Comments Thread For: Roach on Pacquiao: We Don't Want a Fight a Guy Like Crawford

[The Big Dunn]

yeah the ******ed who lands the better punhes should win system. i should have used the compubox guess who is landing punches system? or the which guy do i like better system that way i can twist the rules into how i want them system?

how can you have manny beating floyd and horn? because he landed the better punhes in both fights omg the spin is out of control! we have video of him doing this too but you think its doctored??? i dont see how breakign down the rounds in depth=doctoring. is it perfect no but you can see who is landing the clean hard punches this way. you can ignore the coutner if you want but its still easy to follow. where were the floyd clean punches in most of the rounds? simply were not there. pacs were smashing floyds head backwards. at best floyd was touching pac with no force and barely moving his head at all and in a roudn with very close punches landed...who do you really think deserves to win that?

the same bullsh-it wasnt used though. the "doctored" videos aka more evidence(since when did having more information become a bad thing) show manny winning both fights so your point isnt even correct. the wbo judges said horn won but i cant see how. rounds 2 and 4 to horn make no sense at all. manny crushed him those rounds so thats a 7-5 win for pac right there. all 5 gave horn the 12th? thats dubious but yet they all did so which calls into quetsion their judging just like ward-kovlaev roudn 10 was dominant kov roudn that they "messed up on"

why do the judges not know what is happening in most fights? i really dont know. you would think they would air on the side of caution and give it to the guy landing the clear shots but most of the time they dont do that and then fanboys come along later and fill in why their fighter won with confirmation bias and silly reasons while ignoring the actual substance of boxing which is who landed the better punches. you can pretend horn did but he didn't. you can pretend floyd did but he didnt. you can pretend ward did but he didnt. i know its "subjective" but this wasnt pac-marquez subjective where both guys landed great shots. this was a clear distinction in quality of shots in those fights and the judges did not see it or did not want to see it.

You are the using the which guy do I like better system Daggum. There are clear rules on how to score a fight anytime you pick you're own way you are wrong and your scores rightfully are criticized. No one forced you to make that BS up about Floyd/Manny. You did that on your own and its coming back to bite you in the ass.

How the Manny fans are breaking down the videos are doctoring. They are only doing this because Pac lost. I could see if these guys did this in every fight but they dont. It's clear bias.

If Floyd is landing clean more often than Manny then he is winning, no matter how you exaggerate.

Its not more information, its fake information provided by people who are upset the guy they like didnt; win. Funny but you whenever we are discussing PED use of Manny you are quick to discount more information but now you say its a good thing. Your hypocrisy has no end.

Again you are flat out wrong. Judges are to score each round using the following scoring criteria:

Clean punching
Effective aggressiveness.
Ring generalship.
Defense.

Teddy Atlas argued that Manny was "setting traps for Horn" awas landing shots was making Horn miss. So he would give rounds to Manny inot just because of punching (because Horn was landing) but because of the other criteria.

This is the exact same thing Floyd was doing to Manny. SO if you had Floyd winning (I did, so did Teddy) it makes sense to have Manny winning (as did I and Teddy).

You can't just go with punching. You should emphasize it, but not go with it alone. That is why your scoring is wrong.

In your heart you know Floyd beat Manny, IMO you are just being a tool for the sake of trolling.. The problem for you is the exact same thing you pretended happened in Floyd/Manny actually happened in Horn/Manny. When it did, you suddenly changed your tune.

[daggum]

You are the using the which guy do I like better system Daggum. There are clear rules on how to score a fight anytime you pick you're own way you are wrong and your scores rightfully are criticized. No one forced you to make that BS up about Floyd/Manny. You did that on your own and its coming back to bite you in the ass.

How the Manny fans are breaking down the videos are doctoring. They are only doing this because Pac lost. I could see if these guys did this in every fight but they dont. It's clear bias.

If Floyd is landing clean more often than Manny then he is winning, no matter how you exaggerate.

Its not more information, its fake information provided by people who are upset the guy they like didnt; win. Funny but you whenever we are discussing PED use of Manny you are quick to discount more information but now you say its a good thing. Your hypocrisy has no end.

Again you are flat out wrong. Judges are to score each round using the following scoring criteria:

Clean punching
Effective aggressiveness.
Ring generalship.
Defense.

Teddy Atlas argued that Manny was "setting traps for Horn" awas landing shots was making Horn miss. So he would give rounds to Manny inot just because of punching (because Horn was landing) but because of the other criteria.

This is the exact same thing Floyd was doing to Manny. SO if you had Floyd winning (I did, so did Teddy) it makes sense to have Manny winning (as did I and Teddy).

You can't just go with punching. You should emphasize it, but not go with it alone. That is why your scoring is wrong.

In your heart you know Floyd beat Manny, IMO you are just being a tool for the sake of trolling.. The problem for you is the exact same thing you pretended happened in Floyd/Manny actually happened in Horn/Manny. When it did, you suddenly changed your tune.

you just have no idea what you are saying. none. you cant go with just punching...every thing in boxing is done to setup landing punches. everything else is subjective! did the pucnh land or not? if it did how clean? you going to sit there and pretend a grazing jab is equal to knocking your opponents head around? yeah great argument you got there. and i know you are full of it because in the past floyd did the same thing pac did to floyd and you gushedddddddd over it. look at floyd landing the clean punches while theo ther guy can barely land clean but you switched your scoring critieria based on who you like better. i never do that from hopkins-calzaghe till now.

it doesnt matter if you are setting traps, goign forward, backward, etc...if you arent landing better punches which floyd clearly wasnt then you are not winning. floyd was not landing clean more often than manny. exaggerating?
floyds punches had nothing on them. pacs were flush. go watch the fight. we can post the roudn by roudn to prove this. oh wait thats fake! its only real when you watch it in real time with floyd glasses on. when you slow it down and it shows pac connecting cleanly and floyd barely connecting its FAKE! SO a jab that grazes mannys nose is not a clean punch especially when you compare it to manny snapping floyds head back. the quality of shots landed was not close in that fight. there is no exaggerating. you are trying to call every punch even when that is not how you score a fight and you know that. better cleaner punches=more credit. punches that arent clean, graze your opponent and have nothing on them=less credit. thats how you score a fight. im sorry you dont like it. strange how you knew how to score in floyds past fights though...

where were the traps floyd was setting for manny????? where were all his brilliant coutner punches? pull coutenrs? etc???? nowhere to be seen. nowhere. manny was actually coutnering over the top of floyds jab and thats why it was constantly coming up short or just barely grazing pac but to you a grazing jab is the same as a power shot? if you look at the best counters in the fight they were mostly from pacs end but of course you give him no credit for that. most of floyds clean shots were from lead punches so you dont even know what you are watching. you are giving floyd credit just for attempting to do something but he didn't actually do it! pretty sure manny was hitting horn with flush shots more often than horn was hitting pac so thats why he deserved to win. cant say the same for floyd against pac. maybe he was making pac hesitatant but that doesnt mean you win. you win based on substance and just because it was a slow fight doesnt mean boxer with a reputation of fighting at a slow pace wins. the boxer who wins is the boxer who gets the better of the action that was pac and thats where you are going wrong. you are giing credit for the flow of the fight and putting your own bias into it. takling about floyd traps. just look at the punches! they obv werent working too well since he was getting hit much flusher. manny picked his spots and was able to land the cleaner punches while avoiding getting hit flush. thought that was boxing? imagine if floyd was the one landing cleaner and barely getting hit and he didnt get the decision? what would you say?robbery right? yet when he benefits from it its excuse heaven.

pac also had the better defense as he slipped, avoided, made floyds punches come up short, or blocked a lot. floyd was the one getting hit flush more. how can you have better defense if that is the case? so pac wins clean punching and defense and he deserves to lose? also factor in pac was pushing the fight and forcing floyd to hold and bend over constantly(illegal) just to keep up with him. if your opponent has to cheat just to keep up you, you are the ring general. but yet again some people like you actually give floyd credit for these illegal moves under defense or ring generalship. utter nonsense. would floyd do these illegal moves if he didn't have to? nope. forced. pac beat floyd in the center of the ring and pushed him to the ropes to unload on him. those flurries werent that effective but then again floyds "traps" were almost non existent. the occasional lil push to the back of the head i mean check hook. what quality there. most of the time it was a grab or a bend below the waist to get a breather.

how is the entire round in slow motion fake information? because you dont like what you are seeing? you cant beleive what you are seeing so you think its doctored? isnt that an indictment against your case? THIS CAN'T BE TRUE! ITS FAKE! FAKE NEWS! you dont have to pay attention to the punch coutner like i said. look who is landing the clean head snapping punches, the punches that dig into the body, the punches that actually bunch up the glove upon contact. that was pac. then look who is landing punches taht graze, or "punches" where he simply pushes off or lightly hits with no follow through, the punches where the glove does not bunch upon contact. that was floyd. you want to call every punch even and have no nuance because you know that is the only possible way you can even pretend floyd won. no not all punches are created equal im sorry. its called clean punches not maybe he hit him maybe he didnt its so hard to tell.

just take a look at the more accurate punch stats. in roudns 3,4,6,7,8,9,10 pac landed as many or more shots than floyd. then look at the quality of the punches. pac is snapping heads floyd around, pac is following through with his full body weight into his shots. meanwhile floyds punches are barely grazing, lightly touching, or at best are arm punches that land clean but barely move pacs head around. those are all the same to you? also another thing. the majority of floyds punches were jabs and not ggg head snapping jabs but lil jabs with nothing on them. the majority of pacs clean shots were power shots. all punches are not the same. you think watching teh fight closely=doctored? you think they took out all of floyds best punches? i can assure you they did not. maybe you need to watch closer and stop criticizing people who have actually paid attention more than you. maybe you truly think floyds punches are landing when they hit pacs gloves and you think thats some kind of great accomplishment. i think its a great accomplishment actually hitting the other guy flush. if you score this way evey time you wont be so biased and hae to do you mental gymastics over and over and tie yourself in knots.

[The Big Dunn]

you just have no idea what you are saying. none. you cant go with just punching...every thing in boxing is done to setup landing punches. everything else is subjective! did the pucnh land or not? if it did how clean? you going to sit there and pretend a grazing jab is equal to knocking your opponents head around? yeah great argument you got there. and i know you are full of it because in the past floyd did the same thing pac did to floyd and you gushedddddddd over it. look at floyd landing the clean punches while theo ther guy can barely land clean but you switched your scoring critieria based on who you like better. i never do that from hopkins-calzaghe till now.

it doesnt matter if you are setting traps, goign forward, backward, etc...if you arent landing better punches which floyd clearly wasnt then you are not winning. floyd was not landing clean more often than manny. exaggerating?
floyds punches had nothing on them. pacs were flush. go watch the fight. we can post the roudn by roudn to prove this. oh wait thats fake! its only real when you watch it in real time with floyd glasses on. when you slow it down and it shows pac connecting cleanly and floyd barely connecting its FAKE! SO a jab that grazes mannys nose is not a clean punch especially when you compare it to manny snapping floyds head back. the quality of shots landed was not close in that fight. there is no exaggerating. you are trying to call every punch even when that is not how you score a fight and you know that. better cleaner punches=more credit. punches that arent clean, graze your opponent and have nothing on them=less credit. thats how you score a fight. im sorry you dont like it. strange how you knew how to score in floyds past fights though...

where were the traps floyd was setting for manny????? where were all his brilliant coutner punches? pull coutenrs? etc???? nowhere to be seen. nowhere. manny was actually coutnering over the top of floyds jab and thats why it was constantly coming up short or just barely grazing pac but to you a grazing jab is the same as a power shot? if you look at the best counters in the fight they were mostly from pacs end but of course you give him no credit for that. most of floyds clean shots were from lead punches so you dont even know what you are watching. you are giving floyd credit just for attempting to do something but he didn't actually do it! pretty sure manny was hitting horn with flush shots more often than horn was hitting pac so thats why he deserved to win. cant say the same for floyd against pac. maybe he was making pac hesitatant but that doesnt mean you win. you win based on substance and just because it was a slow fight doesnt mean boxer with a reputation of fighting at a slow pace wins. the boxer who wins is the boxer who gets the better of the action that was pac and thats where you are going wrong. you are giing credit for the flow of the fight and putting your own bias into it. takling about floyd traps. just look at the punches! they obv werent working too well since he was getting hit much flusher. manny picked his spots and was able to land the cleaner punches while avoiding getting hit flush. thought that was boxing? imagine if floyd was the one landing cleaner and barely getting hit and he didnt get the decision? what would you say?robbery right? yet when he benefits from it its excuse heaven.

pac also had the better defense as he slipped, avoided, made floyds punches come up short, or blocked a lot. floyd was the one getting hit flush more. how can you have better defense if that is the case? so pac wins clean punching and defense and he deserves to lose? also factor in pac was pushing the fight and forcing floyd to hold and bend over constantly(illegal) just to keep up with him. if your opponent has to cheat just to keep up you, you are the ring general. but yet again some people like you actually give floyd credit for these illegal moves under defense or ring generalship. utter nonsense. would floyd do these illegal moves if he didn't have to? nope. forced. pac beat floyd in the center of the ring and pushed him to the ropes to unload on him. those flurries werent that effective but then again floyds "traps" were almost non existent. the occasional lil push to the back of the head i mean check hook. what quality there. most of the time it was a grab or a bend below the waist to get a breather.

how is the entire round in slow motion fake information? because you dont like what you are seeing? you cant beleive what you are seeing so you think its doctored? isnt that an indictment against your case? THIS CAN'T BE TRUE! ITS FAKE! FAKE NEWS! you dont have to pay attention to the punch coutner like i said. look who is landing the clean head snapping punches, the punches that dig into the body, the punches that actually bunch up the glove upon contact. that was pac. then look who is landing punches taht graze, or "punches" where he simply pushes off or lightly hits with no follow through, the punches where the glove does not bunch upon contact. that was floyd. you want to call every punch even and have no nuance because you know that is the only possible way you can even pretend floyd won. no not all punches are created equal im sorry. its called clean punches not maybe he hit him maybe he didnt its so hard to tell.

just take a look at the more accurate punch stats. in roudns 3,4,6,7,8,9,10 pac landed as many or more shots than floyd. then look at the quality of the punches. pac is snapping heads floyd around, pac is following through with his full body weight into his shots. meanwhile floyds punches are barely grazing, lightly touching, or at best are arm punches that land clean but barely move pacs head around. those are all the same to you? also another thing. the majority of floyds punches were jabs and not ggg head snapping jabs but lil jabs with nothing on them. the majority of pacs clean shots were power shots. all punches are not the same. you think watching teh fight closely=doctored? you think they took out all of floyds best punches? i can assure you they did not. maybe you need to watch closer and stop criticizing people who have actually paid attention more than you. maybe you truly think floyds punches are landing when they hit pacs gloves and you think thats some kind of great accomplishment. i think its a great accomplishment actually hitting the other guy flush. if you score this way evey time you wont be so biased and hae to do you mental gymastics over and over and tie yourself in knots.

An over 1200 word response. LMFAO!

Your posts about the Floyd/Manny fight reads like the attorney defending the cops in the Rodney King case.

The guys making these videos are slowing them down, freeze framing, and trying to change what we saw live. You are making your argument based on this.

Now, that works certain places 30 years ago but it isn't going to work in 2017 on NSB because none of us are Rodney King case jurors.

[McNulty]

Wouldn't this be similar to Floyd? Out of 49 opponents 19 were coming off of losses. Who on his resume tops Morales or Barrera?

That's not true!

Canelo undefeated.

Cotto, winning streak.

Ortiz, winning streak.

Mosley had knocked out Margarito in his last fight and Mayorga in the fight before. Mosely was so hot Roach said he was TOO GOOD for Manny lol. I thought the Cotto loss was a fix and Shane won.

JMM, I don't count Manny as losses because he didn't lose even on Filipino scorecards (ringside).

Hatton, undefeated.

Judah, didn't really take damage from Baldi. Total fluke. I'll give it to you though but we both know its bs.

Gatti, winning streak.

Castillo, winning streak.

Hernandez, winning streak.

Manfredy, winning streak.

Hernandez, winning streak.

Corrales, undefeated.

[ironmt]

That's not true!

Canelo undefeated.

Cotto, winning streak.

Ortiz, winning streak.

Mosley had knocked out Margarito in his last fight and Mayorga in the fight before. Mosely was so hot Roach said he was TOO GOOD for Manny lol. I thought the Cotto loss was a fix and Shane won.

JMM, I don't count Manny as losses because he didn't lose even on Filipino scorecards (ringside).

Hatton, undefeated.

Judah, didn't really take damage from Baldi. Total fluke. I'll give it to you though but we both know its bs.

Gatti, winning streak.

Castillo, winning streak.

Hernandez, winning streak.

Manfredy, winning streak.

Hernandez, winning streak.

Corrales, undefeated.

The following list of fighters were coming off of losses either right before fighting Floyd or were within one loss out when fighting Floyd.

1. Sanders
2. Cooper
3. Rodriduez
4. Gleport
5. Duran
6. Chavez
7. Leija
8. Garcia
9. Nunez
10. Arroyo
11. Girard
12. Melo
13. Cuello
14. Ramon Rios
15. Juuko
16. Corley
17. Judah
18. Mitchell
19. Augustus

[Sheldon312]

No lol, The Pac-man that fought Erik Morales, Barerra, Hatton, De la Hoya would have broken Crawford easily. Manny from 08-10 would have ****ing slept Crawford. If a fighter named Gamboa moves up from featherweight to 140 and still gave him all sorts of problems. If Gamboa and Crawford were the same size, it would be a much different story. How could he beat Manny? Forgot Manny, Crawford is a good fighter but he is terribly overrated.

De la Hoya at 140 smokes Crawford
Mosley at 140 smokes him, Mosley at 135 would end his career (Mosley one of the greatest lightweights in history)
Julio Caesar Chavez smokes him at 140
Aaron Pryor smokes him at 140.

Crawford is a good fighter and the best at 140, but please don't act like he would stack up historically with the old Manny or any other great fighter

At 140 I think he would beat Oscar, Mayweather, Pryor, and Chavez. He is just a better boxer

[ironmt]

At 140 I think he would beat Oscar, Mayweather, Pryor, and Chavez. He is just a better boxer

I respectfully disagree, I really like Crawford but he gets beat by everyone of those guys and most likely by KO.

[Sheldon312]

I respectfully disagree, I really like Crawford but he gets beat by everyone of those guys and most likely by KO.

You favor him against Pac. Why not these guys it's not like they were really levels above a prime Pac

[ironmt]

You favor him against Pac. Why not these guys it's not like they were really levels above a prime Pac

I think he beats the 38 year old Pacquiao of today. The 2009 Manny Pacquiao would stop him, IMO.

[McNulty]

The following list of fighters were coming off of losses either right before fighting Floyd or were within one loss out when fighting Floyd.

1. Sanders
2. Cooper
3. Rodriduez
4. Gleport
5. Duran
6. Chavez
7. Leija
8. Garcia
9. Nunez
10. Arroyo
11. Girard
12. Melo
13. Cuello
14. Ramon Rios
15. Juuko
16. Corley
17. Judah
18. Mitchell
19. Augustus

lol yea so? You do realize the first 20-25 fights are supposed to be bums right? That's how you bring up a fighter. I'm talking about the names that matter you twit!

Its actually pretty amazing that Mayweather beat Hernandez @ 18-0 which is very early to be champion. Most fighters get ruined by fighting champions too early. Regardless, the preferred modern (non Mexican) method for grooming a prospect fighter is bums for approximately 20ish fights.

Better luck next time kid. Keep trying though!

Wait a minute, wait a god dam minute! I have to make an edit, your list is naturally off!

Chavez, winning streak. You thought you were going to sneak that one in there didn't ya!