If Pac beats Crawford....do you place him above May in the TBE race?

[travestyny]

Funny you should mention hatton as PAC beat him quite convincly yet you claim hatton thinks Floyd is the best, yet when jmm says PAC is the best their is furore? The ring mag august issue. Interview with jmm. Jmm mentions pac hit hardest, fastest hands and feet, strongest chin believe that or not, and best defense. It did take 4 fights to land that punch so u might understand where he's coming from
Cotton thinks PAC is better as well. He said PAC would have beast Floyd in his prime that's why Floyd ducked him. PAC beat dlh more convincing as well

Furore? What are you talking about? No one is upset about what you said. Calm down.

I have never seen Cotto say Pacquaio was better. I've seen him decline to even talk about the fight they had since he is trained by Roach.

Hatton DID say Mayweather was better:

Hatton Reacts To Kellerman: Mayweather on Top, Not Pacquiao

http://www.boxingscene.com/hatton-reacts-kellerman-mayweather-on-top-not-pacquiao--103529

And Mosley has been saying that Floyd was the best of this era since 2013. Maybe you are feeling furore because most have Floyd ranked higher.

And like I said, Dela Hoya refers to this era as the Mayweather era, though he says it is the worst era in boxing history. Still, the MAYWEATHER era. Dela Hoya was a dead man walking for the Pac fight, and you know it.

[travestyny]

I will give you an example...Two top fuel dragsters at the starting line. Green light flashes One car tears down the track and the other car stalls out at the starting line. One car wins...yay! Other car loses tough luck. Yeah it happens. But is that the normal way of racing? Is that what fans pay to see? Could the other guy have won? Did he get a fair shake???? Was it a fair race? What if? Was it normal way of racing? Or winning? Until they race again you will never know if the other car can really beat the car that won. Or can the car that won really beat the one that loss? HELLO...Thats called CONTROVERSY!

I don't think this is a fair example. If a car fails to get off the starting line, obviously there was a problem that has shut it down before going into the race.

What we have been talking about is Pac's statement that he was 100% going into the fight, though had a prior problem in training camp.

So if the cars are in the race both at "100%" (boxers will always tell you that no fighter is truly at 100%, but nevertheless Pac said he was fine and ready to go) and ready to go, then they begin and during the race, one car blows a gasket and needs to pit for repair, if that car loses the race based on the blown gasket or an issue it had once upon a time in the past, that's the world of car racing. No one ever says that is a cause of controversy.

Does that make more sense?

[PAC-BOY]

i don't think this is a fair example. If a car fails to get off the starting line, obviously there was a problem that has shut it down before going into the race. if there was a problem with the car it wouldnt have made it to the starting line lol or the burn out...maybe a bad example for someone who dont know shlt about top fuel...if thats you then you get a free pass.

what we have been talking about is pac's statement that he was 100% going into the fight, though had a prior problem in training camp.

So if the cars are in the race both at "100%" (boxers will always tell you that no fighter is truly at 100%, but nevertheless pac said he was fine and ready to go) and ready to go, then they begin and during the race, one car blows a gasket and needs to pit for repair, if that car loses the race based on the blown gasket or an issue it had once upon a time in the past, that's the world of car racing. No one ever says that is a cause of controversy.

Does that make more sense?no...top fuel dragsters dont make pits. Indy cars and nascar does but not top fuel dragsters.

.. .

[travestyny]

.. .

I was giving you a better example. I'm well aware of the difference between dragsters and Nascar.

Don't you agree that it is a better example of what we are discussing?

Your example is like saying Pac made it to the ring, but couldn't answer the first round bell.

[PAC-BOY]

yes, you did miss the points i am driving at, buddy....let me elaborate...

the outcome of a fight was due to or decided by an injury to a fighter.....say like the famous twisted ankle; as injuries do happen....let us say this is factor #1.....so this is the reality part of the fight....as this represents what actually transpired in the ring....where is the controversy in this? IF the injury was an accident or just a unfortunate mishap in the lines of "shlt happens"...and it causes the fighter to MAYBE lose the fight than, Yes there is a score to be settled. In which leaves doubt in which leaves a controversial win or loss for whatever fighter.

you must consider that the controversy you are trying hard to attach to this is purely borne of your non-acceptance of the result...a result that does not meet your expectation.....and this is factor #2....Negative....Despite your belief ive been a fan of the sport long before Manny entered the scene with me being a fan of him. If the rolls were reversed and Manny won and Floyd threw is shoulder out or knee went out and cased Manny to dominate him in result...Id scream for a rematch and want to see Manny beat Floyd again with Floyd 100% with no excuses...even if the excuses were valid ones. That would rule out (are you ready for this?) ALL CONTROVERSY!

now, if your expectation is fighter A will win hands down...i think you will be very happy and not attach any controversy to the outcome of the fight if indeed fighter A won even if fighter B had an injury... Again...Dont matter who the fighter is or who i want to win or not Two fighters going at it and the best man wins without no excuses...controversy free!!!!

where factor #1 relates to reality...factor #2 is based on non-acceptance of reality and on what ifs......YUP...the definition of controversy

peoples may have different views or opinions on anything under the sun...but it does not readily equates to a controversy.....True, People do have different views and or opinions...as you do on whats controversial and what is not. Despite the fact...the actual definition to the word that does fall in lines with the topic at hand. Yet you choose not to agree or have different views.Also yet another controversial conversation. lol

hope you understand !

[PAC-BOY]

I was giving you a better example. I'm well aware of the difference between dragsters and Nascar.

Don't you agree that it is a better example of what we are discussing?

Your example is like saying Pac made it to the ring, but couldn't answer the first round bell.

lo noooooo Thats not at all the point. The point is that something happen unexpected that was at no fault of Manny or in no cause by Floyd and a freak bullshlt injury changed the outcome of the fight. Please do read my other post highlighted in red. it may help you consider my intent better. 1st you will have to put all hate and biased bull shlt aside to do so.

[travestyny]

lo noooooo Thats not at all the point. The point is that something happen unexpected that was at no fault of Manny or in no cause by Floyd and a freak bullshlt injury changed the outcome of the fight. Please do read my other post highlighted in red. it may help you consider my intent better. 1st you will have to put all hate and biased bull shlt aside to do so.

Hate and biased bullshlt? Come on, dude.

1. Mayweather said both shoulders and his hands were hurt going into the fight. I remember even some reports coming out of training camp that his hands were hurt. Now you're trying to say that if he had lost, it would have been a controversial loss because his hands were messed up, right? I'm going to call bullshlt on that.

2. How do you know it was no fault of Manny or no cause of Floyd? If he blocked a punch and that caused it, then what? If he caused Manny to miss, then what? If he punched Pac in the shoulder, then what? It's not so clear, is it?

3. NO EXCUSES. "THE BEST MAN WILL WIN." Roach directly contradicts what you said in your previous post!

[PAC-BOY]

Hate and biased bullshlt? Come on, dude.

1. Mayweather said both shoulders and his hands were hurt going into the fight. I remember even some reports coming out of training camp that his hands were hurt. Now you're trying to say that if he had lost, it would have been a controversial loss because his hands were messed up, right? I'm going to call bullshlt on that.

2. How do you know it was no fault of Manny or no cause of Floyd? If he blocked a punch and that caused it, then what? If he caused Manny to miss, then what? If he punched Pac in the shoulder, then what? It's not so clear, is it?

3. NO EXCUSES. "THE BEST MAN WILL WIN." Roach directly contradicts what you said in your previous post!

1. Dont imply i said something or you remember something i said unless you can back it up. Thats like me saying i remember you said in a post one time that you like licking little boys azzholes and taking a stiff one in the mouth from time to time. Did you understand that example clearly? lol

2. How do i know? Because i watched the fight over and over trying to see if Manny was full of shlt or not. Both fighter ****** that that night. What i wanted to see is if they BOTH took us/Fans for a 200 million dollar ride through bullshltville. So i know clearly and anyone with eyes and even Stevie Wonder can see that it was not provoked by either fighter. And come on man...throwing your on rotator cuff on purpose is stretching it in the common sense field...

3. I didnt even listen to what Roach said. I can care less about what roach says or dont say. I understand the politics in boxing or PoliTricks if you wanna call it. He can say anything for any reason. But I hate Floyd and im a Manny fan...Im one of very few pacfans that said in the end that the right man won the fight. Floyd IMO did do better than Manny. Although he ****** just as well and maybe worst than Manny. He ran he held and he didnt do nothing that made the fight interesting or did he do anything that made him look good. Floyd ****** and his own dad told him he was fighting like a scared man. What was Floyds reason for looking so bad? For landing fewer punches than in any of his past fights? What was Mannys excuse for landing the least amount of punches in this fight than any of his past fights ever? He claimed Injury. Floyd says He made it look easy but Manny isnt a easy fight for anyone! WTF???? If thats the case and punch stats show Manny landing and throwing fewer punches in this fight by far than any of his fights in his entire career...Than if Floyd is right by that id hate to see him fight the manny that i know...But There is a controversy here lol Manny says he was hurt. And he also said despite his injury he fought on fought through it like a fighter does and still feels he won. Because just because you are hurt dont automatically mean you lose...right?
Thats my take on your Freddie Roach comment. *** Freddie. Good trainer but *** what he thinks.

[travestyny]

1. Dont imply i said something or you remember something i said unless you can back it up. Thats like me saying i remember you said in a post one time that you like licking little boys azzholes and taking a stiff one in the mouth from time to time. Did you understand that example clearly? lol

2. How do i know? Because i watched the fight over and over trying to see if Manny was full of shlt or not. Both fighter ****** that that night. What i wanted to see is if they BOTH took us/Fans for a 200 million dollar ride through bullshltville. So i know clearly and anyone with eyes and even Stevie Wonder can see that it was not provoked by either fighter. And come on man...throwing your on rotator cuff on purpose is stretching it in the common sense field...

3. I didnt even listen to what Roach said. I can care less about what roach says or dont say. I understand the politics in boxing or PoliTricks if you wanna call it. He can say anything for any reason. But I hate Floyd and im a Manny fan...Im one of very few pacfans that said in the end that the right man won the fight. Floyd IMO did do better than Manny. Although he ****** just as well and maybe worst than Manny. He ran he held and he didnt do nothing that made the fight interesting or did he do anything that made him look good. Floyd ****** and his own dad told him he was fighting like a scared man. What was Floyds reason for looking so bad? For landing fewer punches than in any of his past fights? What was Mannys excuse for landing the least amount of punches in this fight than any of his past fights ever? He claimed Injury. Floyd says He made it look easy but Manny isnt a easy fight for anyone! WTF???? If thats the case and punch stats show Manny landing and throwing fewer punches in this fight by far than any of his fights in his entire career...Than if Floyd is right by that id hate to see him fight the manny that i know...But There is a controversy here lol Manny says he was hurt. And he also said despite his injury he fought on fought through it like a fighter does and still feels he won. Because just because you are hurt dont automatically mean you lose...right?
Thats my take on your Freddie Roach comment. *** Freddie. Good trainer but *** what he thinks.

lol. You are one emotional dude.

1. You just said this:

If the rolls were reversed and Manny won and Floyd threw is shoulder out or knee went out and cased Manny to dominate him in result...Id scream for a rematch and want to see Manny beat Floyd again with Floyd 100% with no excuses...even if the excuses were valid ones.

Which makes it seem that you are implying if Pac won and Mayweather said it was due to his hands and shoulder, you'd say it is controversial and they should do it again? Am I wrong? Mayweather said he wasn't 100%.

2. Can you pinpoint the moment when he threw out his shoulder? I doubt it, because no one ever mentioned this shoulder injury until the press conference.

3. lol@ your stance on Freddie Roach.


But carry on, man. We don't need to discuss this anymore. I'll give you the last say if you would like.

[tangalog2200]

hope you understand !

it is very clear that it is your non-acceptance of the fight outcome that drives you to look at the win as controversial......you say the win is controversial because the result was not as you expected.....

you, having a doubt on a win and saying there is a score to be settled and clamoring for a rematch is understandable...

people love to see fighters go at it with both at 100% condition....the ideal scenario....again, the ideal scenario...

but sadly, what is ideal is not always the reality.....

the reality is fighters get injured...even in training....

and you should know that....and you should understand that....

as i consider that injury is part and parcel of reality, i would even say a win is diminished...and people could clamor for a rematch.....

to say that win is controversial is to question reality......

also consider that not all injury is readily noticeable by the spectators...

and who could guarantee that no injury will happen in the rematch? or at the trilogy?

could you guarantee that?........