Would you consider Pacquiao one of the best offensive fighters of all time?

[Zaroku]

How come when I make a post like this it gets 100 replies in my 5 hour nap but my penis threads all get closed?

Good question. Don't know why??

[Sp0rty Cr@ig]

"Way past his prime". Were his fans not expecting him to KO Jeff Horn? Was that not that expectation? Was he not the overwhelming favorite to knock out Jeff Horn? Wasn't Jeff Horn meant to be an easy show case fight? Am I mistaken?

The fact is, in his prime Pac relied too much on his power and athleticism. He never took the time to learn basic thing such as cutting off the ring. He never developed his body punching. There are too many things Pac doesn't do to be considered one of the best offensive fighters of all time.

And do you think Pac could have stopped Cotto if he fought him at the full 154?

Bro Cotto wasnt a 154 pound fighter back then. He was a 147 pounder fighting at a 2 pound catch weight. That may have taken something from him but Pacquiao was so much smaller. Honestly bro Pac's run during that time was mind blowing. Past prime Oscar fighting him was seen as a huge cherry pick by Oscar. Joke fight. A year l later Pac absolutely dominated one of the top welterweights and stopped him. Mayweather, Canelo, Martinez didnt even come close to stopping Cotto but when Pac fought him he was "damaged goods" from the Margarito loss. lol so biased.

The Horn loss is absolutely irrelevant just like Ali's loss to Berbick is irrelevant. You cant judge fighters by how they look when they are way past it. Only a few fighters retire at the right time. Most go out losing to lesser fighters because they fought too long..

[McNulty]

We're not talking complete package here. Talking about the execution. Inb4 "Marquez doe" already unveiled your gameplan serious answers please.

No. All the big names were hot off major losses and vulnerable. Pacquiao was good, but really a B+ level fighter.

[TMTForever99]

beating a bunch of names coming off losses and fighting them at catchweights lmao pacs offense is mediocre who did he beat at 147, 140, 135 to make any of you think he had better offense then an aaron pryor, sugar ray leonard or tommy hearns.

[ADP02]

Ok. I can see giving him the 4th. Everyone gave him that round. I don't see how you can give him any other round scoring the fight according to proper scoring criteria.

So you agree with Manny winning Round #4. The problem with your scoring, I presume, is either being bias or you are giving Floyd all rounds that are close even though he does not deserve them.

You say that you cannot see anyone giving Manny any other round but Harold Lederman gave Manny the 2nd round. So that means that one could have scored it 2-2.

If you analyze round 3, that was clearly a Manny round but the Vegas judges didn't give it to Manny. Go check it out for yourself and come back and tell me how Floyd could have won that!

SO YES, the Vegas judges could have had it 3-1 for Manny after 4 rounds but like Juan Marquez said, you cannot beat Floyd on the cards in Vegas!




.

[Vegemil]

beating a bunch of names coming off losses and fighting them at catchweights lmao pacs offense is mediocre who did he beat at 147, 140, 135 to make any of you think he had better offense then an aaron pryor, sugar ray leonard or tommy hearns.

Pretty sure none of them started at 108.

[TMTForever99]

Pretty sure none of them started at 108.

where he started has nothing to do with his mediocre offense. manny is a hype job just like de la hoya

[travestyny]

So you agree with Manny winning Round #4. The problem with your scoring, I presume, is either being bias or you are giving Floyd all rounds that are close even though he does not deserve them.

You say that you cannot see anyone giving Manny any other round but Harold Lederman gave Manny the 2nd round. So that means that one could have scored it 2-2.

If you analyze round 3, that was clearly a Manny round but the Vegas judges didn't give it to Manny. Go check it out for yourself and come back and tell me how Floyd could have won that!

SO YES, the Vegas judges could have had it 3-1 for Manny after 4 rounds but like Juan Marquez said, you cannot beat Floyd on the cards in Vegas!




.

Wonderful logic here. Find someone that gave a particular round to Pac and say that means the judges could have given it to Pac. You're very bright.

Why not just compile of list of unofficial judges that gave each of the 12 rounds to Pac and then claim he pitched a shutout

The judges could have given all of the rounds to Pac. They didn't.

This fight isn't even mentioned as being a controversial decision. Only thing that Pac won that night was 2nd place.

[Damn Wicked]

Yes, Pac is ONE of the best offensive fighters ever. Nobody should be considered THE best...but you can say he was among the best.

[ADP02]

Originally Posted by The Big Dunn View Post

Ok. I can see giving him the 4th. Everyone gave him that round. I don't see how you can give him any other round scoring the fight according to proper scoring criteria.

So you agree with Manny winning Round #4. The problem with your scoring, I presume, is either being bias or you are giving Floyd all rounds that are close even though he does not deserve them.

You say that you cannot see anyone giving Manny any other round but Harold Lederman gave Manny the 2nd round. So that means that one could have scored it 2-2.

If you analyze round 3, that was clearly a Manny round but the Vegas judges didn't give it to Manny. Go check it out for yourself and come back and tell me how Floyd could have won that!

SO YES, the Vegas judges could have had it 3-1 for Manny after 4 rounds but like Juan Marquez said, you cannot beat Floyd on the cards in Vegas!




.

Wonderful logic here. Find someone that gave a particular round to Pac and say that means the judges could have given it to Pac. You're very bright.

Why not just compile of list of unofficial judges that gave each of the 12 rounds to Pac and then claim he pitched a shutout

The judges could have given all of the rounds to Pac. They didn't.

This fight isn't even mentioned as being a controversial decision. Only thing that Pac won that night was 2nd place.

Big Dunn said that he couldn't see how someone could have given Manny any of the other rounds.


So you disagree with Big Dunn.

I disagreed with Big Dunn too. See, who said that we cannot agree on anything? Thanks for letting us know!


.