-Barrera
-JMM (who a lot of people didn't want to fight)
-Morales
-Morales II (after losing in a war, he fought him again)
-JMM II (after many people thought Marquez won, Pacuqiao took a risk and fought him again)
-ODLH (considered a horrible cherry pick at the time since DLH had gotten titles at MW and Pacquiao only had 1 fight at LW)
Miguel Cotto (even with the CW it was considered a big risk)
Margarito(even after a lose Margarito had a huge size advantage)
Bradley (Young prime undefeated boxer with good technical abilities)
Marquez IV (the 3rd fight was a cherry pick but the 4th wasn't even with a size advantage facing a guy that had arguably beat him 2-3 times was a risk)
Pacquiao = 10
Floyd Mayweather
-Hernandez (Floyd's age and first title fight)
-Corrales
-Castillo II (After arguably losing to Castillo he rematched him)
-ODLH (moving up in weight, not that big of a risk)
Floyd = 4
that's pretty much it. Only Trout, Martinez or Canelo fights would be risks.
Guerrero wouldn't. Maybe that speaks of Mayweather's skills and greatness or his great cherry picking skills + hype. Like trying to make a shot Cotto seem 2nd prime'd and undefeated, calling Ortiz the quitter a "Young hungry Lion"etc
all past their prime..didn't fight Mosley on his prime and got nocked out cold by a 40 year old..sure kid...
You can critique both fighters resumes to the fullest but truthfully you will never get an un-biased answer. The way I look at it is if people 100years from now looked at each fighters resumes who would they say was better? If Floyd keeps his 0, then I would say people would lean towards Floyd "but" the slightest blemish to Floyds perfect record (even a draw) I think would have people leaning towards Manny. Personally as a fan I am still upset that we never got to see them square off and I dont think it was that either fighter was chicken, I think Floyds and Arums ego were to big to give in. I think if Floyd were directing negotiations with Manny himself things woulda been made.
So to answer your question, as of now I would say Floyd is the better fighter because from the beginning of his career to the present he has been un-beatable but ask me the same question in a couple years and my answer may change...
-Barrera -JMM (who a lot of people didn't want to fight) -Morales -Morales II (after losing in a war, he fought him again) -JMM II (after many people thought Marquez won, Pacuqiao took a risk and fought him again) -ODLH (considered a horrible cherry pick at the time since DLH had gotten titles at MW and Pacquiao only had 1 fight at LW) Miguel Cotto (even with the CW it was considered a big risk) Margarito(even after a lose Margarito had a huge size advantage) Bradley (Young prime undefeated boxer with good technical abilities) Marquez IV (the 3rd fight was a cherry pick but the 4th wasn't even with a size advantage facing a guy that had arguably beat him 2-3 times was a risk)
Pacquiao =10
Floyd Mayweather
-Hernandez (Floyd's age and first title fight) -Corrales -Castillo II (After arguably losing to Castillo he rematched him) -ODLH (moving up in weight, not that big of a risk)
Floyd = 4
that's pretty much it. Only Trout, Martinez or Canelo fights would be risks.
Guerrero wouldn't. Maybe that speaks of Mayweather's skills and greatness or his great cherry picking skills + hype. Like trying to make a shot Cotto seem 2nd prime'd and undefeated, calling Ortiz the quitter a "Young hungry Lion"etc
forgot to add pacquiao vs ledwaba....ledwaba was the IBF super bantamweight world champion and he was considered a rising star in the division and pacquiao fought him on two weeks short notice.
also pacquiao vs sasakul..pac was a huge underdog against sasakul and pac fought sasakul in his home country.
all past their prime..didn't fight Mosley on his prime and got nocked out cold by a 40 year old..sure kid...
Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android
pac fought marquez for the 4th time after many thought he lost the 3rd fight...it was a big risk because there was still a good possibility that marquez would make pac look bad again and even possibly win (which of course he did)...and no one is mentioning mosley as a risky fight.
how r barrera and morales considered risk when they were the stars at the time and no one really knew who the hell pac was? its clear most of u dont know anything but wiki n boxrec.
Apparently it is BB.
24 have it in favour of Manny, but 11 think its about the same or in favour of Floyd
Like I said brother, it really isn't debatable. Look at the poll now. Pacman by landslide. You gotta have a fried brain to seriously even try & make a case for Floyd, who has none.
it may be pac, but pac by far??? only if u hold floyd to higher standards. i mean how the hell was a shot magarito a risk??? how do u say oscar was a risk for manny then dont say mosely was a isk for floyd? how do u say bradley was a risk for manny but hatton wasnt a risk for floyd. finally how the hell was morales 2 a risk??? if that fight was a risk then thats pathetic.
Comment