Saw this somewhere and, knowing how much this board loves Floyd/Manny crap, I couldn't resist.
It isn't only about Manny having a better chance to beat Floyd in 2010 (personally, I think Floyd beats Manny worse if they fight March 2010).
It's about Pacquiao getting chances for rematches. It's about the fact that even if Pac loses the fight back in 2010, at least he's had a chance to be in with Floyd and the opportunity to make adjustments and improve in a second fight.
By spending years refusing to do what is now an accepted standard, Arum may have (inadvertently or on purpose) robbed Pacquiao of a legit opportunity to beat Mayweather.
Thoughts?
It isn't only about Manny having a better chance to beat Floyd in 2010 (personally, I think Floyd beats Manny worse if they fight March 2010).
It's about Pacquiao getting chances for rematches. It's about the fact that even if Pac loses the fight back in 2010, at least he's had a chance to be in with Floyd and the opportunity to make adjustments and improve in a second fight.
By spending years refusing to do what is now an accepted standard, Arum may have (inadvertently or on purpose) robbed Pacquiao of a legit opportunity to beat Mayweather.
Thoughts?
Comment