I told you all

Pacquiao should just retire and let the younger generation take over. He honestly has nothing left to prove.

 

I actually agree with you Bama, I said as much to my girlfriend.

He's still an elite fighter, but he's lost that fire and that PASSION to fight.

He just doesn't have it, and it's obvious why. Superstardom has softened him up a bit, and taken his hunger and passion for boxing.

He should retire while he's still on top, he's already proved to be an all time great.

 

Yup. When you have victories over Barrera x2, Moralesx2, and Marquez, the best featherweights of your time, it's time to think about what is left?

If Pacquiao moves to 135 and KO's someone like Casamayor, can that really add to his legacy?

He's at the point that Roy Jones Jr was about 5 years ago, a cleaned out division, and looking to higher weights to conquer. Unless he fights Ricky Hatton, or Oscar Dela Hoya at 140-147, he should say goodbye to the sport. There's nothing he can really do at 135 that would add significantly to his legacy.

Pacquiao's place in history is sealed and he's only 29. He also opened the doors for guys like Donaire, Banal, and others. The younger generation is there to willingly take his place.

 

I think retiring is his best option,he's already beaten the best of his era and will go down as an all time great like bama and MWS above me said.The way he's going about it ,he might end up losing sooner rather than later.

 

now you fools want Pacquiao to retire? :laughing:

cleaned out a division? he barely got a W agaisnt Marquez and is now running for the hills to face that stiff Diaz and he cleaned out 130? ::

you just don't like pacquiao struggling against stiff competition. I guarantee at 130 Guzman would give him a schooling. which is why Arum already told him he would never give him that fight.

Pacquiao is not as good as you though he was and him losing his "fire" is just a bullshit excuse for not dominating everyone. Now you want him retire to avoid future losses. ::

 

He lost Saturday. but don't worry he will beat the shit out of Diaz and you will see his "fire" back. Then when he fights another good boxer you will want him to retire so he can avoid a schooling. :warning:

 

Idiot, he dominated Barrera and knocked out Solis, and they are the 2 fights that made me realise he lost his fire. Stop being a closed minded, ignorant twat.

 

your the pendejo here asking for pacquiao to retire.

normally when fighters need to retire is when they are declining. Manny got a win over a pfp fighter in Marquez. They had a fight of the year candidate. You don't accomplish that when you lose the fire.

you can't half ass a performance like that.

 

You're impossible to discuss anything with. I don't even know why I try.

 

All the answers are in my post above so I won't repeat them. It's cool either way.

The punchstats are a direct answer to REED's assertion that Pacquiao's workrate was "about as low as he'd ever seen it" in the Marquez II fight.

You guys have NO leg to stand on when it comes to comparing 04 to 08. The fight played out similarly, and there is no way you can say Pacquiao's workrate was any less....he actually threw more power punches.

Cuban Hawk is right - this is NOT a fight to be lumping in your assertions of Manny having lost his fire.

Bro, look at it however you want.....it's rare that you and I disagree this vehemently; :: so I'm willing to accept that Manny has lost something...though I think the 'reasons why' are different than yours.

But you all insist on explaining away basically ALL of his subpar performances - including Marquez II - as only playing out that way SIMPLY because of his "losing his fire."

And I am sorry, but I don't agree - nor does the evidence point ONLY in that direction.

I've been following Manny since 2000 (and had actually seen him before then) and I know what the hell I'm talking about.

You guys expect Manny to be this relentless, unstoppable beast that will just absolutely swarm his opponents, ignore the incoming and make them crumble no matter WHAT the weight or opponent...and when he does any less than that, then there must be something wrong.

In Morales I, it was the cut....and he had lifted too many weights. Vs. Marquez I, he should have won by 4-5 points (which I find ludicrous) and just look at Marquez' face. Vs. Solis, he was disinterested.

WHat about vs. a shot Morales in the 2nd match and how long it took him? What about vs. Yeshemangbetov? What about Vazquez? What about Larios?

Now the same thing happens against the same opponent....and it must be the fire. Never mind JMM reverting to his counterpunching style, the adjustments he made and the fight he fought.

Nevermind Manny having 51 fights and being in his 5th or 6th weight division - and adding wrinkles to his game that now actually enable him to win decisions.

And God forbid Manny have a subpar showing against a smaller man or a mediocre opponent.....which, incidentally, every other great has had at one time or another.

So I do resent that you accuse me of doing this "just to make it seem like JMM is better" - when that is a ridiculous assertion, and more importantly, when the evidence between their two fights points to that simply being untrue.

And yes, opponents have caught on to Manny and have made adjustments that help them fight better - and Manny seem a bit more human. Fighting back and punching with him when he attacks is critical.

You see my frustration? Hopefully this helps you understand.

Either way, NO ONE is saying Manny is at prime/peak....or that he is not a great, great fighter and top-3 PxP.

It's funny...when Morales lost clearly to Barrera in their rubber match, you came up with the same explanation to that loss.

Peace.

 

And btw....I have already said that vs. Diaz, he will have his hands full and very likely will get worked over a bit whether he wins or loses. Tam has said this too.

Diaz is a BIG lightweight, and he will NOT take a step back...and will take some to land alot, WILL come forward, WILL make it an inside fight...and he punches very hard and very well/short on the inside.

Manny will often HAVE to fight off the back foot...or move often.

But if Manny struggles any - you will say it is because he's "lost his fire and warrior spirit."

You're laying that bed already.

Peace.

 

A shot Morales? :: Don't bother participating in any more Pacquiao threads, Donny. You're no different than they are.

 

Uuuuuh, your Post CLEARLY Showed that Manny Threw FEWER Punches TOTAL, Now Didn't It???:dunno: ...

A Fighter's Workrate ISN'T just about Power Punches...Never HAS Been, Never WILL B...Not even for the Sake of YOUR Argument...It's about TOTAL Punches Thrown so THANKS for PROVING that Manny Threw FEWER Total Punches, just as REED Said...

U Do an ADMIRABLE Job of HIDING it, but REED has ALWAYS been Able to CATCH ON to your Biases, Donny:tease: ...

U've ALWAYS Bent Over Backwards (N your Own Way)to DEFEND Marquez, Tszyu, Barrera & Most Recently Kessler...& Hey, if U Like them, that's your Prerogative...

Kessler was DOMINATED N the 2nd Half of his Fight w/Calzaghe, yet U INSIST he's Deserving of a RE...U Said Barrera's Preparation SUFFERED Prior to the 1st Pac Fight & U OVERLOOK Just how NEGATIVELY he Fought N the RE...& Even when Marquez TURNED DOWN the Immediate RE, U were RELUCTANT to Criticize...

Again, that's How YOU Choose to Roll & that's YOUR Business...Just DON'T Act Like U have NO "Stake" N this Argument, Cause U DO...

Respectfully,

REED

 

Exactly...

Donny HIDES it Better, but he's NO Different...


REED::

 

I think you are missing the fact that Manny could not just do whatever he wanted to JMM who is a great boxer. I am a big fan of both fighters, and you can't just bum rush someone like JMM without paying a price.

 

Donny, and a lot of the others are totally missing the point, I really don't understand it and it's frustrating.

Why are you ONLY focusing on Marquez?

You're acting like this is the first time I've said Manny lost his fire.

No, REED, BTG, Tam and others can vouch that in the run up to this fight, I was tentatively picking Pacman by decision, but without much conviction, because he has lost his fire. And I cited the reasons why.

Why are you acting like it ONLY stems from the Marquez fight? The marquez fight only strengthened and confirmed my belief that Manny not longer has passion to fight.

I'll say it again, I noticed this in the first minute of the fight against Solis, and again against Barrera, and now 3 times in a row against Marquez.

You're not really reading what I've said, and you're just trying to use it as a vehicle to prop Marquez up.

"oh but Marquez is so good, such a formidable counterpuncher, anyone would be hesitant against Marquez".

Yes OK, Marquez is a great fighter, he's given Manny some of the toughest fights of his career, and I wouldn't have screamed robbery if he had been given the decision on Saturday.

This isn't about that, this is a general observation about Pacman based on his last 3 fights.

My point is simply, it's a real shame to see Pacman lose what made him so great in the first place, a pure warrior spirit and killer instinct. It's almost like watching a shot fighter, but in a completely different way, because he's as physically formidable as he ever was.

 

Bang on REED. I like Donny and respect his opinion, but although he masquerades a mask of objectivity, he is as subjective as the rest of us.

He was full of excuses for Barrera the first time, then didn't even really give Manny credit for beating him in the rematch, or criticise Barrera, when barrera fought like a journeyman.

And yeah, Donny literally ignores just how out of his depth Kessler looked in the second half of that fight.

 

That part is going way overboard IMO.

Even assuming the rest that you say is true, that isn't a reason to call for a guy's retirement.

He BEAT Solis decisively, he BEAT Barrera decisively, and he finally has a "W" against Marquez (and regardless of how he performed, the end result is that he didn't do any worse against Marquez than he did in their first fight). He's still considered the best fighter in his division and one of the top P4P rated fighters in the world.

A few years back, he was a fiery fighter who lacked dimensions. Now, he's a more dimensional fighter who (assuming you're correct) lacks some of his old fire. At both stages of his career, he beat Barrera decisively and had an even fight with Marquez. At both stages of his career, he was a successful, highly regarded, P4P rated fighter. At both stages of his career, he had flaws, but was able to overcome them and be successful. I agree that he may be a different fighter now, but that doesn't necessarily make him worse.

A few years back, someone could've just as easily posted: "Pacquiao has a lot of fire, but he's one-dimensional, he doesn't defend himself well enough and is too willing to trade. He should just retire before he gets hurt. He's an icon in the Phillipines, he can make money doing other things..." Would you have agreed with that logic?

And besides, how many fighters haven't lost their fire and turned in so-so performances at some stretch during their careers? It's common for fighters that are champions for long stretches to do that, but very often they regain their fire and go on to score some of their best wins. Look at Calzaghe, Barrera, or even Marquez (among many others)... they had lackluster stretches in their careers, but went on to do some of their best work after that. It's far too early to write Pacman's obituary yet.

 

Fair post Cuban, and I've said as much myself.

In fact, I said just that in my prediction.

I essentially said "Pacman has lost his fire, but it's made up for by his technical improvements, so I'll pick him by close decision".

My stance has never been "teh pacman lose teh fire, pacman suck now".

I guess it's just sad to see a fighter lose the qualities that made him such a force in the first place.

For example, when a fighter becomes shot it's usually a physical erosion, and loss of speed, timing, ability to pull the trigger etc. With pacman he's not shot at all, but his warrior spirit has eroded.

And you're right, it's fairly common for boxers to lose their fire, I've never suggested otherwise. Like boxers becoming "shot" it's just a part of boxing.

However, with people like calzaghe and others, it's usually focus, not fire they are lacking, and needing to get "up" for a big fight.

Well both the MAB rematch and the JMM rematch were big enough fights, and for the Marquez camp he was serious in training, yet he just didn't have that inate fire that he's famous for.

It's just surprising with Pacman, and a shame really, because I didn't expect it, and miss the firey warrior pacman.

When Duran lost his fire, he still managed to have 2 or 3 superb (firey) performances after that, but he obviously started losing to people he shouldn't have too. So Pacquiao might turn out like that if he chooses to fight on, who knows.

He certainly doesn't need to retire, I guess I just think it wouldn't be a bad idea, seeing as he no longer has the passion to fight AND he's already an all time great, AND he can continue to earn money just by being the Filipino national hero.

 

Bingo. :bears:

 

Come on, REED...you're saying you're right because he threw 20 less punches over the entire fight? :: Ok. I rest my case.

Point is, his workrate was similar to the first fight. Period. Isn't that correct?

It's also funny how you go into a personalist attack instead of answering the points. :doh: Why do you always do that? My post wasn't a rant, it has cogent points.

Last...I don't hide my biases. I've stated often on this board that I like Marquez, Barrera, Kessler, Tszyu...and Trinidad, and Wlad, and Morales, and Vazquez (whom you forgot to point out as me 'defending'), and Castillo, Mijares, Cotto, and on down the line.

I like Pacquiao, but I do "like" JMM more.

Point is?

I have not insisted that Kessler is "deserving of a re." I did say that if it happened, I'd watch. That Calzaghe won clearly, but I thought it was closer than the official cards; and that I could definitely see a rematch b/c even some of the rounds Mikkel lost were competitive - and I felt he did do better in the 10th and 12th. I just rewatched that fight last week as I transferred it to DVD.

Hell, many people on here have 'demanded' rematches for MUCH, MUCH less than that.

I NEVER said that Barrera's preparation suffered for the first Pacquiao fight. Matter of fact, I said a rematch wasn't warranted. You have me confused with other people.

I also haven't overlooked how defensively he fought in the RE...matter of fact, I just said he did in THIS thread. What I DID say is that he fought the best game plan he could have fought under the circumstances, because people were criticizing MAB for basically not going on an all-out offensive and exchanging shots....which would basically have gotten him KO'd in about 7 rounds or less. ::

Same as what I said after Lewis-Tua: if YOU were Lewis with your liabilities going up against Tua, how would YOU fight?

Please make sure you quote me correctly.

And I was one of the FIRST to criticize Marquez turning down the immediate rematch - and as a matter of fact, I made it a POINT of being the first b/c I had always said I liked JMM. ::

What I DID say is that I felt it was Beristain's faulty management vs. JMM somehow being "afraid"....and I still believe that. Nacho is a great trainer - but a lousy manager.

Of COURSE I have a stake in this argument. I believe JMM won, but can see a draw or a 1pt. Manny win and have said so.

I DO NOT believe he is all of a sudden "soooo different" from what he 'used' to be just 2 years ago. And have explained why.

And I even pointed out why by also alluding to what will likely happen in the Diaz fight.

That's my stake. I think I'm right. :: The stats and the dynamics of both fights in comparison prove it. So do Pacquiao's career and where he is in his career right now.

Peace.

 

I see. So it's a masquerade. So....if I don't rant and rave about my favorite fighters, I'm masquerading...but if I then choose to argue for a certain case, then I'm blatantly biased. ::

I'm not 'hiding' anything. My post says what it says. Answer the points themselves....who cares what supposed "agenda" is behind them?

The points are what they are.

I've never denied my liking for ANY fighter....or my dislike for several. ::

That being said, it is UTTER B.S. that I was full of excuses for Barrera the first time, and shame on you for jumping on that generic bandwagon garbage. THose were other posters. I said a rematch wasn't warranted.

How did I "not give Manny credit" for beating Barrera in the rematch? I wasn't the one talking about Manny losing his fire or that Manny should have knocked Barrera out. :: Or that Barrera was "shot" or whatever. That wasn't me, either. I picked Manny - by decision, though.

Read above for what I REALLY said regarding how Barrera fought. He fought the best plan he could have - slow down the pace and pick his spots. It was RIDICULOUS to think he would come out like the banger of 10 years ago at 118 or 122; firing away...to get KO'd in 7 rounds or less.

I won't even address the Kessler comment.

Stick to the argument at hand.

It's funny....Hamed wasn't past prime or different....but Manny is. Morales should have beaten Barrera in the rubber match 'cause MAB was "shot"...but when he didn't; he was disinterested too. Right? Do you see a pattern to yourself?

I've even acknowledged that I see what you guys are referring to regarding Pacquiao, but I happen to think the causes are different....and that it's simply not as exaggerated as you believe, bro.

If that's bias, fine....I can live with that.

Peace.