Comments Thread For: De La Hoya: In Their Prime, Pacquiao EASILY Beats Mayweather!

[NearHypnos]

Please stick with facts. Pac best all common opponents more convincingly. The guys who best pac, floyd has never fought so had not proved he's best them.
We can assume Bradley and morales w would best floyd

Pacquiao lost to the best fighters he ever fought. There’s your facts.

By knockout and a complete and utter shutout. Floyd dominated a younger JMM than the one Pac lost to (same weight class too) JMM highlight reeled Pacquiao in the same division Pac was supposed to “destroy” mayweather in.

Beat an even MORE washed up version of Oscar who wasnt just washed up but drained. An even more washed up version of Shane. A Margarito without wraps. Loses to Horn. Loses to Bradley (facts, right?)


And here’s the kicker and the only one that matters. An older Floyd beat Pacquiao.

If we’re going off facts, who in their right mind would assume Morales and Bradley would beat Floyd? Floyd would have embarassed that version of Morales. At Super featherweight?

You’ve got to be trolling right now.

[b Murphington]

Before Floyd's hands got f u c ked he was a wrecking machine. He was a killer and he really went for it.

Would've been a much better fight cuz Manny really went for it too, but Manny never had that great of defense to begin with.

Idk hard fight to call for sure, but I say Floyd.

[djtmal]

Sad day for the Floyd Boys when all they can do is assume he wins against guys he didn't bother to fight when they were in their prime.
They gotta cite health reasons, brittle hands, being on vacation when the ww division was hot, old posts. Taking tests. Damn.

[IronDanHamza]

What's hilarious is, it don't matter either way.
Hang on to what my opinion was over a century ago. Thats all you got. Lol. Right now is where it's at as far as I am concerned.
Floyd's lackluster effort over a faded Manny, his most signature opponent, didn't crown him the goat, and no fact or excuse you dudes cough up, makes it a sweeter pill to swallow. Lol.
But I tell what you do. See if my opinion changes ten years from now.

I think you mean decade not century

Again, it is one thing changing your opinion and another thing changing it AFTER the fact.

You haven't just changed your opinion.

Changing your opinion reasonably is saying I don't rate fighter A for reasons X,Y and Z but then after going back and re analysing you now change your mind and do rate them.

What you've done is said that Floyd shouldn't fight Pacquaio because it's a mismatch and then 10 years later are saying he should have fought him. That's totally different. That's flip flopping.

Much like saying accusing Floyd of ducking Mosley, saying Floyd should fight Mosley then after the fight saying Mosley was shot.

Another example of flip flopping. You can't do that and the say "well that was 10 years ago i change my opinion now" no, you changed it AFTER the fact.

It doesn't matter if you said it a 1,000 years ago, you said Floyd shouldn't fight Pacquaio because it's a mismatch. That is what you have been documented saying at the time this fight was first talked about in 2009. You can't then say after the fact that he SHOULD have fought him at that time when it totally contradicts what you actually said at the time and then justify it by saying "well it was a long time ago"

[travestyny]

I think you mean decade not century

Again, it is one thing changing your opinion and another thing changing it AFTER the fact.

You haven't just changed your opinion.

Changing your opinion reasonably is saying I don't rate fighter A for reasons X,Y and Z but then after going back and re analysing you now change your mind and do rate them.

What you've done is said that Floyd shouldn't fight Pacquaio because it's a mismatch and then 10 years later are saying he should have fought him. That's totally different. That's flip flopping.

Much like saying accusing Floyd of ducking Mosley, saying Floyd should fight Mosley then after the fight saying Mosley was shot.

Another example of flip flopping. You can't do that and the say "well that was 10 years ago i change my opinion now" no, you changed it AFTER the fact.

It doesn't matter if you said it a 1,000 years ago, you said Floyd shouldn't fight Pacquaio because it's a mismatch. That is what you have been documented saying at the time this fight was first talked about in 2009. You can't then say after the fact that he SHOULD have fought him at that time when it totally contradicts what you actually said at the time and then justify it by saying "well it was a long time ago"

hahaha. Poor DJTmal. Still up to the same antics, and still getting owned for it!

[NearHypnos]

Sad day for the Floyd Boys when all they can do is assume he wins against guys he didn't bother to fight when they were in their prime.
They gotta cite health reasons, brittle hands, being on vacation when the ww division was hot, old posts. Taking tests. Damn.

All bulls hit aside....He still beat...no...dominated Pac..and also the guy who knocked out Pac. He beat them so bad I have no doubt that with an hour or two’s rest he beats them the same night. It was embarassing.

If that’s not definitive as it gets then you’re missing out on the real world. It’s nice out here.

Because really, that’s what this an entire topic boils down to. One guy won, one lost. If you need ”what ifs” to get that dream victory we all wish Pac woulda had over Floyd, go for it.


Floyd won. Pac lost. Can we just continue bit ching about Eddie Hearn again like normal boxing stans?

[Cigar]

Not just Pacquiao, but the versions of Oscar and Shane in their 2000 fight also beat any version of Floyd.

[Fetta]

Pac fight has no hype? Attach his name to Floyd and there you go. No one moves the masses like Floyd

[WaterHotSer]

Golden Girl exaggerating here about afraid of needles easily wins over needles lover IVweather.

[djtmal]

I think you mean decade not century

Again, it is one thing changing your opinion and another thing changing it AFTER the fact.

You haven't just changed your opinion.

Changing your opinion reasonably is saying I don't rate fighter A for reasons X,Y and Z but then after going back and re analysing you now change your mind and do rate them.

What you've done is said that Floyd shouldn't fight Pacquaio because it's a mismatch and then 10 years later are saying he should have fought him. That's totally different. That's flip flopping.

Much like saying accusing Floyd of ducking Mosley, saying Floyd should fight Mosley then after the fight saying Mosley was shot.

Another example of flip flopping. You can't do that and the say "well that was 10 years ago i change my opinion now" no, you changed it AFTER the fact.

It doesn't matter if you said it a 1,000 years ago, you said Floyd shouldn't fight Pacquaio because it's a mismatch. That is what you have been documented saying at the time this fight was first talked about in 2009. You can't then say after the fact that he SHOULD have fought him at that time when it totally contradicts what you actually said at the time and then justify it by saying "well it was a long time ago"

Who cares.

If I said it was a mismatch and Floyd don't prove me right by fighting the little guy and sparking him out, then that's a feather in Manny's cap as far as I am concerned.

If I say Shane/Floyd is the fight people want to see, and Floyd takes his sweet time about it, then yeah, he cherrypicked the right time to fight, when Shane was a year and a half inactive, an already shopworn Shane at that. Shane was a year and a half from the Margarito win gtfoh.

But I tell what you can do. Pull up those archived quotes. I like when you archeologists go digging for buried treasure