Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

In Rustico Torrecampo's Last 10 Fights; Was Pacquiao One of His Easiest Opponents?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    at the time, yes.. pacquiao was a weight drained, malnourished opponent who was easy to beat. what that has to do with anything now.. I dunno?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Sin City View Post
      at the time, yes.. pacquiao was a weight drained, malnourished opponent who was easy to beat. what that has to do with anything now.. I dunno?
      Floyd fans with nothing better to do. What makes it even worse is that boxing will lose a legend today and this is what they prefer.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by edgarg View Post
        I've read that Pacquiao collapsed from starvation. They made him come in at 110 for a flyweight fight. Torrecampo was 115. He could only get down to110.5, so they penalised him with huge gloves, 12 or 16 oz or something ridiculous like that. I think that, if he didn't collapse, he laid down, it just wasn't worth it. Camacho being murdered and the tragic story are much more important, but even that doesn't have a material effect on us.

        Although I couldn't care less, it seems that you are trying to denigrate Pacquiao, enjoy yourself anyway.
        This thread should have stopped here...

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by YDKSAB View Post
          Floyd fans with nothing better to do. What makes it even worse is that boxing will lose a legend today and this is what they prefer.
          And on the same day, people having nothing to do but bash Ricky Hatton, try to make a fool out of him.

          But that's okay right, since it's bigging up Pacquiao?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by -Kev- View Post
            And on the same day, people having nothing to do but bash Ricky Hatton, try to make a fool out of him.

            But that's okay right, since it's bigging up Pacquiao?
            I've yet to see a single thread about people bashing Ricky Hatton. Just admit this thread is childish. I don't care who you're bigging up or down this is just plain immature. Even my comments on the first page were immature too. The thread honestly should have ended at edgarg's post.

            Comment


            • #36
              Was Ricky Hatton the easiest opponent for Pacquiao in the last 10 years?

              Yeah!

              Great thread, he actually was!

              Ricky sucks!

              _______________________________

              Was Pacquiao one of Torrecampo's easiest opponents in his last 10 fights?

              Butthurt.

              Uncalled for!

              Someone just died! Come on!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by -Kev- View Post
                Was Ricky Hatton the easiest opponent for Pacquiao in the last 10 years?

                Yeah!

                Great thread, he actually was!

                Ricky sucks!

                _______________________________

                Was Pacquiao one of Torrecampo's easiest opponents in his last 10 fights?

                Butthurt.

                Uncalled for!

                Someone just died! Come on!
                You didn't get the point of the thread. He wasn't saying Hatton was his easiest opponent as a fighter, he's saying that Pacquiao, in that fight physically only had to fight 2 rounds. He's not knocking Hatton as a FIGHTER, he's talking about the physical amount that Pacquiao had to work in the ring. 2 rounds is the key, not Hatton as a fighter. I even asked him on the front page of that thread because I didn't understand what he was asking at first either.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Pacdbest View Post
                  Hello People???? HI FLOWMOS!!!! Pls answer this????
                  why is pacjuice so scared of tests? can someone from p.a.c.t.u.r.dia answer this?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by YDKSAB View Post
                    You didn't get the point of the thread. He wasn't saying Hatton was his easiest opponent as a fighter, he's saying that Pacquiao, in that fight physically only had to fight 2 rounds. He's not knocking Hatton as a FIGHTER, he's talking about the physical amount that Pacquiao had to work in the ring. 2 rounds is the key, not Hatton as a fighter. I even asked him on the front page of that thread because I didn't understand what he was asking at first either.
                    So dont mock your lord and savior but hattons free range?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Mannie Phresh View Post
                      So dont mock your lord and savior but hattons free range?
                      No, you don't understand. This has nothing to do with Hatton the fighter, it's about how much time Pac had to spend in the ring.

                      He's asking, because Pacquiao only had to fight 2 rounds, was that physically his easiest fight in that range. Go back to that thread, I even asked him what he meant by the question because I didn't know if he was knocking Hatton.

                      And it doesn't take a fan of any fighter to admit this is childish bickering.

                      This is all these threads produce. vv

                      Originally posted by yesir View Post
                      why is pacjuice so scared of tests? can someone from p.a.c.t.u.r.dia answer this?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP