This.Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
You can imagine as many excuses as possible but it would never justify a reverse of that one-sided beating.
Printable View
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
You can imagine as many excuses as possible but it would never justify a reverse of that one-sided beating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterThis.Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
You can imagine as many excuses as possible but it would never justify a reverse of that one-sided beating.
Oh no... it's you again.
Exactly just how do you "justify a reverse"? I realize English isn't my native language, so maybe there's something I missed there. C'mon dude... nobody's arguing the results of the first fight (so no need to add your signature "fact"). Cotto was TKO'ed. No ifs, ands, or buts. However, we ARE allowed to speculate as to the results of a rematch, are we not? And how else to speculate on the results, except by going back to the first fight and analyzing the factors that went into that fight. Again, we're not talking about excuses. Cotto didn't have a bad shoulder, he didn't have the flu... nothing like that. If you've cared to notice, I haven't even gone too much into the catchweight factor, 'cause I believe one or two pounds either way don't make much difference.
But in order to speculate on the results of a rematch, I have to look at the differences the fighters would have going into the rematch, as opposed to their first fight. In Cotto's case, the biggest thing is he actually has a trainer now. He went from his uncle to some "Joe Blow" who didn't have a clue about boxing. Of course that's Cotto's fault and Cotto's decision. So again... no excuse. But it does have a bearing on the result of the first fight. That's not an opinion... it's a fact. Would today's Cotto (with Pedro Diaz in his corner) beat Pacquiao in a rematch? I say "maybe". Would the result be the same as the first fight? I say "probably not".
Consider Pac's fight with Hatton, probably the most one-sided championship affair since Mike Tyson KO'ed Michael Spinks. Does the fact that Pac separated Hatton from his senses in the 2nd round mean he's an exponentially better fighter than Hatton? Obviously, he's much better. But had they had a rematch and Hatton had a different gameplan and training regimen..... isn't it conceivable that the result wouldn't have been quite as catastrophic? Well.... maybe that's a bad example. After all, I think Mike Tyson would've also KO'ed Spinks even quicker the 2nd time around.
Anyway, and excuse the rambling... I'm not arguing against the results of the 1st fight. I'm using factors from that fight and differences in Cotto now, to speculate as to the possible results of a 2nd fight. That's all I'm doing.
Peace, bro.
I totally agree with you, some people on here need to open their minds up to the real world of boxing, instead of thinking it's some kind of turn based game of probability where a computer takes the various attributes of each fighter and rolls a dice to see who KO's who. In the real world fights have so many different variables that two fighters can produce two very different fights on two separate occasions. Having seen what Marquez did to PAC in their third fight, I thin Cotto is a good enough boxer that he could follow that blueprint and make some headway with it. I don't think he'd be as good at executing that plan cos' I think Marquez is a better boxer, but one advantage he would have on Marquez would be (comparable) youth and more power. When PAC decided to be all macho in their first fight and let Cotto hit him he got his face rearranged (didn't he burst his eardrum?) Imagine if Cotto could simply land more in the fight by applying some of the techniques that Marquez used - it could, potentially, change the dynamic of a fight between these two entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by FensterThis.Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
You can imagine as many excuses as possible but it would never justify a reverse of that one-sided beating.
Oh no... it's you again.
Exactly just how do you "justify a reverse"? I realize English isn't my native language, so maybe there's something I missed there. C'mon dude... nobody's arguing the results of the first fight (so no need to add your signature "fact"). Cotto was TKO'ed. No ifs, ands, or buts. However, we ARE allowed to speculate as to the results of a rematch, are we not? And how else to speculate on the results, except by going back to the first fight and analyzing the factors that went into that fight. Again, we're not talking about excuses. Cotto didn't have a bad shoulder, he didn't have the flu... nothing like that. If you've cared to notice, I haven't even gone too much into the catchweight factor, 'cause I believe one or two pounds either way don't make much difference.
But in order to speculate on the results of a rematch, I have to look at the differences the fighters would have going into the rematch, as opposed to their first fight. In Cotto's case, the biggest thing is he actually has a trainer now. He went from his uncle to some "Joe Blow" who didn't have a clue about boxing. Of course that's Cotto's fault and Cotto's decision. So again... no excuse. But it does have a bearing on the result of the first fight. That's not an opinion... it's a fact. Would today's Cotto (with Pedro Diaz in his corner) beat Pacquiao in a rematch? I say "maybe". Would the result be the same as the first fight? I say "probably not".
Consider Pac's fight with Hatton, probably the most one-sided championship affair since Mike Tyson KO'ed Michael Spinks. Does the fact that Pac separated Hatton from his senses in the 2nd round mean he's an exponentially better fighter than Hatton? Obviously, he's much better. But had they had a rematch and Hatton had a different gameplan and training regimen..... isn't it conceivable that the result wouldn't have been quite as catastrophic? Well.... maybe that's a bad example. After all, I think Mike Tyson would've also KO'ed Spinks even quicker the 2nd time around.
Anyway, and excuse the rambling... I'm not arguing against the results of the 1st fight. I'm using factors from that fight and differences in Cotto now, to speculate as to the possible results of a 2nd fight. That's all I'm doing.
Peace, bro.
TitoFan,
1. I didn't add my signature.
2. I agree that Hatton would almost certainly get sparked out in a rematch with Pac. He was so emphatically annihilated that it's virtually ludicrous to imagine a scenario where he can reverse the situation. But the same goes for Cotto too. The only real reason Cotto made the 12th round before being knocked out is because he has self-preservation instincts. Once he realised Pac was far superior he did everything in his power to survive.
Hatton is far braver/dumber (whatever one chooses to believe) than Cotto. He would rather go out on his shield than concede/quit/survive.
So in conclusion - I see no positives Cotto can draw from the first fight regardless of the trainer/weight "excuses." I also believe Cotto's impressive self-preservation instincts means he wouldn't even dare fight Pac again.
It's just my opinion though. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
:vd:
I'm making an honest effort to find some common ground here, but.......
Really?
Actually, it was Pac who didn't dare fight Cotto again, hence why Cotto vs Mayweather even happened. Manny wanted it at 145 again during negotiations..which kind of proves the opposite of what you're saying. Pac daren't fight Cotto at any weight but 145Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Cotto-Floyd happened after Cotto point blank REFUSED to rematch Pac below light-middle. He even admitted no amount of money would get him down to 147. (Cotto: I Will Not Sacrifice My Body Again For Pacquiao! - Boxing News)
He had the chance to rematch Pac but clearly his impressive self-preservation instincts kicked in.
Nothing to be ashamed of. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Is that your new catch-phrase now? Kinda like a "back-handed compliment" type of thing? You're so f*cking laughable, not to mention predictable.
If you were worth my time......... I'd argue how it's normal for a fighter to try to survive through a rough period in a fight, so he can have a chance to come back later and win the fight...... versus going "all balls out" recklessly only to get KTFO'ed (like Hatton did). I'd argue that the purpose of the fight is to try to WIN the fight, not to get spectacularly KTFO'ed. I'd argue that most if not all top fighters have had to go into a defensive mode to clear their heads, while they gather their wits and continue with their gameplan.
But..... you're not worth my time.
;)
Sorry TitoFan... I'm only offering my opinion. Fact.
I agree 100% that Hatton's approach to fighting - heroic, bulldog bravery, bit like a drunk is very naive compared with Cotto's intelligent self-preservation skills.
If Hatton possessed the same self-preservation skills that Cotto has he might have lasted longer against Pac.
The truth is though - whether you are heroic/reckless/drunk like Hatton or a self-preservation expert like Cotto, they both got one-sided thrashings against the far superior Pacster. Fact.
Do me a favor... don't compare Hatton to Cotto. My only regret is that never met in the ring. It would've been ugly. I respect your opinion. My opinion... AGAIN... is that Hatton would've gotten separated from his senses 100 times out of 100 by Pac. Cotto, with a different trainer in the corner, would probably give Pac a much better fight than he did the first time around. But we've been round-and-round... and are probably boring the good folks in this forum. Sort of like......
:beatdeadhorse:
Only way to sort this out is if they were to ever make the rematch (Pac-Cotto), which you claim Cotto is "scared" to seek.
I never said Cotto is "scared" of Pac just that his superior self-preservation instincts automatically rule him out. Have they rematched? No. Did Cotto have a chance at revenge? Yes. Did he refuse? Yes. So i'm right unless they fight again. Fact.
Listen TitoFan dude.. You started the Cotto-Hatton comparision. I agree Pac wins 100 out of 100.
I also agree Cotto-Hatton at 140 would have been ugly. If Cotto was getting knocked doolally against Corley and Torres how would he possibly have kept a prime Hatton off him? Even with his superb self-preservation skills there's no way Hatton doesn't force him to quit. It would look like Cotto-Margarito 1.
I'm basing this purely on the evidence available to me. It's just my humble opinion. Fact.
Do you two enjoy this:confused: Posting the same damn thing 10 times in a thread surely defeats the intention of being smug and open ended in the first place. FACT.
Isnt this a Mayweather thread;D
*In Cotto's defense though, I do think Cotto might pull it off this time around, dont wanna see this happening though:eek:*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
See Fenster... I told you were beginning to bore people with our constant bickering about the same shit.
;D
They both experienced the wrath of Pac. But Hatton is luckier. He only had 6 minutes of hell.