Floyd vs Pacquiao now?

Floyd packs more than PAC I bet

 

Yep, was going to say the same thing. The key is how often you have to fight, and not being able to cherry pick your opponents and have as much time you want to prepare.

 

yup

the two of them (WBC and jaws) basically look through a guys record, a guy with 180 fights or whatever and pick out the three or four losses that occured against someone they are unfamilair with and then conclude that the guy sucked, while ignoring the many dozens of victories surrounding them... it's ridiculous and there's no qualifying of anything... It's just "this guy sucked" and nothing...

WBC and I had an argument over whether or not Hedgemon Lewis was a world-calss fighter... to me a guy ranked no worse than the top 4 of a division for essentially a decade who gives a great account of himself in title challenges against an all-time great (Jose Napoles) pretty clearly qualifies as "world class" ... He had good speed, solid power, excellent skills and technique... that seems to fit the bill

We had an argument over whether Angel Manfredy (whose whole career is a win over Arturo friggin' Gatti) was as good as Jose Luis Ramirez or Edwin Rosario... seriously, a real argument over THAT... WBC claimed that anybody who used jab-right hand and a little movement beat Jose Luis Ramirez and that Whitaker and Camacho did the same thing against him to win- which of course is ridiculous... their methods were totally different... Whitaker beat Ramirez at close range for the most part, peppering him with shots and walking him into counters in a tight semi-circle... Camacho used his great footspeed to outmaneuver Ramirez at LONG range-- totally different approaches... but Ramirez wasn't as good as Angel Manfredy:bs:

It doesn't matter who you bring up, unless it's Carlos Monzon or Duran, the fighter sucks... I mean, if Archie Moore, a brilliant technician, great puncher with an outstanding LONG resume isn't any good, then nobody is... everybody sucks ever

 

fuck you hahah

you dont know anything about anything. i have got a bigger collection of fights than you, have probably seen more fights than you...why act like having easy access to someones record (who btw you werent alive to see fight either) matters in a negative way?

sorry if in the prime of your career you were knocked out in the first round by a fighter who was 11-2. i understand it was a different time, acting like the guys were bigger and better than is just stupid.

it is revisionist history and bullshit subjectivism to suggest archie moore was close to as good as floyd mayweather. floyd mayweather cant be touched by elite fighters. people below angel manfredy's class put archie down for 10 a number of times in his career.

the golden era of lightheavyweights (elmer ray, archie moore, ezzard charles, harold johnson, etc.) were awesome. but when you start saying man rjj got to fight nobodies if he fought back then he would have ten losses, you are an idiot.

i dont ever post about monzon or duran, and you dont have a clue what i know about moore, charles, burley, etc.

athletes are better now, period. floyd mayweather is not a pussy and orlando salido couldve beaten sandy saddler inside of 6 rounds. it doesnt mean that era was any less awesome.

ive seen srrs enitre middleweight career and think it is absurd that people would say opponents like pender, fullmer, turpin were any better than the alex bunema's of the world.

yeah fullmer would hunt hopkins down and rough him up according to cdogg and ramonza, but fullmer is the same guy who was decisively beaten 3 times by people outside of the top 50 in his weight class the year before beating sugar ray robinson.

3 guys marco antonio rubio could put in a body bag beat the legendary rugged unstoppable hall of famer, all badly hurting him in the process. but of course a modern pussy like hopkins who has never even struggled with the class of fighters that routinely defeated the likes of moore, fullmer, pender, etc. would lose because in the old days they were just so good (despite video evidence on the contrary.)

i do understand it was a different time (one champion, contenders fighting contenders, 10-20 fights per year, smaller gloves, etc.) but the sport has evolved alot, and it is a disservice to modern athletes to compare them unfavorably to guys they wouldve beaten easily based solely on preference (older is better)

 

you again fail to understand who you are talking to. i think quite the opposite of my brother. i tend to rate everybody very high...in my book buddy mcgirt was a skilled tactician and excellent fundamental boxer. just as jose luis ramirez was a rugged brawler, with underrated defense.

floyd mayweather has never been beaten, it is extremely subjective to say he wouldve had a dozen losses at any time. ive seen all of srr and floyds available fights. given that sugar was able to go over 100 fights before having two losses, i find it hard to believe floyd would have ten. ive seen them both, i think floyd is better (we dont have robinson's welterweight career to properly debate)

why could guys like pep lose 1 in 100, but floyd would lose more....or pacquiao? these guys are just as dominant if not more. comparing middle of the road fighters (for their time)[walcott, moore, johnson] to top fighters [mayweather, pacquiao, jones jr, etc] is IMO unfair.

you wont see me saying its bs to compare mark johnson and khaosai galaxy. or monzon to hopkins, or even benny leonard to pernell whitaker.

its only when top fighters get compared to old school middle of the road fighters that i have a problem.

edit to clarify:
i dont mean walcott, moore, johnson were not great fighters, i mean they were not the best of their time...imo they are more comparable to the mosley's of the world. great, but not at the very top. not dominant to say the least. (i understand there was less room for dominance) which is why guys like leonard(lw), greb(mw), tunney (lh), pep(fw), louis etc. are who i feel are the fighters of the old times (pre 1960) who should be compared to floyd, pacquiao, etc.

 

blahblahblah^ same old, same old... Orlando Solido could beat Sandy Saddler inside of six rounds??? based on what?? Saddler's fights not being in color???

How does Juan Diaz do against Duran? Does he put him in a bodybag since he fought 30 years after him?

It's all just subjective shit where you choose one era (pre-color TV) and say "those guys sucked, Roy Jones KO1 Archie Moore" as if it is some fact that is already proven, and your entire basis for the argument is "athletes are better"

But that argument magically dissappears a mere 10 years after Moore's time when the fights are in color... so, tell me, does Michael Katsidis put Roberto Duran in a coma? There's no way you would ever say that. If Duran had fought in 1958 and had the exact same style, results, all of it, you'd be calling him a bum and saying that "athletes are better now"

so why is 1960 the cutoff?? what is so special about 1960?? what about guys whose careers straddle the 50s and the 60s? You're like StingerKarl with his "such and such was a 15 round fighter, so therefore Pernell Whitaker could never beat him" routine... it's the same type of illogical nonsense... pick an arbitrary cutoff time to suit your particular beliefs and then run with it

The year Roberto Duran won the Lightweight title, Mean Joe Greene terrorized the NFL at a massive 275 pounds... he'd be too small to play D-line today... 20 years earlier, in 1952, there were 250 pound guys playing in the NFL... 30 years later, in 1992, every team had several 300 pounders... seems pretty obvious that 1972 (Duran's time) is a hell of a lot closer to Kid Gavilan's (another guy who I am sure you think sucks and would be killed by Adrian Stone) time than it is to Michael Katsidis' time... so how about it? Katsidis over Duran??? after all, he must be a vastly superior athlete!! -- never mind the zillion other factors involved in being a fighter (skills, instincts, desire, etc.) besides athleticism (which in of itself is a ridiculous sticking point given that if you were to stack up tapes of fights where the better "athlete" lost, you'd have mount everest) --

Edwin Rosario barbecues Angel Manfredy, leaves him for dead... why? not because he fought in 1985 and Angel didn't... he does it because he did EVERYTHING better... boxed better, punched 5 times harder, had better defense, better timing, better footwork, better TALENT...

You once stated (to the amazement of anyone who knows anything) that Tarver was a better fighter than Esteban Dejesus, that he had a better "pedigree" (Antonio's a racehorse apparently) and your reasoning ostensibly was that Tarver reached his peak late in life while DeJesus burned out early... I don't even want to try and pretend to understand the mind that is satisfied with that being in any way a logical or relevant criteria... All I can add to that little bit of insanity is this: other than not do anything productive as a professional until his late 30s, what exactly did Tarver do BETTER than Esteban Dejesus? Tarver was, at all times, a one trick pony... he had a sharp, fairly heavy counter left hand... if he could land it, he was in the fight and sometimes he'd win... if he didn't, he was impotent... outside of that, there was not much to his game... jab-jab... counter left hand... that was it... he was generally ineffective as an aggressor, so he needed the other to come to him so he could get that left in... DeJesus was a sharp counter puncher with EITHER hand (though clearly the hook was his bread and butter) ... he box off the back foot if necessary, he could pressure if necessary, he was versatile, he hit hard, he was quick, he was skillfull, he was a BETTER EVERYTHING than Tarver other than being a better old man... if that's your criteria, certainly Archie Moore must be greater than Roy Jones since he was still beating people up at 45 while Jones was finished long before that??? His "pedigree" must be of a higher bearing:scratcher:

 

Orlando Solido??:doh::doh:

 

modern athlete... superior everything (except skills, of course)

 

i dont think mayweather jr wouldve done well fighting monthly. his hands wouldnt have held up

 

It was a different time. Mayweather would not have an '0' but it would be no mark against him. Theres a reason NOBODY has an 0 back there. Who is naive enough to believe its because the Charles', Moores, Peps etc werent as good or better than Mayweather!?

 

imo charles and pep do not belong grouped with moore.

 

that long lost running technique of jesse owens (10.3?) was unbeatable and the western roll was as well. oh and ty cobb was the best hitter ever and barry bonds wouldve never made it in the 1920s. those pitchers were waaaay too tough. if babe ruth played today he'd bat 650. and lifting weight makes you slow. and chew bark for a tough chin. harry greb beat gene tunney, him and philly jack o brien wouldve bbqed a prime rjj.

modern athletes are far superior to the athletes of 40 years ago. and boxing is and always will be an athletic competition. i understand the idea of well when exactly did they get better and that is a fair point (bob beamon's long jump for example) but as a whole boxers got much better with the revolution of nutrition and sports "medicine" in the 1960s.

 

I wasnt actually grouping him with them. Look again closely. I was listing fighters in comparison to Mayweather.

 

He'd still be undefeated if he's allowed to wear Winning gloves

 

David Tua is fat.
...oops, I mean you know boxing

 

that doesn't hold up when you are discussing boxing

it's not a race... who is a more skilled fighter, Kid Gavilan or Antonio Margarito?

Like I said, how many times does the better athlete get beaten by the better technician? happens all the time, always has happened... there's no substitute for knowing what you are doing

 

Pacquiao winning 60-40

60% of y'all don't know boxing. Floyd will not only win, but win fairly eaily. Too big for Pacquiao, too smart, too heavyhanded.

 

This is the most inaccurate perception, to be honest. I voted for Floyd and I am fairly confident he will win.... but it won't be easy for anyone. Unless he moves back down to flyweight, no one Pacquiao fights is going to have an easy time with him.

 

Punk, that video in your avatar is awesome. Where do I find it?

Also, the Alabama Man quote in your sig...is that guy still around under a different name?

 

I voted for Pac to skew Sly's thread.

:mj:

 

sergio martinez would dominate him.

:stir:

 

You think he would beat Pac easily? I have to admit I wasn't thinking about Martinez or anyone at middleweight, if Paul Williams could learn to use his reach i bet he could do well also, but I still think Martinez has a tough fight with Pac

 

I don't know who I want to see KO'd more...Floyd or Manny.

This is ridiculous.

 

Love the sig btw. ::

I know you're loving this.

 

PBF's size' strength ad will be a decisive factor if they fight.
Manny's best chance is to fight like RJJ did against Hops in their 1st fight. Get in & out quick, throw punches in bunches-most inneffectively, but avoid PBF's maximum of 3 at a time punch output, and get the dec due to greater activity.

 

OK, I understand the sentiment.... but can anyone here posting about Floyd beating Manny (and doing so easily, blah blah blah) tell me when the last time was that Manny had trouble with, or lost to, an opponent because of a size/strength advantage? Cotto was bigger and stronger. DLH was bigger and stronger. Mosley was bigger and stronger. Margarito. Etc. Using that particular aspect as a reason to pick PBF is nuts.

PBF is not so much stronger that it makes this fight any different than any other Pac fight at or around Welter. In fact, against Ortiz I didn't see any of PBF's vaunted strength at all. This is a way, way overrated aspect when discussing this fight. In fact I would go as far as saying a strength advantage makes absolutely ZERO difference against Pac, who does not fight with a style that really allows his opponent to use his strength in and meaningful way. He moves a lot, throws fast punches at angles, gets in and out fast, does not grapple hardly at all or fight on the inside in a traditional fashion. I see a minimum (if any) advantage even if it were true that PBF was significantly stronger.

 

Why even talk about Floyd vs Pac? I bet you Floyd has a fight signed with either Ortiz or Berto before there is a chance to negotiate with Pac. This fight is a pipe dream.

 

This fight WILL happen because it must.