Just another way of looking at it.

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

05-16-2011, 06:42 PM
Boxer4life

Re: Just another way of looking at it.

TO be honest, that just remains to be seen, if anyone of the guys pacqiou has fought can comeback and do something great, then yes it adds to his credibility, but to allthose who don't understand, our friend here is saying that the guys packman beat aren't necessarily washed up
05-16-2011, 07:49 PM
marbleheadmaui

Re: Just another way of looking at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boxer4life

TO be honest, that just remains to be seen, if anyone of the guys pacqiou has fought can comeback and do something great, then yes it adds to his credibility, but to allthose who don't understand, our friend here is saying that the guys packman beat aren't necessarily washed up

This post identifies perfectly why it really is impossible to form an accurate picture of a fighter's career until not only he has retired, but the men he fought have also retired.

I mean who'd have thought the Jones win over BHOP would be so critical to his resume when it happened in 1993 (?) ? Who knew BHOP would go on to be BHOP? Same with Sanchez's win over Azumah. That win has grown dramatically in importance. Lennox over Vitali looks like another doesn't it?

It works the other way too. At the time Floyd's win over Chico looked huge. Now? Not so much. Chico turned out to be a good fighter, not a great one.
05-16-2011, 08:53 PM
Boxer4life

Re: Just another way of looking at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boxer4life

TO be honest, that just remains to be seen, if anyone of the guys pacqiou has fought can comeback and do something great, then yes it adds to his credibility, but to allthose who don't understand, our friend here is saying that the guys packman beat aren't necessarily washed up

This post identifies perfectly why it really is impossible to form an accurate picture of a fighter's career until not only he has retired, but the men he fought have also retired.

I mean who'd have thought the Jones win over BHOP would be so critical to his resume when it happened in 1993 (?) ? Who knew BHOP would go on to be BHOP? Same with Sanchez's win over Azumah. That win has grown dramatically in importance. Lennox over Vitali looks like another doesn't it?

It works the other way too. At the time Floyd's win over Chico looked huge. Now? Not so much. Chico turned out to be a good fighter, not a great one.

Good point with b hop, and i agree on chico, but i still think floyds wins over him and castillo carry some weight because he did fight them when they were a bug deal, unfortunately they failed to deliver after that fights, like most guys floyd fights
05-16-2011, 08:56 PM
marbleheadmaui

Re: Just another way of looking at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boxer4life

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boxer4life

TO be honest, that just remains to be seen, if anyone of the guys pacqiou has fought can comeback and do something great, then yes it adds to his credibility, but to allthose who don't understand, our friend here is saying that the guys packman beat aren't necessarily washed up

This post identifies perfectly why it really is impossible to form an accurate picture of a fighter's career until not only he has retired, but the men he fought have also retired.

I mean who'd have thought the Jones win over BHOP would be so critical to his resume when it happened in 1993 (?) ? Who knew BHOP would go on to be BHOP? Same with Sanchez's win over Azumah. That win has grown dramatically in importance. Lennox over Vitali looks like another doesn't it?

It works the other way too. At the time Floyd's win over Chico looked huge. Now? Not so much. Chico turned out to be a good fighter, not a great one.

Good point with b hop, and i agree on chico, but i still think floyds wins over him and castillo carry some weight because he did fight them when they were a bug deal, unfortunately they failed to deliver after that fights, like most guys floyd fights

I agree the Chico win carries some weight. It just doesn't carry the weight I thought it did at the time.
05-16-2011, 09:01 PM
Boxer4life

Re: Just another way of looking at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boxer4life

Quote:

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boxer4life

TO be honest, that just remains to be seen, if anyone of the guys pacqiou has fought can comeback and do something great, then yes it adds to his credibility, but to allthose who don't understand, our friend here is saying that the guys packman beat aren't necessarily washed up

This post identifies perfectly why it really is impossible to form an accurate picture of a fighter's career until not only he has retired, but the men he fought have also retired.

I mean who'd have thought the Jones win over BHOP would be so critical to his resume when it happened in 1993 (?) ? Who knew BHOP would go on to be BHOP? Same with Sanchez's win over Azumah. That win has grown dramatically in importance. Lennox over Vitali looks like another doesn't it?

It works the other way too. At the time Floyd's win over Chico looked huge. Now? Not so much. Chico turned out to be a good fighter, not a great one.

Good point with b hop, and i agree on chico, but i still think floyds wins over him and castillo carry some weight because he did fight them when they were a bug deal, unfortunately they failed to deliver after that fights, like most guys floyd fights

I agree the Chico win carries some weight. It just doesn't carry the weight I thought it did at the time.

agreed, which goes back to what u said, you cant judge a fighters career until he and everyone he fought is ll wrapped up.
05-16-2011, 09:01 PM
Pavlik

Re: Just another way of looking at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boxer4life

TO be honest, that just remains to be seen, if anyone of the guys pacqiou has fought can comeback and do something great, then yes it adds to his credibility, but to allthose who don't understand, our friend here is saying that the guys packman beat aren't necessarily washed up

Bro:

Miguel Cotto right now:
Boxing Ratings | RingTV

Boxing Ratings | RingTV

Heck Even a shot Erik Morales:
Boxing Ratings | RingTV

if my memory serves me right Barrera and Larios after getting beat by PAC still won a major title.
05-16-2011, 09:08 PM
Pavlik

Re: Just another way of looking at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

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.

Yup I saw that too at FNF, and presented Bradley as the best choice. Fighting Bradley would be the less risk fight because he is not that big of a man to begin with and does not carry a big punch or a great defense. If PAC does fight him in the future and probably stop him I still believe Atlas would still have something bad to say about Manny, maybe something about the steroid issue. Can't please them all.
05-16-2011, 09:19 PM
Rantcatrat

Re: Just another way of looking at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavlik

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

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.

Yup I saw that too at FNF, and presented Bradley as the best choice. Fighting Bradley would be the less risk fight because he is not that big of a man to begin with and does not carry a big punch or a great defense. If PAC does fight him in the future and probably stop him I still believe Atlas would still have something bad to say about Manny, maybe something about the steroid issue. Can't please them all.

I disagree. I believe Bradley is the best choice for Manny right now, barring maybe JMM. Unlike JMM, Bradley is proven at 140 and 147. In addition, you can be sure Bradley will go out on his shield. Bradley is also the top dog at 140. JMM isn't even the top dog at 135. JMM also isn't proven above 135 and the fact that he chooses to fight Diaz at 135 rather than step up and fight someone ranked at 140 makes me wonder whether JMM himself even believes he can be effective above 135, and maybe, like Mosley, he is taking the Pacquiao fight because he wants the cash, not because he can win.
05-16-2011, 09:43 PM
Pavlik

Re: Just another way of looking at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavlik

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

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.

Yup I saw that too at FNF, and presented Bradley as the best choice. Fighting Bradley would be the less risk fight because he is not that big of a man to begin with and does not carry a big punch or a great defense. If PAC does fight him in the future and probably stop him I still believe Atlas would still have something bad to say about Manny, maybe something about the steroid issue. Can't please them all.

I disagree. I believe Bradley is the best choice for Manny right now, barring maybe JMM. Unlike JMM, Bradley is proven at 140 and 147. In addition, you can be sure Bradley will go out on his shield. Bradley is also the top dog at 140. JMM isn't even the top dog at 135. JMM also isn't proven above 135 and the fact that he chooses to fight Diaz at 135 rather than step up and fight someone ranked at 140 makes me wonder whether JMM himself even believes he can be effective above 135, and maybe, like Mosley, he is taking the Pacquiao fight because he wants the cash, not because he can win.

im not degrading bradley in any way but to say he is better than Cotto:-\
05-16-2011, 10:01 PM
mafiajoey

Re: Just another way of looking at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by miron_lang

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

All fighters are different. Not all will be lesser after a loss but some just lose "it." Was Cotto the same after Margo fight? NO.... And what title in a higher weight did Cotto win before the Margo fight? What weight is this you speak of? He was fighting 147 for 2yrs when he fought Margo
05-16-2011, 10:27 PM
marbleheadmaui

Re: Just another way of looking at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavlik

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

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.

Yup I saw that too at FNF, and presented Bradley as the best choice. Fighting Bradley would be the less risk fight because he is not that big of a man to begin with and does not carry a big punch or a great defense. If PAC does fight him in the future and probably stop him I still believe Atlas would still have something bad to say about Manny, maybe something about the steroid issue. Can't please them all.

I disagree. I believe Bradley is the best choice for Manny right now, barring maybe JMM. Unlike JMM, Bradley is proven at 140 and 147. In addition, you can be sure Bradley will go out on his shield. Bradley is also the top dog at 140. JMM isn't even the top dog at 135. JMM also isn't proven above 135 and the fact that he chooses to fight Diaz at 135 rather than step up and fight someone ranked at 140 makes me wonder whether JMM himself even believes he can be effective above 135, and maybe, like Mosley, he is taking the Pacquiao fight because he wants the cash, not because he can win.

While I really disagree Bradley is in any way "proven" at 147, I guess he's a legit choice among a series of pretty lousy options for Manny at this point.

Manny's best legacy option is to find a way to get to 135 and fight JMM there. Seems unlikely. Next I guess would be a suicide mission to fight Sergio Martinez and separate himself, if he were to win, from every other man who ever fought. Lineal at 112, 126, 130, 140 and 160? Crazy. Third choice I guess Bradley at 140, then Bradley at 147.

How about Kermit Cintron?
05-17-2011, 12:45 AM
captainanddew

Re: Just another way of looking at it.

Cintron makes sense. Why? Cintron says he can make 147 if the money is right (which it undoubtedly would be). If not, just make it . a 150 pound catchweight. More importantly, Cintron is promoted by Top Rank!! The Bobfather would get to keep it in house.

Dropping to 140 makes sense. Pac is weighing less in the ring than alot of the guys who make 140. Take on Bradley and anyone else there willing to fight him.
05-17-2011, 12:49 AM
Gandalf

Re: Just another way of looking at it.

The opponents Pac fought have all been very good in their time, but by fighting them when he did, he invited himself in for criticism. I actually agree with Teddy Atlas. There is a complete lack of young, hungry undefeated fighters on Pac's resume. Even at the lower weights, you have wins over the likes of Barrera and Morales who had been in plenty of wars themselves. Those are still Pacs most important wins IMO.

People might scoff at the suggestion of Bradley, but it is point well made that unlike Marquez who is unproven beyond 135, Bradley is the top dog at 140, is undefeated and will come to outhustle Manny. It would be nice to see someone with output, desire and some handspeed of his own to see Manny have to deal with.

I maintain that Manny is smoke and mirrors. Why not rematch Marquez earlier at 135? Because they knew he was too dangerous and went looking for lumbering come forward types. It's only 3 years later that the fight is made and Marquez is fighting 10 pounds north of any weight he has looked good at. If Manny blows him out, then whoopy doo. More smoke and mirrors. Then what? A rematch with Cotto who has been lumbering about pretending he is a 154 pounder? Or will it be Berto. :-\
05-17-2011, 03:17 AM
miron_lang

Re: Just another way of looking at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by miles

The opponents Pac fought have all been very good in their time, but by fighting them when he did,

Miles look at the timeline.

When Pac arrived at Welter those were the ranking and these were the TOP 4 guys. The money fight againts Hatton is a must you even have Hatton winning that one. after that

he proceeded in this manner Cotto, Clottey, Margarito, Mosley. he did not fight a Jr Welter at Welterweight. he take on the list when he arrived. The heck if they lost along the way it happens cause they fight.
05-17-2011, 03:21 AM
Pavlik

Re: Just another way of looking at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Quote:

Originally Posted by miles

The opponents Pac fought have all been very good in their time, but by fighting them when he did,

Miles look at the timeline.

When Pac arrived at Welter those were the ranking and these were the TOP 4 guys. The money fight againts Hatton is a must you even have Hatton winning that one. after that

he proceeded in this manner Cotto, Clottey, Margarito, Mosley. he did not fight a Jr Welter at Welterweight. he take on the list when he arrived. The heck if they lost along the way it happens cause they fight.

hopefully bradley is still undefeated when pac faces him, we'll see what they'll say then.;)

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page