Just another way of looking at it.
in 2008 Manny Pacquiao fought as a Welterweight and at the end of that year he was Ranked by RING Magazine at #5. here's the complete Rankings
- Antonio Margarito
- Miguel Angel Cotto
- Shane Mosley
- Joshua Clottey
- Manny Pacquiao
- Carlos Quintana
- Zab Judah
- Luis Collazo
- Andre Berto
- Isaac Hlatshwayo
The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: Welterweight--2000s - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia
Since that time :
Cotto and Clottey(Before 2008 ) lost to Margarito
Margarito lost to Shane Mosley
Shane Mosley lost to Miguel Cotto
* Would it be great if these 4 fighters didnt lose prior to facing Pacquiao? Well its not possible....They fought each other and somebody will lose or even get KTFO.
so since the money fight againts Hatton Pac has beaten all the TOP 4 Welterweights since he entered the division and he arguably did not lose a single round in doing it.
Just to illustrate that Fighters doesn't become bums when/if they lose.
1. Duran was KTFO by Thomas Hearns but came back and win a Middleweight belt againts Barkley
2. Hearns was KTFO by Hagler but came back and won multiple titles
3. Leonard lost to Duran but came back and won multiple championships
4. Barrera, Morales and Marquez were beaten before but came back and win championships
5. Evander was beaten by Moorer and KTFO by Bowe. Came back and KTFO Tyson :o
6. Hopkins lost to Jones came back and be #1 P4P
7. Pac got kayoed twice and became #1 P4P
8. Ali lost to Frazier came back
9. Foreman lost came back
10. etc etc etc
Re: Just another way of looking at it.
he is impressive, whats the point of the thread tho?
another way of looking at what?
Re: Just another way of looking at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
he is impressive, whats the point of the thread tho?
another way of looking at what?
Miguel Cotto - Not the fighter he used to be. Damaged after the KO loss to Margarito
Joshua Clottey - Coming off a loss. Tailor made for Pacquiao
Antonio Margarito - Wasnt the same after the brutal loss to Mosley
Shane Mosley - Shot after the loss to Floyd and Draw with Mora.
----
It became a standard that these are in fact true. even here it became as a fact that Pac has cherry picked opponents even if they themselves pick the opponent to win citing that they are not fortune tellers or something. You dont think the last 4 names were cherry picked fighters?
Re: Just another way of looking at it.
no mate
they were and probably still are the best in the division
who else was around for him to fight?
Re: Just another way of looking at it.
There is no denying that each of those fighters looked less than spectacular prior to fighting Manny Pac. They have all been top fighters at some stage in their careers, but when Manny faced them they were either of coming in off of recent KO's or a poor performance or string of performances.
You can look at it another way and say that some fighters come back well after a heavy stoppage or get better in their 40's, but those are exceptions to the rule rather than the norm.
Re: Just another way of looking at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
There is no denying that each of those fighters looked less than spectacular prior to fighting Manny Pac. They have all been top fighters at some stage in their careers, but when Manny faced them they were either of coming in off of recent KO's or a poor performance or string of performances.
You can look at it another way and say that some fighters come back well after a heavy stoppage or get better in their 40's, but those are exceptions to the rule rather than the norm.
But they are the TOP guys. surely #2 will fight #3 but does the loser of that bout become less attractive than an unranked fighter?
Just an example : Mitchell wasnt even ranked when Floyd fought him and Baldomir was #10 before the Judah upset.
Evander looks shot to pieces prior to facing Tyson and what happened?
The point is you cant automatically assumed that a fighter is lesser now because he had lost. Cotto has lost one prior to facing Pac and at age 28 he was not the same?
and despite winning another title in a higher weight Cotto still looked less spectacular before the loss to Margarito?
Miles should stop discrediting Pacquiao. :D
Re: Just another way of looking at it.
who should have have fought in his last 4 fights?
Re: Just another way of looking at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
who should have have fought in his last 4 fights?
He fought the TOP 4 Fighters when he first entered the division.
maybe he should have fought #6 to # 9 ??
- Carlos Quintana
- Zab Judah
- Luis Collazo
- Andre Berto
To me that is less impressive :-\
Re: Just another way of looking at it.
Re: Just another way of looking at it.
me too
im not even sure if this is a pro pac or an anti pac thread anymore
?
Re: Just another way of looking at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
me too
im not even sure if this is a pro pac or an anti pac thread anymore
?
Exactly why I am lost :-\
Re: Just another way of looking at it.
Just helping out here... LOL!
What is the point?
The point is.... miron lang is providing proof that the assumptions that Pacquiao is cherry picking opponents by "established" Pac haters like Miles and company, here at Saddo, is not accurate, or yet, completely false.
The proof presented is that of a list widely accepted that reflects the high rankings of Pac's last few opponents at a weight within the same grouping to that of Pacquiao.
Add to that the timeline of 2008... then bingo! Without BIAS in one's system, independently, one can conclude or at least the fact will be acceptable, that the string of Pacquiao's opponents since 2008, considering availability and or physical probability, are not only worthy, but topnotch!
Re: Just another way of looking at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KananKrus
Just helping out here... LOL!
What is the point?
The point is.... miron lang is providing proof that the assumptions that Pacquiao is cherry picking opponents by "established" Pac haters like Miles and company, here at Saddo, is not accurate, or yet, completely false.
The proof presented is that of a list widely accepted that reflects the high rankings of Pac's last few opponents at a weight within the same grouping to that of Pacquiao.
Add to that the timeline of 2008... then bingo! Without BIAS in one's system, independently, one can conclude or at least the fact will be acceptable, that the string of Pacquiao's opponents since 2008, considering availability and or physical probability, are not only worthy, but topnotch!
does everyone still love pacman then?
Re: Just another way of looking at it.
Miron is making a decent point that was also brought about on FNF this past week by Joe Tessitore. Teddy Atlas was critiquing Pacquiao's opponents, but when Joe Tessitore asked Teddy Atlas who Pacquiao had ducked or who he should have been fighting and wasn't, Teddy didn't have an answer, and admitted that the Pacquiao's perceived lack of great competition wasn't Pacquiao's fault.
Re: Just another way of looking at it.
Very nice post.
The one thing the folks who hammer Manny never answer very well is "Well who should he have fought?"
