As he put it "The resume of a professional fighter represents the totality of his career accomplishments."

That point alone completely put you in your place. And he was correct. Peasant fans often selectively include what they will when weighing a fighters career. They don't count losses. They don't factor in vacant titles. They don't see weight stipulations as factor that disqualifies a bout from being legacy worthy.

They make up rules as they go along, but real fans would have none of that.

IT IS WHAT IT IS.

If you pad your record with 40 fights before you ever step up, then your resume is fluff.

If you stipulate that your opponents must cut weight to make a match with you, then like my sig says, its a sign of weakness and an admission that you do not believe in your own ability to win under normal and fair circumstances.

If you seek vacant belts, you are dodging champions who hold champions as opposed to paper titles.

If you get caught and knocked out, you've shown vulnerability.

If you get knocked out twice, you've had a flaw exposed.

If you get outboxed by a guy not known for "pure boxing skills" for 12 rounds, you've been exposed as limited.

If you get outboxed three times by a LW, even when you make him come up to WW at age 38 after your trainer has put in the time so that you are the best you've ever been and a "complete fighter", you've been shown as a product of hype.

Manny Pacquiao is really no different than Paul Williams. He got gift decisions just like PWILL did. He was built up just like PWILL was. He made a big name for himself at WW just like PWILL did.

The difference?

PWILL lost to a man at MW and didn't ask him to cut weight to make a match.

Pacquiao couldn't do that, now could he?

Did you factor that in?

PWILL has wins over Margarito, future HOF Winky Wright and Sergio Martinez WITHOUT catchweights.

Manny Pacquiao waited on six different occasions against six different fighters for someone else to beat them before he would even CONSIDER fighting them. You know ... DLH, Hatton, Cotto, Clottey, Margarito and Mosley.

Did you factor that in, Hugh Grant? Why select what to factor in .. unless you're trying to skew the reality of the situation?

Paul Williams got KO'd because he moved up and faced a man bigger than he's accustomed to fighting.

Manny Pacquiao got KTFO back when he was a little guy in his element. How does THAT factor in?

You've really got to factor in the TOTALITY of it all, my man. It paints a much more accurate picture.

Stop trying to excuse things. It makes your case much, much weaker.

Good job, Tony B. Again, good post.

Pretty sure Martinez-Williams 2 was at a catchweight of 157 or 158 or something, and he had all but one fight at middleweight over the course of like two years before the rematch, including their first fight, which wasn't a catchweight.

How can you berate Pacquiao so harshly for his wins over Barrera, Morales, Cotto, and others and then list Winky Wright as a positive for Paul Williams? Winky Wright was more done than any of the fighters you rip Pacquiao for.

Pacquiao was a big name before welterweight, as well. Far bigger than Paul Williams has ever been. Before he fought Oscar, he and Marquez set the record for the most PPV buys of any below welterweight fight, and the guy already had the crazed fans he holds to this day. So sick of people saying he wasn't relevant or wasn't a big name fighter until he moved up to welterweight.

How can you say Pacquiao waited for Oscar, Hatton, and Cotto to lose before fighting them? That literally makes no sense. Oscar cherry picked Pacquiao, to confuse that fight as anything other than Oscar cherry picking a lightweight is plain wrong. Pacquiao has no power to make Oscar do anything, and was certainly not waiting for Oscar to lose to make a fight with him. Why would he have? What reason did he have to make a fight with a guy that had his last relevant fight at 154? He didn't wait for Hatton to lose to fight him, he was at 130 when Mayweather beat Hatton and that was the last time Hatton lost before Pacquiao. Cotto was coming off two wins, and if you don't think he beat Clottey than Clottey was coming off a win, you can't have it both ways.

Guess what? Most fighters lose. Pacquiao lost. That doesn't make his wins less relevant, because almost every single great fighter ever lost at some point, including guys considered among the greatest in recent memory such as Hopkins, Morales, Barrera, Marquez, Roy, Toney, the Klitschkos, so on and so on.

[maguirre]

Thats like saying you dont understand why manny fans think he is the best but he can't find the balls to fight a ducker for $40 mil. Buddy just doesn't think manny is great. I disagree but what does floyd have to do with how mcgirt sees Manny?

Just saying I'd rather believe Floyd the boxer himself than you, me, McGirt or any fan out there. If the fighter is reluctant to fight another fighter, then he must be seeing something in that fighter we're not seeing. Who are we to say this and that when the boxer himself disagrees?

[Elotero]

Any person that truly believes Floyd and Manny are not great fighters........is not a person worth listening to.

I truly dont believe Manny is great.

I have seen greats, Manny is not one of them.

One of the most rushed to stardom fighters? Absolutely.

Great MArketing.

Manny limits himself in who he fights. ONly 1 style. Marquez has fought and beaten all type of styles.

Im ok with people saying Manny is a good fighter. But calling him one of the best ever is just bull****. If Corrales and Castillo didnt bash each others brains out they would have certainly been bashing Mannys.

ONly the racists bring up race. "Oh so an Asian cant be #1 P4P?"

An Asian can be #1 P4P as long as he deserves it.

[The Big Dunn]

Pretty sure Martinez-Williams 2 was at a catchweight of 157 or 158 or something, and he had all but one fight at middleweight over the course of like two years before the rematch, including their first fight, which wasn't a catchweight.

How can you berate Pacquiao so harshly for his wins over Barrera, Morales, Cotto, and others and then list Winky Wright as a positive for Paul Williams? Winky Wright was more done than any of the fighters you rip Pacquiao for.

Pacquiao was a big name before welterweight, as well. Far bigger than Paul Williams has ever been. Before he fought Oscar, he and Marquez set the record for the most PPV buys of any below welterweight fight, and the guy already had the crazed fans he holds to this day. So sick of people saying he wasn't relevant or wasn't a big name fighter until he moved up to welterweight.

How can you say Pacquiao waited for Oscar, Hatton, and Cotto to lose before fighting them? That literally makes no sense. Oscar cherry picked Pacquiao, to confuse that fight as anything other than Oscar cherry picking a lightweight is plain wrong. Pacquiao has no power to make Oscar do anything, and was certainly not waiting for Oscar to lose to make a fight with him. Why would he have? What reason did he have to make a fight with a guy that had his last relevant fight at 154? He didn't wait for Hatton to lose to fight him, he was at 130 when Mayweather beat Hatton and that was the last time Hatton lost before Pacquiao. Cotto was coming off two wins, and if you don't think he beat Clottey than Clottey was coming off a win, you can't have it both ways.

Guess what? Most fighters lose. Pacquiao lost. That doesn't make his wins less relevant, because almost every single great fighter ever lost at some point, including guys considered among the greatest in recent memory such as Hopkins, Morales, Barrera, Marquez, Roy, Toney, the Klitschkos, so on and so on.

I agree with your last paragraph but losses have to factored in. You can't just pick and choose the highlights of a resume.

[bojangles1987]

I agree with your last paragraph but losses have to factored in. You can't just pick and choose the highlights of a resume.

And I never would ignore the losses, but when people bring up Pacquiao's knockout losses like they are relevant today, like he is the same fighter now as he was then, it's annoying. Bring up Morales and Marquez all you want, they beat Manny as he is now, so they are legit to hold against him as far as how great a fighter Manny Pacquiao is. Singsurat and Torrecampo have little to do with the fighter Pacquiao ended up becoming. The same way that I won't hold it harshly against Amir Khan if he ends up dominating at 147 or 154, or Juan Manuel Lopez if he ends up being a great, or Victor Ortiz if he really does end up being the new Golden Boy, because it's possible they end up being great and those knockout losses just end up being losses that made them better fighters.

[The Big Dunn]

Just saying I'd rather believe Floyd the boxer himself than you, me, McGirt or any fan out there. If the fighter is reluctant to fight another fighter, then he must be seeing something in that fighter we're not seeing. Who are we to say this and that when the boxer himself disagrees?

Floyd wants to make significantly more money than manny does when they fight. Greed is not fear or reluctance. Its greed, plain and simple.

[The Big Dunn]

And I never would ignore the losses, but when people bring up Pacquiao's knockout losses like they are relevant today, like he is the same fighter now as he was then, it's annoying. Bring up Morales and Marquez all you want, they beat Manny as he is now, so they are legit to hold against him as far as how great a fighter Manny Pacquiao is. Singsurat and Torrecampo have little to do with the fighter Pacquiao ended up becoming. The same way that I won't hold it harshly against Amir Khan if he ends up dominating at 147 or 154, or Juan Manuel Lopez if he ends up being a great, or Victor Ortiz if he really does end up being the new Golden Boy, because it's possible they end up being great and those knockout losses just end up being losses that made them better fighters.

BULL**** Bojangles losses have a lot to do with who a fighter becomes. Once Manny went to top rank, they made sure to review his career and plan his fights accordingly. They made sure to avoid certain styles to enhance his chances of winning.

He isn't the same fighter persay but he may still have the same weaknesses that were present then that factored into the KO's, that being the tendency to expose himself when pushing for the KO.