Has Manny improved?

[SirTomJones]

=savorduhflavor;11939683


Pacquiao faced adversity early in that fight and he completely figured him out. He took his time, he stopped leading with the jab and figured out that leading with the left worked better. He did this calmly at first just trying to test the waters. Later on after working at it for a few rounds he started countering over Cotto's jab with his right hook.

He took Cotto's best weapon away from him and did it in a cerebral way. The Pacquiao of old couldn't do that.

The Marquez fight didn't prove anything.....no matter how much smarter Pac gets in the ring, he's not going to be able to outthink Marquez. He thought too much when he needed to be his old aggressive self.

The Marquez fight was Roach's fault, they applied the wrong strategy and treated Marquez as if he was the guys Pac had been facing.

But Pacquiao has improved and is capable of seeing things in the ring that he never did before.

good points made. I agree.

[The Big Dunn]

Manny has improved but when pressing to KO his opponent he still leaves himself open. Only really good boxer, JMM or Floyd, have the skills to take advantage of his mistakes.

He's gotten better but not smarter!

[Doctor_Tenma]

I mean....exactly. More or less word for word how I look at it.

How one could look at the Cotto fight and not see the improvement is crazy. Sure, Cotto isn't as skilled as Marquez, but he's not some crude brawler.

Pacquiao faced adversity early in that fight and he completely figured him out. He took his time, he stopped leading with the jab and figured out that leading with the left worked better. He did this calmly at first just trying to test the waters. Later on after working at it for a few rounds he started countering over Cotto's jab with his right hook.

He took Cotto's best weapon away from him and did it in a cerebral way. The Pacquiao of old couldn't do that.

The Marquez fight didn't prove anything.....no matter how much smarter Pac gets in the ring, he's not going to be able to outthink Marquez. He thought too much when he needed to be his old aggressive self.

The Marquez fight was Roach's fault, they applied the wrong strategy and treated Marquez as if he was the guys Pac had been facing.

But Pacquiao has improved and is capable of seeing things in the ring that he never did before.

Without a doubt, either they weren't watching Pacquiao back then or forgot how limited his offense used to be, though his aggressiveness; wildness help carry him. His old self wouldn't have done so well against his recent opposition but against Marquez it would have, as his advantages in speed, power, durability in the 3rd fight (Though it may not have looked that way) was even greater than in the first two fights against Marquez.

[SplitSecond]

pacquiao has improved, but he has also declined, i dont know if it's the lower testosterone at 33 or w/e that has killed some of his heart to come in seek-and-destroy mode, but had the old killer pacquiao fought the "old" marquez he fought in the 3rd fight, the majority would more than likely had been right on their stoppage predictions, pacquiao has become laid back and less hungry thus the more boxing and lack of the killer instinct we used to see

[RL_GMA]

Roach is a great match maker that is all

So is Al Haymon & Team Mayweather

I think its naive to think Pacquiao hasn't improved. People's idea of improving seems to always be a radical change of style, which isn't the case really for any fighter. Like someone mentioned prior, Pacquiao's more patient, cerebral and chooses his shots better than in the Barrera, Morales fights where he was just a whirlwind. I actually think the Marquez fights made him a better fighter. Has he maybe lost a step? It's possible, but I think once people look at the scope of the competition he can realistically face, besides Mayweather, who has an overwhelming edge over Pacquiao? He's still a great fighter in my eyes. He has fits w/ Marquez, sure, as did Leonard with Hearns. It doesn't make them any less of a fighter.

[Brother Jay]

I mean....exactly. More or less word for word how I look at it.

How one could look at the Cotto fight and not see the improvement is crazy. Sure, Cotto isn't as skilled as Marquez, but he's not some crude brawler.

Pacquiao faced adversity early in that fight and he completely figured him out. He took his time, he stopped leading with the jab and figured out that leading with the left worked better. He did this calmly at first just trying to test the waters. Later on after working at it for a few rounds he started countering over Cotto's jab with his right hook.

He took Cotto's best weapon away from him and did it in a cerebral way. The Pacquiao of old couldn't do that.

The Marquez fight didn't prove anything.....no matter how much smarter Pac gets in the ring, he's not going to be able to outthink Marquez. He thought too much when he needed to be his old aggressive self.

The Marquez fight was Roach's fault, they applied the wrong strategy and treated Marquez as if he was the guys Pac had been facing.

But Pacquiao has improved and is capable of seeing things in the ring that he never did before.

I disagree.

A couple of reasons.

First, Cotto was made to cut weight in a situation that doesn't warrant it. There are guys out there who say things like "its only 2lbs .. what difference could that make".

Those guys obviously have NEVER had to cut weight before. 2lbs can feel like 20lbs when you have to go beyond what you've become accustomed to.

Second, what did anyone see in the Cotto fight that showed improvement? No one is saying that Pacquiao CANNOT win. We are saying that Manny Pacquiao is the same jab, jab, straight left hand fighter that he's always been. Pretending that he is anything else warrants explanation.

It may seem like I'm trying to devalue Pacquiao, but I am not. I seriously would appreciate someone who feels that Pacquiao has improved explain their reasons.

In every match, he has won THE SAME EXACT WAY. During matches, I've seen him use head movement .. and I've even seen him use lateral movement. Again though, it never played a role in how he won. And most times, the man who he looked improved upon was either a plodder or had been drained.

I think this has become a battle of semantics. "Changed" is not necessarily "improved". Yet some are using the words as if they were interchangeable.

Changed denotes that the fighter is doing something different.

Improved denotes that the fighter has made changes that demonstrate a greater rate of success in a particular area.

I'm asking anyone who can answer to explain an area where Pacquiao has demonstrated a greater rate of success doing ANYTHING.

Punch output?

Slipping punches?

Landing punches?

Cutting off the ring?

Creating openings?

Countering? <-- some might actually claim that he has improved in this area. I would disagree and swiftly explain that Pacquiao could seem like he's faster and more slick against bigger, slower WWs. Who wouldn't he have a speed advantage over? DLH? Cotto? Clottey? Margarito?

Is that improvement or is that simply understanding that being faster in both handspeed and footspeed than most of the guys that Manny would face at WW was a calculated move .. and the reason that Roach was publicly reluctant to put Manny up against Mosley was because out of the names mentioned above Mosley is the only one that was perceived as having a one punch game changer with a blend of perceived handspeed.

This could be a really good discussion with some depth, but I suspect that few will answer the call.

[hugh grant]

I really dont understand this scrutination of whether Pac has improved? His performances have improved. He was better in the second fight against Morales and hes beating the Cottos and DLHs of this world and hes not just a one arm puncher now.

But having said that just cos hes improved certain things doesnt mean to say he will have a easier fight with a opponent like JMM. He hasnt performed better against JMM, but you cant base the whole argument about whether Pac has improved solely on his performances against JMM can you that justs not fair or accurate is it now? Without assesing whether JMM has improved and learnt from his defeat to Pac!

How can you scientifically gauge whether Floyd has improved when he never fights a opponent more than once?.

I think its just people who have an agenda and in particualar something against Pac that would take the time to make threads like this. Singling Pac out for assesment is a ***** move, and is caused by ill will and resentment cos of Pacs resume and trying to tarnish his wins and resume is the outcome that they want.

[Mayabang]

pacquiao has improved, but he has also declined, i dont know if it's the lower testosterone at 33 or w/e that has killed some of his heart to come in seek-and-destroy mode, but had the old killer pacquiao fought the "old" marquez he fought in the 3rd fight, the majority would more than likely had been right on their stoppage predictions, pacquiao has become laid back and less hungry thus the more boxing and lack of the killer instinct we used to see

This is true. Dude got rich, famous, and now a politician. Pac doesn't have the hunger anymore coz he's been full. If he doesn't impress us with Bradley, then IMO he needs to retire.

[savorduhflavor]

I disagree.

A couple of reasons.

First, Cotto was made to cut weight in a situation that doesn't warrant it. There are guys out there who say things like "its only 2lbs .. what difference could that make".

Those guys obviously have NEVER had to cut weight before. 2lbs can feel like 20lbs when you have to go beyond what you've become accustomed to.

Second, what did anyone see in the Cotto fight that showed improvement? No one is saying that Pacquiao CANNOT win. We are saying that Manny Pacquiao is the same jab, jab, straight left hand fighter that he's always been. Pretending that he is anything else warrants explanation.

It may seem like I'm trying to devalue Pacquiao, but I am not. I seriously would appreciate someone who feels that Pacquiao has improved explain their reasons.

In every match, he has won THE SAME EXACT WAY. During matches, I've seen him use head movement .. and I've even seen him use lateral movement. Again though, it never played a role in how he won. And most times, the man who he looked improved upon was either a plodder or had been drained.

I think this has become a battle of semantics. "Changed" is not necessarily "improved". Yet some are using the words as if they were interchangeable.

Changed denotes that the fighter is doing something different.

Improved denotes that the fighter has made changes that demonstrate a greater rate of success in a particular area.

I'm asking anyone who can answer to explain an area where Pacquiao has demonstrated a greater rate of success doing ANYTHING.

Punch output?

Slipping punches?

Landing punches?

Cutting off the ring?

Creating openings?

Countering? <-- some might actually claim that he has improved in this area. I would disagree and swiftly explain that Pacquiao could seem like he's faster and more slick against bigger, slower WWs. Who wouldn't he have a speed advantage over? DLH? Cotto? Clottey? Margarito?

Is that improvement or is that simply understanding that being faster in both handspeed and footspeed than most of the guys that Manny would face at WW was a calculated move .. and the reason that Roach was publicly reluctant to put Manny up against Mosley was because out of the names mentioned above Mosley is the only one that was perceived as having a one punch game changer with a blend of perceived handspeed.

This could be a really good discussion with some depth, but I suspect that few will answer the call.

There is no point made here, it's just general statements dressed up by big words.

The 2 weight thing with Cotto is irrelevant...Pacquiao was struggling with that version of Cotto in the beginning. Whether Cotto was ****** down or not means nothing for this particular conversation.

Pac was having some trouble with Cotto in the beginning....Cotto was beating him to the punch with his jab, he was countering when Pacquiao would come in, and Pac was short on all of his jabs.

In the 2nd and 3rd rounds he started leading with his left hand as opposed to his jab. And if you actually watch the fight, he starts by doing it without much convction. This is an example of him feeling the lead left out, seeing where it could land and what Cotto would do to coutner it. His handspeed advantage helped him land that lead left before Cotto would land his jab and it was a way to null the effectiveness of Cotto's jab. Over the middle rounds he also figured out that he could counter over Cotto's jab with his right hook. These were openings that he saw as the fight progressed....he never saw openings like that before.

He also experimenting with his punches.....he was going with his straight left for a while, then saw that the uppercut was working and starting throwing short uppercuts when Cotto would crowd him.

If you watch the fight you can see Pacquiao feeling all of this out and thinking about it before he did it. He figured out how to take Cotto's best weapon away(his jab) by counter punching.

This is something he couldn't do before. His counter punching is not simply a product of his speed...he counter punches accurately and with precision. He sets things up now, you could see him think it through in the ring.

[Bonza]

I really dont understand this scrutination of whether Pac has improved? His performances have improved. He was better in the second fight against Morales and hes beating the Cottos and DLHs of this world and hes not just a one arm puncher now.

But having said that just cos hes improved certain things doesnt mean to say he will have a easier fight with a opponent like JMM. He hasnt performed better against JMM, but you cant base the whole argument about whether Pac has improved solely on his performances against JMM can you that justs not fair or accurate is it now? Without assesing whether JMM has improved and learnt from his defeat to Pac!

How can you scientifically gauge whether Floyd has improved when he never fights a opponent more than once?.

I think its just people who have an agenda and in particualar something against Pac that would take the time to make threads like this. Singling Pac out for assesment is a ***** move, and is caused by ill will and resentment cos of Pacs resume and trying to tarnish his wins and resume is the outcome that they want.

Very knowledgeable point. Agree on 100%