Comments Thread For: Pacquiao's Adviser Devalues Bradley For "Boring" Win

[John Barron]

Let's not play dumb. Whether u like PAC or not he WAS beating Marquez up until the ko. And yes PAC being overly aggressive played a big role in him getting ko. It's not like Marquez was chasing PAC down all night and then finally landed that bomb. Like dude above said if PAC would have played it cool and not be so aggressive he would have got the decision maybe even a late stoppage. Nobody is to be blame on the ko except for PAC and his team but lets not act like Marquez chase PAC down and got the ko.

marquez was sizing him up with that punch all night and even knocked him down hard. let's not pretend pac was fighting the perfect fight until the ko. sure he was dominating the round he got knocked the **** out in but not the whole fight.

Thats not risking it all-thats failure to fix whats broken and having it catch up to you.

[waxfondler]

I think we can see JMM cries robbery everytime he lost. No I don't think JMM beat manny 4 times. I never said pac lost to bradley either. No need to try and reshape my point or throw up a smokescreen to divert from my original point.

I responded to your intial post because in it you suggested that manny lost in part because of a risk he took.

Manny didn't take a risk while Bradley fought safe. He didn't fight any differently than he ever fights, there was just an opponent who could capitalize off his mistakes.They each fought the way they are best equipped.

A risk is what Bradley took trying to out slug Provodnikov when he easily could've boxed and moved as he did before that fight and subsequently with JMM.

good to hear youre not as biased as you look

i still think manny took unnecessary risks in his last fight. we can disagree about that, im cool if you are.

dude, the sense of urgency from both corners was palpable. BOTH jmm & pac fought hard and took risks. compare that to pac/jmm III which was tit-for-tat.

what bradley did with provo was simply idiotic. that wasnt a risk, he was trying to PROVE something. what that was, i still dont know. LOL.

[MC Hammer]

Well if someone robs Glen Johnson, shrug. If someone robs Floyd, you might hear about it, right? I mean, one of the judges from the Pac Bradley fight was just sent into retirement for scoring Canelo a draw

So Rios won, right? Why don't you make a thread about it, he gets too much flack for the winning effort. Most people idiotically think he "lost", please set them straight

You keep bringing up writing a thread, why don't you take your own advice?

Rios won, look at his record. Chavez jr won look at his record. Canelo/Floyd was a MD look at the record. I may not agree with every decision, but someone who's opinion is official does.

[Rome-By-Ko]

The first fight didn't sell well at all from what bob first indicated. Were the figures ever released? How much more do you think the rematch does?

I think after Bradley two fights this yr,and depending on Pac's fight and how he looks with Rios..I think a rematch could do about 800k to 1mill buys..Pac is still a draw,and with the possibility that he could stop Bradley out there,or Bradley could outbox Manny..Fans and haters a like will tune in to watch this fight..

[hitking]

panties in a bunch?? you guys always get worked up whenever pac gets a tad of praise huh?

Actually, the only thing that slightly annoys me is dicussing Manny Pacquiao with folks like yourelf that didn't even know he existed until 4-5yrs ago. Yet act like a goddamn expert on his career based on what some talking head said. Or what you researched on boxrec and youtube.

[HeroBando]

Cool,but why is this always your way to argue??Someone else's opinion..I can talk that fight and describe what I saw and why I saw it that way..I don't need to point to a majority..Ask the majority in the building last sat who won the Marquez Bradley fight,and the majority would have said Marquez..Who cares about the majority..It's about what I seen..

Bradley fan or not I seen Bradley beat Pac,I also seen a close fight that if giving to Pac I would not have been mad at..A rout is something I did not see..A rout is what happen to Mosley and Cotto..Are you saying that Pac Bradley was that..Cause if you are I call bull****..

It wasn't as much of a rout, but when you have more 11-1 than all "close" scores combined (going both ways), that's also a rout.

[HeroBando]

I'm not worked up over anything homie. I'm simply having a discussion and stating my opinion. And as I see it, it appears that most of the boxing press, and fans without a dawg in the fight have leaned towards Floyd as the best fighter of the era. And in doing so, it makes Pac's FOTD award seem a lil hollow. Do you still consider Pac the best fighter of his era?

Well depends on what you mean. Floyd is no doubt the best boxer, best fighter not sure, resume still Pac, but getting closer. Still that decade is well over, maybe Floyd can win the next one.

[HeroBando]

You keep bringing up writing a thread, why don't you take your own advice?

Rios won, look at his record. Chavez jr won look at his record. Canelo/Floyd was a MD look at the record. I may not agree with every decision, but someone who's opinion is official does.

I bring it up since you make a point of telling us to shut up over a robbery decision. I think it's kinda redundant for Pac Bradley, you get a lot of flojobs and various alts doing this repeatedly, so doesn't add anything. But you'd be doing something right by reminding the board that indeed Rios beat Abril, PWill beat Lara, Cintron drew with Martinez and so on. These guys get no justice, they need your sober voice.

[The Big Dunn]

good to hear youre not as biased as you look

i still think manny took unnecessary risks in his last fight. we can disagree about that, im cool if you are.

dude, the sense of urgency from both corners was palpable. BOTH jmm & pac fought hard and took risks. compare that to pac/jmm III which was tit-for-tat.

what bradley did with provo was simply idiotic. that wasnt a risk, he was trying to PROVE something. what that was, i still dont know. LOL.

we may disagree but I always enjoy the debate

Fights should be given to fighters on the basis of winning and losing, not exciting or not exciting. Boxing suffers when losing because of imperfection or lack of skill is rewarded over winning through mastery of skill.

[waxfondler]

I'm not worked up over anything homie. I'm simply having a discussion and stating my opinion. And as I see it, it appears that most of the boxing press, and fans without a dawg in the fight have leaned towards Floyd as the best fighter of the era. And in doing so, it makes Pac's FOTD award seem a lil hollow. Do you still consider Pac the best fighter of his era?

why are you getting so butthurt about the award? LOL. do you understand what fighter of the decade means? 2000-2009. lets compare:

floyd: corrales, castillo, judah, oscar, hatton, jmm

pac: barerra, jmm, morales, oscar, hatton, cotto

its fair to see why they gave the edge to pac. whats the controversy? what you are whining about is floyd being considered the best fighter of the era, and the fact that maybe some people dont agree with you.

IMO, its a tough choice... easy answer is floyd, he is still undefeated and is performing at the top of his game. although, pac made a bigger splash and it was a frenzy while it lasted, he put the excitement back in boxing.