How do you compare this version of Pacquiao to Castillo that fought Floyd 1st fight

[SeekDaGreat]

Every fighter is beatable so the whole thing is silly.

You said Castillo had 4 losses, what's your point there?

Every fighter is beatable, but not every fighter gets beat, and not every fighter gets beat four times, and not every fighter retires with ten plus losses.

And on occassion the fighters that do meet those requirements, are generally not more dangerous than a Manny Pac, even an aging one.

That's my (stupid) opinion. I know it's not accurate because a certain group of you disagree with it.

[IronDanHamza]

Every fighter is beatable, but not every fighter gets beat, and not every fighter gets beat four times, and not every fighter retires with ten plus losses.

And on occassion the fighters that do meet those requirements, are generally not more dangerous than a Manny Pac, even an aging one.

That's my (stupid) opinion. I know it's not accurate because a certain group of you disagree with it.

Ok so the point I think you're trying to make is that Castillo had 4 Loss's when he fought Floyd so it wasn't a dangerous fight? I don't know, I still don't know what you're trying to say.

Let's say Floyd fought Pacquaio instead of Castillo, Pacquaio would have had 2 Loss's. So what does that mean?

If they fought in 2010, Pacquaio would have had 3 Loss's and arguably should have had 5 Loss's.

If they fight next year, Pacquaio will have 4 Loss's and arguably should have 7.

So again what you're saying makes little sense.

[SeekDaGreat]

Ok so the point I think you're trying to make is that Castillo had 4 Loss's when he fought Floyd so it wasn't a dangerous fight? I don't know, I still don't know what you're trying to say.

Let's say Floyd fought Pacquaio instead of Castillo, Pacquaio would have had 2 Loss's. So what does that mean?

If they fought in 2010, Pacquaio would have had 3 Loss's and arguably should have had 5 Loss's.

If they fight next year, Pacquaio will have 4 Loss's and arguably should have 7.

So again what you're saying makes little sense.

No. It's not so much the losses, it was me saying there's ways to beat this guy, atleast four ways. It wasn't the focal point of what I was saying. Everybody just honed in on it. Also, I never said the Castillo fight wasn't a dangerous fight.

That's not the question being asked in this thread. Question asked is which fighter is more dangerous. Present Pacquiao, or the Castillo who fought Floyd.

My answer (opinion) is present Pacquiao.

[IronDanHamza]

No. It's not so much the losses, it was me saying there's ways to beat this guy, atleast four ways. It wasn't the focal point of what I was saying. Everybody just honed in on it. Also, I never said the Castillo fight wasn't a dangerous fight.

That's not the question being asked in this thread. Question asked is which fighter is more dangerous. Present Pacquiao, or the Castillo who fought Floyd.

My answer (opinion) is present Pacquiao.

Ok but you understand that present Pacquaio has 4 Loss's also?

So what's the difference?

The statement is illogical. Every way you look at it.

[SeekDaGreat]

Ok but you understand that present Pacquaio has 4 Loss's also?

So what's the difference?

The statement is illogical. Every way you look at it.

I didn't choose Pac because of Castillo's four losses. I told you, that wasn't my point. All I was saying that this guy is flawed, and imo more so than Pacquiao.

It was a small side comment. My main point is that imo, present Pac is more dangerous than the Castillo that fought Floyd.

We can keep harping over the four loss comment, it doesn't change that I think present Pac is more dangerous than the Castillo Floyd fought.

[IronDanHamza]

I didn't choose Pac because of Castillo's four losses. I told you, that wasn't my point. All I was saying that this guy is flawed, and imo more so than Pacquiao.

It was a small side comment. My main point is that imo, present Pac is more dangerous than the Castillo that fought Floyd.

We can keep harping over the four loss comment, it doesn't change that I think present Pac is more dangerous than the Castillo Floyd fought.

So basically the 4 Loss's comment was a meaningless comment.

The rest I don't dispute, that's your opinion and not an illogical one.

I'm guessing people jumped on the 4 Loss's thing because it just didn't make any sense especially considering the exact same logic can be said about present Pacquaio.

[b00g13man]

Wow! I never thought I'd hear Castillo described as such. This is just flat out embarrassing.

[SeekDaGreat]

So basically the 4 Loss's comment was a meaningless comment.

The rest I don't dispute, that's your opinion and not an illogical one.

I'm guessing people jumped on the 4 Loss's thing because it just didn't make any sense especially considering the exact same logic can be said about present Pacquaio.

But....it's not meaningless, because I explained several times why it was said. It has very little meaning to a broader point. If you care to go read back.

[bopbopbbe]

Pacquaio is 2X the fighter Castillo was. That's no disrespect to Castillo, he was a solid fighter in his prime but pac is an ATG.

[Kagami Taiga]

Wow! I never thought I'd hear Castillo described as such. This is just flat out embarrassing.

people like to demean and downplay fighers when they either know nothing about them or they have some ******ed point to prove. happens around here all the time though so its not surprising.

im not gonna compare manny and castillo, vastly different fighters. manny is greater for certain, but their styles are so different it makes no sense to even try to compare