Tweet
Floyd is downplaying Pac.......Floyd knows pac was a threat and had to be boxed a certain way....regardless fight was still decisive and shouldn't be done again unless business reasons make it
-
-
Of course. Mayweather has wisen up. Play up your opponents greatness and you play up your wins.Comment
-
lool.............................................. .Originally posted by HanzGruber View PostComment
-
I don't get why slow mo is bad? There were some of Floyd vs Castillo fights in slow mo on youtube to prove Floyd won. Pac might not have won but it also proves Floyd 12-0 "schooling" was a lie. If you want to live in a lie that's cool. But some actually have prove you cant dispute. Whats your evidence?Originally posted by HanzGruber View PostComment
-
Many thinks Manny won.
Comment
-
how do you score fights? based on what guy you like better? so the way to prove that someone wins is not to introduce any evidence? i'm glad courts don't work like that. we are so confident that we submit no evidence! hmmm ok your case is thrown out.Originally posted by HanzGruber View Post
i think pac should have won and the rules of judging support me on this. the slow motion is really for people like you, people that think floyd is landing when he isn't. people that think hitting a glove should count the same as hitting a guy flush in the face. people that think a grazing jab is worth the same as a power punch.
i thought it was very close fight live so i wanted to go back and see who really was getting the better of it in those oh so close rounds. you probably won't ever go back because you don't want to know the truth. you are not intellectually curious. its just easier to say floyd won. why not go back and watch it and create an argument for floyd winning? why not prove he won to not only me but yourself? your reasoning that floyd won seems to be an appeal to popularity. mine is based on the action and punches inside the ring.
my argument that pac won is this: first of all you have to throw out every preconceived notion of how a fighter usually fights. if you think pac's some come forward no defense whirlwind and he suddenly starts boxing that doesn't mean he automatically loses. saying he's not doing what he wants to do is entirely subjective and invites bias because you don't know what he wanted to do. he fought algeiri and rios the same way so did they win too?what matters is who is landing punches through any means possible. going forward, backwards, standing there. having a reputation for a brawler, boxer, simply doesn't matter and a good judge won't be effected by the things fighters bring into a fight. they will only see that fight in a vacuum.
clean punching=pac won this category clearly in rounds 3,4,6-10. in a couple of rounds the amount of landed punches was almost exactly the same(compubox was not accurate) but the rules say clean punching and pac's punches were landing clean and flush(making an impact). also the vast majority of pac's punches were power punches while over half of floyd's lands were jabs. now a good jab can be as good as a power shot but the majority of floyd's jabs barely touched pac. so in a close round i'm going to give it to the guy who is landing the much cleaner punches and who also landed more power punches. that was pac in those 7 rounds. also floyd was badly hurt in 4 and 6, and also briefly stunned in 2 other rounds, i believe 7 and 8, or 8 and 9. you can watch the slow mo of these rounds if you doubt me to see how the quality of pacs punches was much better and cleaner than floyd's.
defense=pac won this category in those 7 rounds as well. making your opponent miss, blocking, parrying, slipping, and rolling punches enabled pac to barely get hit flush. floyd on the other hand while his defense was solid he still was being hit flush time and time again. floyd did some things to keep pac at bay and some people erroneously give him credit under defense. these things are holding and bending below the waist. these things are illegal so obviously you can't give him credit for doing illegal things. it would be like giving someone credit for low blows under clean punches. even with these illegal tactics he still did not have the better defense in those 7 rounds.
ring generalship=this is an entirely subjective category. i've heard a million different ways to define it. i just don't see how you can be the ring general if what you are doing is leading to you being hit flush a lot more than you are hitting your opponent. being the ring general to me means are you putting yourself in position to land the better punches whether going forward, backwards or just standing there it in the middle of the ring. pac got the better in 7 rounds. floyd in 5.
effective aggression=this category is also entirely subjective. you could make a good argument that pac's aggression forced floyd into illegal tactics like clinching and bending below the waist.
the most important thing in boxing is landing clean punches. all the other categories are just a way to get the boxer to clean punching. what it comes down to is are clean punches better or are grazing punches that don't land very clean better. if you took the names and personalities of floyd and pac out of the equation and answered the question honestly i think you would go for the clean punching.Comment
-
Floyd & Roy are gonna tear **** up!!! Pound Russian poon!!
Good for Floyd.Comment
-
I think your Sig is missing the second party.Originally posted by !WAR CANELO! View Post
The handy cap bully is dead... And has been replaced the handicap Bully plus.
Canelo is turning out to sound just like the Divas before him.Comment
-
Of course he is gonna say that, because Floyd versus PAC 2 is happening in 2016.Comment
-
Class from FloydComment
Comment