Comments Thread For: May vs. Pac: 17 Years To Superfight – Stakes and Stats

[therealpugilist]

I think more consistent is more accurate than proven. You don't get much more proven than these two. And it's one more champion; pretty negligible. It's dead even since 2001 in terms of champs faced.

Bro I'm talking about career stats

Manny has 3 losses since 2001...he is not as consistent


Numbers don't lie, also Floyd don't need 3 trues to clearly beat one guy


Both are great but mayweather is more dominant n more consistent

[crold1]

Bro I'm talking about career stats

Manny has 3 losses since 2001...he is not as consistent


Numbers don't lie, also Floyd don't need 3 trues to clearly beat one guy


Both are great but mayweather is more dominant n more consistent

I said Mayweather was more consistent. You said more consistent and proven. At this point, I don't know what more either could prove besides whether they can beat each other.

[nathan_nall]

Bro I'm talking about career stats

Manny has 3 losses since 2001...he is not as consistent


Numbers don't lie, also Floyd don't need 3 trues to clearly beat one guy


Both are great but mayweather is more dominant n more consistent

Well, here's the thing though. If the numbers are all we look at, then Manny beating Mayweather tomorrow would still have Manny as the lesser fighter. And maybe that's the truth of it. No one believes that Buster Douglas is superior to Tyson but Douglas just had his number that night. And he was a nearly a 30/1 underdog. Manny is a 2/1 underdog. I'm not even sure that's low enough to motivate him. Beating Mayweather would make a statement because it's never been done before... but this isn't exactly David and Goliath. It's been a pick-em fight since it was first discussed 6 years ago.

[Pigeons]

Please fix the images.

[Chex31]

broken images, chief

[crold1]

Images are fixed

[sialb]

Relax nacho

Um, that first sentence in your #1 beef is so ******ed that I had to take a break before continuing. I had to take several breaks before reading the entire post. You sound like someone who has never had the drive/courage to compete...in anything. You bemoan someone's talent because you didn't want to work hard enough to develop your own (I believe we are all born with aptitudes for something). Sorry to ruin your day, man, but nothing in life worth having is comes free. Like any good coach or father will tell their kids, "you cannot hide hard work." The guys who rise to the top level of their respective sports got their primarily on hard work, not talent.

First, don't worry, my days never ruined by any replies.

Second, you shouldn't jump at calling people names, you make yourself look "not good" (if you catch my drift) in the eyes of intelligent/civilized readers.

Then let me help you with logic. Don't focus on how people "sound" but rather on what people actually "say". Science not concerned with how things APPEAR TO BE but with how things ARE. You get this?

Otherwise your style will only lead to shallow understanding and therefore disconnected replies (like this one I am just commenting on).

Your conclusions are unwarranted: I never had the drive/courage to compete? I bemoan someone's talent? I didn't want to work hard? There is NOTHING in my post that allows you to draw such conclusion (certainly not in an intelligent way). Ask someone who's intelligence you trust for a confirmation. Moreover you don't know me. So how do you call confidently jumping to these off-the-wall hypothesis?

And just to show you I'm not upset, here's some help with understanding my #1 beef with boxing (since I think that's important):

Effort is required to win in any sport. But if that's pretty much ALL you need... then the sport is arguably not so brilliant. And that was my beef with boxing, that being an ego-maniac (term used kinda like a proxy for the amount of effort one puts in) plays TOO BIG a role in how well you do in boxing. Nothing in your post directly or indirectly counters that (in spite of your impression).

Here's an even easier way: you heard about the sport called "bare-hand holing"? It's about who can dig the deepest hole in the ground (using his bare hands) over a 20 year period. Now focus a bit and answer this: what does it take to be the best ever (TBE) in holing? Rings a bell?

You are welcome!

PS
You probably did not hear about "bare-hand holing" because I just invented this sport to help your understanding.