Was Pacquiao's performance really unimpressive?

Re: Was Pacquiao's performance really unimpressive?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFH

It wasn't an exciting fight, but I don't think Pacquiao was unimpressive. He dropped Mosley and then had to deal with a highly-skilled, veteran opponent whose sole goal seemed to be to survive to hear the final bell. Pacquiao won every round, I don't see how that is unimpressive.

I agree, the only thing he didn't do was knock Mosley out, no he didn't look as great as he has in other fights, but like you said CFH, Pac won every round, how can this not be impressive?

People seem to forget, Pacquiao ain't fucking superman, he has fights where he might not be at his best, and limitations, just like all fighters do.

Re: Was Pacquiao's performance really unimpressive?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFH

It wasn't an exciting fight, but I don't think Pacquiao was unimpressive. He dropped Mosley and then had to deal with a highly-skilled, veteran opponent whose sole goal seemed to be to survive to hear the final bell. Pacquiao won every round, I don't see how that is unimpressive.

I agree with the only thing he didn't do was knock Mosley out, no he didn't look as great as he has in other fights, but like you said CFH, Pac won every round, how can this not be impressive?

People seem to forget, Pacquiao ain't fucking superman, he has fights where he might not be at his best, and limitations, just like all fighters do.

All true. The key question WHY in this case was Manny sub-Manny? Do I hear the soft, distant footsteps of Father Time?

Re: Was Pacquiao's performance really unimpressive?

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFH

It wasn't an exciting fight, but I don't think Pacquiao was unimpressive. He dropped Mosley and then had to deal with a highly-skilled, veteran opponent whose sole goal seemed to be to survive to hear the final bell. Pacquiao won every round, I don't see how that is unimpressive.

I agree with the only thing he didn't do was knock Mosley out, no he didn't look as great as he has in other fights, but like you said CFH, Pac won every round, how can this not be impressive?

People seem to forget, Pacquiao ain't fucking superman, he has fights where he might not be at his best, and limitations, just like all fighters do.

All true. The key question WHY in this case was Manny sub-Manny? Do I hear the soft, distant footsteps of Father Time?

Pac is only 32 turning 33 this year, he should be fine at least till he reaches 35 i hope:eek:

Re: Was Pacquiao's performance really unimpressive?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavlik

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFH

It wasn't an exciting fight, but I don't think Pacquiao was unimpressive. He dropped Mosley and then had to deal with a highly-skilled, veteran opponent whose sole goal seemed to be to survive to hear the final bell. Pacquiao won every round, I don't see how that is unimpressive.

I agree with the only thing he didn't do was knock Mosley out, no he didn't look as great as he has in other fights, but like you said CFH, Pac won every round, how can this not be impressive?

People seem to forget, Pacquiao ain't fucking superman, he has fights where he might not be at his best, and limitations, just like all fighters do.

All true. The key question WHY in this case was Manny sub-Manny? Do I hear the soft, distant footsteps of Father Time?

Pac is only 32 turning 33 this year, he should be fine at least till he reaches 35 i hope:eek:

But you know fighters don't age chronologically. Think of it this way. He has been a pro for what, 16 years now? That's a LOOOOOONG time.

Now I hope you are right and I'm wrong!

Re: Was Pacquiao's performance really unimpressive?

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavlik

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFH

It wasn't an exciting fight, but I don't think Pacquiao was unimpressive. He dropped Mosley and then had to deal with a highly-skilled, veteran opponent whose sole goal seemed to be to survive to hear the final bell. Pacquiao won every round, I don't see how that is unimpressive.

I agree with the only thing he didn't do was knock Mosley out, no he didn't look as great as he has in other fights, but like you said CFH, Pac won every round, how can this not be impressive?

People seem to forget, Pacquiao ain't fucking superman, he has fights where he might not be at his best, and limitations, just like all fighters do.

All true. The key question WHY in this case was Manny sub-Manny? Do I hear the soft, distant footsteps of Father Time?

Pac is only 32 turning 33 this year, he should be fine at least till he reaches 35 i hope:eek:

But you know fighters don't age chronologically. Think of it this way. He has been a pro for what, 16 years now? That's a LOOOOOONG time.

Now I hope you are right and I'm wrong!

He's also taken a fair bit of punishment over those 16 years.

Re: Was Pacquiao's performance really unimpressive?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFH

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavlik

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFH

It wasn't an exciting fight, but I don't think Pacquiao was unimpressive. He dropped Mosley and then had to deal with a highly-skilled, veteran opponent whose sole goal seemed to be to survive to hear the final bell. Pacquiao won every round, I don't see how that is unimpressive.

I agree with the only thing he didn't do was knock Mosley out, no he didn't look as great as he has in other fights, but like you said CFH, Pac won every round, how can this not be impressive?

People seem to forget, Pacquiao ain't fucking superman, he has fights where he might not be at his best, and limitations, just like all fighters do.

All true. The key question WHY in this case was Manny sub-Manny? Do I hear the soft, distant footsteps of Father Time?

Pac is only 32 turning 33 this year, he should be fine at least till he reaches 35 i hope:eek:

But you know fighters don't age chronologically. Think of it this way. He has been a pro for what, 16 years now? That's a LOOOOOONG time.

Now I hope you are right and I'm wrong!

He's also taken a fair bit of punishment over those 16 years.

LOL, that's what you get for being a physical dynamo who has no clue what your'e doing for the first dozen years or so :)

Re: Was Pacquiao's performance really unimpressive?

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFH

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavlik

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFH

It wasn't an exciting fight, but I don't think Pacquiao was unimpressive. He dropped Mosley and then had to deal with a highly-skilled, veteran opponent whose sole goal seemed to be to survive to hear the final bell. Pacquiao won every round, I don't see how that is unimpressive.

I agree with the only thing he didn't do was knock Mosley out, no he didn't look as great as he has in other fights, but like you said CFH, Pac won every round, how can this not be impressive?

People seem to forget, Pacquiao ain't fucking superman, he has fights where he might not be at his best, and limitations, just like all fighters do.

All true. The key question WHY in this case was Manny sub-Manny? Do I hear the soft, distant footsteps of Father Time?

Pac is only 32 turning 33 this year, he should be fine at least till he reaches 35 i hope:eek:

But you know fighters don't age chronologically. Think of it this way. He has been a pro for what, 16 years now? That's a LOOOOOONG time.

Now I hope you are right and I'm wrong!

He's also taken a fair bit of punishment over those 16 years.

LOL, that's what you get for being a physical dynamo who has no clue what your'e doing for the first dozen years or so :)

exactly;) that's why guys like bhop looks like they're preserved in time, the man does not look 46:o

Re: Was Pacquiao's performance really unimpressive?

I thought it was good performance from Manny, but for the overall fight it was kind of crappy like the Clottey fight. Who would have thought that a Manny-Shane fight would be on par with Manny-Clottey in terms of being underwhelming and crappy?

But hey it takes 2 to make a compelling fight. Really wish that Mosley was 5 years younger fighting this version of Pacquiao.

Re: Was Pacquiao's performance really unimpressive?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavlik

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFH

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavlik

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFH

It wasn't an exciting fight, but I don't think Pacquiao was unimpressive. He dropped Mosley and then had to deal with a highly-skilled, veteran opponent whose sole goal seemed to be to survive to hear the final bell. Pacquiao won every round, I don't see how that is unimpressive.

I agree with the only thing he didn't do was knock Mosley out, no he didn't look as great as he has in other fights, but like you said CFH, Pac won every round, how can this not be impressive?

People seem to forget, Pacquiao ain't fucking superman, he has fights where he might not be at his best, and limitations, just like all fighters do.

All true. The key question WHY in this case was Manny sub-Manny? Do I hear the soft, distant footsteps of Father Time?

Pac is only 32 turning 33 this year, he should be fine at least till he reaches 35 i hope:eek:

But you know fighters don't age chronologically. Think of it this way. He has been a pro for what, 16 years now? That's a LOOOOOONG time.

Now I hope you are right and I'm wrong!

He's also taken a fair bit of punishment over those 16 years.

LOL, that's what you get for being a physical dynamo who has no clue what your'e doing for the first dozen years or so :)

exactly;) that's why guys like bhop looks like they're preserved in time, the man does not look 46:o

It's a well-known fact that Hopkins has made a deal with the devil to preserve his apparent youth and abilities. As long as he drinks the blood of a Latvian virgin every time there is a full moon he will not age.

Re: Was Pacquiao's performance really unimpressive?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavlik

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFH

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavlik

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFH

It wasn't an exciting fight, but I don't think Pacquiao was unimpressive. He dropped Mosley and then had to deal with a highly-skilled, veteran opponent whose sole goal seemed to be to survive to hear the final bell. Pacquiao won every round, I don't see how that is unimpressive.

I agree with the only thing he didn't do was knock Mosley out, no he didn't look as great as he has in other fights, but like you said CFH, Pac won every round, how can this not be impressive?

People seem to forget, Pacquiao ain't fucking superman, he has fights where he might not be at his best, and limitations, just like all fighters do.

All true. The key question WHY in this case was Manny sub-Manny? Do I hear the soft, distant footsteps of Father Time?

Pac is only 32 turning 33 this year, he should be fine at least till he reaches 35 i hope:eek:

But you know fighters don't age chronologically. Think of it this way. He has been a pro for what, 16 years now? That's a LOOOOOONG time.

Now I hope you are right and I'm wrong!

He's also taken a fair bit of punishment over those 16 years.

LOL, that's what you get for being a physical dynamo who has no clue what your'e doing for the first dozen years or so :)

exactly;) that's why guys like bhop looks like they're preserved in time, the man does not look 46:o

It's a well-known fact that Hopkins has made a deal with the devil to preserve his apparent young and abilities. As long as he drinks the blood of a Latvian virgin every time there is a full moon he will not age.

Hell that's as good an explanation as I've heard!

Can you imagine the Spartan life Bernard has led outside the ring that has enabled what he has done for the last 7-8 years? He's the anti-Arreola!

Re: Was Pacquiao's performance really unimpressive?

As for Manny he is an old fighter in terms of wars and close to 60 fights. In terms of ring age he is older than Mayweather, even though Floyd is actually older. Floyd's style of fighting plus he has only been in 41 fights make him much fresher than Manny, although I've seen a decline in reflexes and speed.

Manny is like that 20 year old porn star that has been in hundreds of movies whereas Floyd is like the 30 year old wife that has sex only once per year since she got married at 21. ;D

Re: Was Pacquiao's performance really unimpressive?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavlik

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFH

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavlik

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFH

It wasn't an exciting fight, but I don't think Pacquiao was unimpressive. He dropped Mosley and then had to deal with a highly-skilled, veteran opponent whose sole goal seemed to be to survive to hear the final bell. Pacquiao won every round, I don't see how that is unimpressive.

I agree with the only thing he didn't do was knock Mosley out, no he didn't look as great as he has in other fights, but like you said CFH, Pac won every round, how can this not be impressive?

People seem to forget, Pacquiao ain't fucking superman, he has fights where he might not be at his best, and limitations, just like all fighters do.

All true. The key question WHY in this case was Manny sub-Manny? Do I hear the soft, distant footsteps of Father Time?

Pac is only 32 turning 33 this year, he should be fine at least till he reaches 35 i hope:eek:

But you know fighters don't age chronologically. Think of it this way. He has been a pro for what, 16 years now? That's a LOOOOOONG time.

Now I hope you are right and I'm wrong!

He's also taken a fair bit of punishment over those 16 years.

LOL, that's what you get for being a physical dynamo who has no clue what your'e doing for the first dozen years or so :)

exactly;) that's why guys like bhop looks like they're preserved in time, the man does not look 46:o

It's a well-known fact that Hopkins has made a deal with the devil to preserve his apparent young and abilities. As long as he drinks the blood of a Latvian virgin every time there is a full moon he will not age.

;D

Re: Was Pacquiao's performance really unimpressive?

Quote:

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

As for Manny he is an old fighter in terms of wars and close to 60 fights. In terms of ring age he is older than Mayweather, even though Floyd is actually older. Floyd's style of fighting plus he has only been in 41 fights make him much fresher than Manny, although I've seen a decline in reflexes and speed.

Manny is like that 20 year old porn star that has been in hundreds of movies whereas Floyd is like the 30 year old wife that has sex only once per year since she got married at 21. ;D

OK there is something very disturbing about those images but I can't quite expalin it.

Re: Was Pacquiao's performance really unimpressive?

Quote:

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

As for Manny he is an old fighter in terms of wars and close to 60 fights. In terms of ring age he is older than Mayweather, even though Floyd is actually older. Floyd's style of fighting plus he has only been in 41 fights make him much fresher than Manny, although I've seen a decline in reflexes and speed.

Manny is like that 20 year old porn star that has been in hundreds of movies whereas Floyd is like the 30 year old wife that has sex only once per year since she got married at 21. ;D

That's an interesting analogy General. :toff:

Re: Was Pacquiao's performance really unimpressive?

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars_ax

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFH

It wasn't an exciting fight, but I don't think Pacquiao was unimpressive. He dropped Mosley and then had to deal with a highly-skilled, veteran opponent whose sole goal seemed to be to survive to hear the final bell. Pacquiao won every round, I don't see how that is unimpressive.

I agree with the only thing he didn't do was knock Mosley out, no he didn't look as great as he has in other fights, but like you said CFH, Pac won every round, how can this not be impressive?

People seem to forget, Pacquiao ain't fucking superman, he has fights where he might not be at his best, and limitations, just like all fighters do.

All true. The key question WHY in this case was Manny sub-Manny? Do I hear the soft, distant footsteps of Father Time?

I realize i'm running the risk of sounding like a "Pactard" here, :banana: but even if Manny is aging a bit, he should still be better then his competition for the next few years. If Pac stays at 147 or below, who has a genuine shot at beating him? Mayweather perhaps, but I even like Manny's chances of winning that one.