Re: The Mayweather double standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Julius Rain
You ask why didn't pac fight jmm right away after there second fight? you mean like how izzy gave rafa an immediate third match? :rolleyes: I think it would of been a bad move if they fought right away after the second because look what both guys has done since. jmm lightweight king, pac lightwelterweight king. Do you remember what happen after the first fight? why did jmm disagree in a rematch right away? instead he went to indonesia and got robbed.
You can't call david diaz a bum, his the same guy that ko'ed the guy that defeated casamayor before jmm did.
you can't call oscar dela hoya floyds left over or hatton, floyd barely won against oscar and pac ko'ed hatton 5 times faster in hattons division ;)
you said your not being unbias but you claim floyd obviously has the better record :rolleyes:
The Marquez-Pacqiauo rematch didn't happen right away cuz of bullshiit from Arum and Pacquiao. They promised him $1.5 million and then tried to come at him with $750,000. What the fukk was that? Really it wasn't even about the money. It was the pricipal. After there second fight Marquez and Golden Boy offered Pacquiao 6 million (at that time a career high purse). Pac turned it down. He took less money to face a much, much lesser fighter. Facts don't lie.
And David Diaz is a bum
So JMM fights Chris John for $35,000.00 in his hometown instead???? JMM and Nacho Bernstein are total idiots!!!Principal my a** VD ...and guess what ??JMM lost!!!, and he wasnt robbed!!!....
Re: The Mayweather double standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Majesty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Julius Rain
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElTerribleMorales
Mayweather
Genaro Hernandez (only had lost to DLH)
Angel Manfredy (his only losses at that point were early on in his career, and at that time this fight was also conisdered 50/50, Floyd easily blasted him out of there)
Diego Corrales (was undefeated, basically considered a 50/50 fight, and Floyd dominated in every way possible, Corrales went on to be the man at lightweight)
Carlos Hernandez (went on to win a world title and give Morales all he could handle)
Jesus Chavez (went on to win a title and also became the man at lightweight at one point)
Jose Luis Castillo (twice, first was controversial, but he boxed cirlces IMO easily against him in the rematch)
Pacquiao
Erik Morales (lost the first fight clearly, won twice, and by this point he already had lost to Raheem, leading to the suspicion that he was shot, it turned out to be true)
Barrera (first was a good win but that was at featherweight, second was the same as above)
Oscar Larios (jumped from Super Bantamweight, to Super Featherweight to fight Manny, and had just been beaten up badly by Vazquez)
Juan Manuel Marquez (many believe that Pacquiao didn't even win the fight)
and David Diaz (a shot Morales should have gotten the UD against Diaz, enough said)
not saying that Pacquiao isn't on Floyd's level overall, but the FACT is, in those two weight classes Mayweather had better wins
:pointsnew: you named 3 fighters way above everyone else on pacs resume and you still think floyd has a better resume. so who on floyds resume is better than mab,em,jmm?
and answer my other question, so is floyd a natural lightweight not a natural welterweight? so shouldn't he fight jmm at 135 then? since jmm is lightweight king. or atleast fight jmm at 140.
floyd is a natural pussy who severly selected his oppenent. im sure if jmm was a welterweight he'd want no piece of him. jmm is a better version of castillo who gave floyd trouble.
3 names on Pacquiao's resume that are better then anyone Mayweather fought?
Sure they are "names" but lets take a closer look at it floyd hater :)
He only beat Morales after Erik moved back down in weight and had already lost to Zahir Raheem. If Pacquiao was the warrior you make him out to be that fought everyone he would have fought Raheem but he fought a second match with an obviously faded Morales for the money and you can make the argument that Erik was past his prime and that the Raheem fight showed that. And there is a lot of people who feel Pacquiao lost both fights against Marquez and he barely won the second one, by one round because of the knockdown.
But on Mayweathers resume, everyone on that list with the exception of the first Castillo fight, Mayweather dominated them. But Pacquiao only dominated one and that was Barerra and it can be said he only beat Morales after Morales was past his prime and also that he didn't beat Marquez or barely squeaked by. So defend that :)
There may be the three "names" on Pacquiao's resume but he only dominated one in their prime. all the names on Mayweather's list he dominated with the exception of the first Castillo fight and even then he came back and won the rematch with ease. Pacquiao on the other hand after "improving" only barely beat Marquez because of the knockdown and there is a lot of argument to say that he lost that rematch too. Meanwhile there is no one on Mayweathers resume with the exception of the first Castillo fight that you could find anyone that says that Mayweather could have lost ;)
Only beat him because of a knockdown?:rolleyes: Thats the goofiest thing i've ever heard! "Thats like saying he only reason he one was because he punched him in the face more!" Yes it was a close fight and yea knockdowns due tend to give you an advantage duh! Even though Pacquiao is in his prime now, he would easily have taken care of Castillio and Corrales a few years ago with no problems!
Re: The Mayweather double standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
levi#1BoxingFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Majesty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Julius Rain
:pointsnew: you named 3 fighters way above everyone else on pacs resume and you still think floyd has a better resume. so who on floyds resume is better than mab,em,jmm?
and answer my other question, so is floyd a natural lightweight not a natural welterweight? so shouldn't he fight jmm at 135 then? since jmm is lightweight king. or atleast fight jmm at 140.
floyd is a natural pussy who severly selected his oppenent. im sure if jmm was a welterweight he'd want no piece of him. jmm is a better version of castillo who gave floyd trouble.
3 names on Pacquiao's resume that are better then anyone Mayweather fought?
Sure they are "names" but lets take a closer look at it floyd hater :)
He only beat Morales after Erik moved back down in weight and had already lost to Zahir Raheem. If Pacquiao was the warrior you make him out to be that fought everyone he would have fought Raheem but he fought a second match with an obviously faded Morales for the money and you can make the argument that Erik was past his prime and that the Raheem fight showed that. And there is a lot of people who feel Pacquiao lost both fights against Marquez and he barely won the second one, by one round because of the knockdown.
But on Mayweathers resume, everyone on that list with the exception of the first Castillo fight, Mayweather dominated them. But Pacquiao only dominated one and that was Barerra and it can be said he only beat Morales after Morales was past his prime and also that he didn't beat Marquez or barely squeaked by. So defend that :)
There may be the three "names" on Pacquiao's resume but he only dominated one in their prime. all the names on Mayweather's list he dominated with the exception of the first Castillo fight and even then he came back and won the rematch with ease. Pacquiao on the other hand after "improving" only barely beat Marquez because of the knockdown and there is a lot of argument to say that he lost that rematch too. Meanwhile there is no one on Mayweathers resume with the exception of the first Castillo fight that you could find anyone that says that Mayweather could have lost ;)
Only beat him because of a knockdown?:rolleyes: Thats the goofiest thing i've ever heard! "Thats like saying he only reason he one was because he punched him in the face more!" Yes it was a close fight and yea knockdowns due tend to give you an advantage duh! Even though Pacquiao is in his prime now,
he would easily have taken care of Castillio and Corrales a few years ago with no problems!
First, morrales was not fading, Raheem would have beaten Morrales at any stage of his career. Perhaps it was the onesided schooling he took from raheem that broke his confidence and exposed him as a one dimensional fighter.
Secondly, beat corrales with ease? PACMAN? nah i doubt that at the time when corrales was fighting and could possibly face pacman, pacman didnt have the skills to beat corrales and probably would have been stopped.
Re: The Mayweather double standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
levi#1BoxingFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Majesty
3 names on Pacquiao's resume that are better then anyone Mayweather fought?
Sure they are "names" but lets take a closer look at it floyd hater :)
He only beat Morales after Erik moved back down in weight and had already lost to Zahir Raheem. If Pacquiao was the warrior you make him out to be that fought everyone he would have fought Raheem but he fought a second match with an obviously faded Morales for the money and you can make the argument that Erik was past his prime and that the Raheem fight showed that. And there is a lot of people who feel Pacquiao lost both fights against Marquez and he barely won the second one, by one round because of the knockdown.
But on Mayweathers resume, everyone on that list with the exception of the first Castillo fight, Mayweather dominated them. But Pacquiao only dominated one and that was Barerra and it can be said he only beat Morales after Morales was past his prime and also that he didn't beat Marquez or barely squeaked by. So defend that :)
There may be the three "names" on Pacquiao's resume but he only dominated one in their prime. all the names on Mayweather's list he dominated with the exception of the first Castillo fight and even then he came back and won the rematch with ease. Pacquiao on the other hand after "improving" only barely beat Marquez because of the knockdown and there is a lot of argument to say that he lost that rematch too. Meanwhile there is no one on Mayweathers resume with the exception of the first Castillo fight that you could find anyone that says that Mayweather could have lost ;)
Only beat him because of a knockdown?:rolleyes: Thats the goofiest thing i've ever heard! "Thats like saying he only reason he one was because he punched him in the face more!" Yes it was a close fight and yea knockdowns due tend to give you an advantage duh! Even though Pacquiao is in his prime now,
he would easily have taken care of Castillio and Corrales a few years ago with no problems!
First, morrales was not fading, Raheem would have beaten Morrales at any stage of his career. Perhaps it was the onesided schooling he took from raheem that broke his confidence and exposed him as a one dimensional fighter.
Secondly, beat corrales with ease? PACMAN? nah i doubt that at the time when corrales was fighting and could possibly face pacman, pacman didnt have the skills to beat corrales and probably would have been stopped.
Pacman would destroy Chico, i love Chicco but Pac is far to skilled for Corrales
Re: The Mayweather double standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
skel1983
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
levi#1BoxingFan
Only beat him because of a knockdown?:rolleyes: Thats the goofiest thing i've ever heard! "Thats like saying he only reason he one was because he punched him in the face more!" Yes it was a close fight and yea knockdowns due tend to give you an advantage duh! Even though Pacquiao is in his prime now, he would easily have taken care of Castillio and Corrales a few years ago with no problems!
First, morrales was not fading, Raheem would have beaten Morrales at any stage of his career. Perhaps it was the onesided schooling he took from raheem that broke his confidence and exposed him as a one dimensional fighter.
Secondly, beat corrales with ease? PACMAN? nah i doubt that at the time when corrales was fighting and could possibly face pacman, pacman didnt have the skills to beat corrales and probably would have been stopped.
Pacman would destroy Chico, i love Chicco but Pac is far to skilled for Corrales
NOW he is...back then when before chico fought castillo, pacman wasn't as sound as he is now. that's why he couldn't finish JMM after three knockdowns...
Re: The Mayweather double standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
levi#1BoxingFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Majesty
3 names on Pacquiao's resume that are better then anyone Mayweather fought?
Sure they are "names" but lets take a closer look at it floyd hater :)
He only beat Morales after Erik moved back down in weight and had already lost to Zahir Raheem. If Pacquiao was the warrior you make him out to be that fought everyone he would have fought Raheem but he fought a second match with an obviously faded Morales for the money and you can make the argument that Erik was past his prime and that the Raheem fight showed that. And there is a lot of people who feel Pacquiao lost both fights against Marquez and he barely won the second one, by one round because of the knockdown.
But on Mayweathers resume, everyone on that list with the exception of the first Castillo fight, Mayweather dominated them. But Pacquiao only dominated one and that was Barerra and it can be said he only beat Morales after Morales was past his prime and also that he didn't beat Marquez or barely squeaked by. So defend that :)
There may be the three "names" on Pacquiao's resume but he only dominated one in their prime. all the names on Mayweather's list he dominated with the exception of the first Castillo fight and even then he came back and won the rematch with ease. Pacquiao on the other hand after "improving" only barely beat Marquez because of the knockdown and there is a lot of argument to say that he lost that rematch too. Meanwhile there is no one on Mayweathers resume with the exception of the first Castillo fight that you could find anyone that says that Mayweather could have lost ;)
Only beat him because of a knockdown?:rolleyes: Thats the goofiest thing i've ever heard! "Thats like saying he only reason he one was because he punched him in the face more!" Yes it was a close fight and yea knockdowns due tend to give you an advantage duh! Even though Pacquiao is in his prime now,
he would easily have taken care of Castillio and Corrales a few years ago with no problems!
First, morrales was not fading, Raheem would have beaten Morrales at any stage of his career. Perhaps it was the onesided schooling he took from raheem that broke his confidence and exposed him as a one dimensional fighter.
Secondly, beat corrales with ease? PACMAN? nah i doubt that at the time when corrales was fighting and could possibly face pacman, pacman didnt have the skills to beat corrales and probably would have been stopped.
that's the biggest load of crap i've ever heard, Morales wasn't one dimesional by any means, he showed various times that he could both slug and box, all you have to see is the 11th round to know that if Morales still had something left he would have stopped Raheem in the earlier rounds, the only round Morales actually attacked and knocks Raheem down, cleanly, and it was ruled a slip :rolleyes:, and the fact that 4 of his losses came back to back, pretty much shows that it's due to the decline of his abilities, don't know what fights you've been watching to actually try to dub Morales a one dimensional fighter
Re: The Mayweather double standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
levi#1BoxingFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Majesty
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Julius Rain
:pointsnew: you named 3 fighters way above everyone else on pacs resume and you still think floyd has a better resume. so who on floyds resume is better than mab,em,jmm?
and answer my other question, so is floyd a natural lightweight not a natural welterweight? so shouldn't he fight jmm at 135 then? since jmm is lightweight king. or atleast fight jmm at 140.
floyd is a natural pussy who severly selected his oppenent. im sure if jmm was a welterweight he'd want no piece of him. jmm is a better version of castillo who gave floyd trouble.
3 names on Pacquiao's resume that are better then anyone Mayweather fought?
Sure they are "names" but lets take a closer look at it floyd hater :)
He only beat Morales after Erik moved back down in weight and had already lost to Zahir Raheem. If Pacquiao was the warrior you make him out to be that fought everyone he would have fought Raheem but he fought a second match with an obviously faded Morales for the money and you can make the argument that Erik was past his prime and that the Raheem fight showed that. And there is a lot of people who feel Pacquiao lost both fights against Marquez and he barely won the second one, by one round because of the knockdown.
But on Mayweathers resume, everyone on that list with the exception of the first Castillo fight, Mayweather dominated them. But Pacquiao only dominated one and that was Barerra and it can be said he only beat Morales after Morales was past his prime and also that he didn't beat Marquez or barely squeaked by. So defend that :)
There may be the three "names" on Pacquiao's resume but he only dominated one in their prime. all the names on Mayweather's list he dominated with the exception of the first Castillo fight and even then he came back and won the rematch with ease. Pacquiao on the other hand after "improving" only barely beat Marquez because of the knockdown and there is a lot of argument to say that he lost that rematch too. Meanwhile there is no one on Mayweathers resume with the exception of the first Castillo fight that you could find anyone that says that Mayweather could have lost ;)
Only beat him because of a knockdown?:rolleyes: Thats the goofiest thing i've ever heard! "Thats like saying he only reason he one was because he punched him in the face more!" Yes it was a close fight and yea knockdowns due tend to give you an advantage duh! Even though Pacquiao is in his prime now, he would easily have taken care of Castillio and Corrales a few years ago with no problems!
yea if you knew anything about scoring he means that due to the knockdown he got a 10-8 round, and due to that 10-8 round and that ONE single extra point, Pacquiao "won", so yea learn something before you go out and post and make yourself look like a complete moron ;D
Re: The Mayweather double standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElTerribleMorales
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
levi#1BoxingFan
Only beat him because of a knockdown?:rolleyes: Thats the goofiest thing i've ever heard! "Thats like saying he only reason he one was because he punched him in the face more!" Yes it was a close fight and yea knockdowns due tend to give you an advantage duh! Even though Pacquiao is in his prime now, he would easily have taken care of Castillio and Corrales a few years ago with no problems!
First, morrales was not fading, Raheem would have beaten Morrales at any stage of his career. Perhaps it was the onesided schooling he took from raheem that broke his confidence and exposed him as a one dimensional fighter.
Secondly, beat corrales with ease? PACMAN? nah i doubt that at the time when corrales was fighting and could possibly face pacman, pacman didnt have the skills to beat corrales and probably would have been stopped.
that's the biggest load of crap i've ever heard, Morales wasn't one dimesional by any means, he showed various times that he could both slug and box, all you have to see is the 11th round to know that if Morales still had something left he would have stopped Raheem in the earlier rounds, the only round Morales actually attacked and knocks Raheem down, cleanly, and it was ruled a slip :rolleyes:, and the fact that 4 of his losses came back to back, pretty much shows that it's due to the decline of his abilities, don't know what fights you've been watching to actually try to dub Morales a one dimensional fighter
None of what you said changes the fact that morrales had never faced a school slick boxer like raheem, and he got schooled handedly...he couldn't adapt and kept waving his hands for raheem to engage. Then after the fight said one the dumbest things a fighter can say
"he didnt want to fight, he just kept hitting me and moving away" ???
Morralles was one dimensional...that's why he lost twice to MAB i think three times ,twice to PAC, and schooled by Raheem...moralle was highly overrated IMO good, but no way on the same level as MAB and JMM
Re: The Mayweather double standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElTerribleMorales
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
First, morrales was not fading, Raheem would have beaten Morrales at any stage of his career. Perhaps it was the onesided schooling he took from raheem that broke his confidence and exposed him as a one dimensional fighter.
Secondly, beat corrales with ease? PACMAN? nah i doubt that at the time when corrales was fighting and could possibly face pacman, pacman didnt have the skills to beat corrales and probably would have been stopped.
that's the biggest load of crap i've ever heard, Morales wasn't one dimesional by any means, he showed various times that he could both slug and box, all you have to see is the 11th round to know that if Morales still had something left he would have stopped Raheem in the earlier rounds, the only round Morales actually attacked and knocks Raheem down, cleanly, and it was ruled a slip :rolleyes:, and the fact that 4 of his losses came back to back, pretty much shows that it's due to the decline of his abilities, don't know what fights you've been watching to actually try to dub Morales a one dimensional fighter
None of what you said changes the fact that morrales had never faced a school slick boxer like raheem, and he got schooled handedly...he couldn't adapt and kept waving his hands for raheem to engage. Then after the fight said one the dumbest things a fighter can say
"he didnt want to fight, he just kept hitting me and moving away" ???
Morralles was one dimensional...that's why he lost twice to MAB i think three times ,twice to PAC, and schooled by Raheem...moralle was highly overrated IMO good, but no way on the same level as MAB and JMM
uh but eric is the only 1 who actually won over pac, marco never came close and jmm always comes up short. I dont think his one demensional thats a big harsh :(
Re: The Mayweather double standard.
Elterrible im not sure what goes through your mind on a daily basis, im guessing its kinda like when you've got bunny ears on an old T.V. and your trying to get a signal but theres nothing but snow!:confused: Obviously you didnt read my response little boy so I'm going to repeat myself. I never denied that the Pacquiao vs. JMM fights wern't close, because they were! I'm talking about the comment "the only reason he won was because of the knockdown". Thats jibberish, yea knockdowns are a part of boxing and JMM couldnt stay on his feet and it caused him to lose, no freakin duh Elterrible, so do yourself a favor and try to get a signal! :-\ And why is it that everyone talks about Pacquiao almost losing to JMM (a great fighter) when Mayweather CLEARLY lost to Castillio (a good but not great fighter)?
Re: The Mayweather double standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Julius Rain
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElTerribleMorales
that's the biggest load of crap i've ever heard, Morales wasn't one dimesional by any means, he showed various times that he could both slug and box, all you have to see is the 11th round to know that if Morales still had something left he would have stopped Raheem in the earlier rounds, the only round Morales actually attacked and knocks Raheem down, cleanly, and it was ruled a slip :rolleyes:, and the fact that 4 of his losses came back to back, pretty much shows that it's due to the decline of his abilities, don't know what fights you've been watching to actually try to dub Morales a one dimensional fighter
None of what you said changes the fact that morrales had never faced a school slick boxer like raheem, and he got schooled handedly...he couldn't adapt and kept waving his hands for raheem to engage. Then after the fight said one the dumbest things a fighter can say
"he didnt want to fight, he just kept hitting me and moving away" ???
Morralles was one dimensional...that's why he lost twice to MAB i think three times ,twice to PAC, and schooled by Raheem...moralle was highly overrated IMO good, but no way on the same level as MAB and JMM
uh but eric is the only 1 who actually won over pac, marco never came close and jmm always comes up short. I dont think his one demensional thats a big harsh :(
uh yeah and he's also the only one that was beaten into submission twice by pacman since thats what you use to gauge his ability against MAB and JMM. Even the clearly past it MAB managed a decision.
Re: The Mayweather double standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Julius Rain
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElTerribleMorales
that's the biggest load of crap i've ever heard, Morales wasn't one dimesional by any means, he showed various times that he could both slug and box, all you have to see is the 11th round to know that if Morales still had something left he would have stopped Raheem in the earlier rounds, the only round Morales actually attacked and knocks Raheem down, cleanly, and it was ruled a slip :rolleyes:, and the fact that 4 of his losses came back to back, pretty much shows that it's due to the decline of his abilities, don't know what fights you've been watching to actually try to dub Morales a one dimensional fighter
None of what you said changes the fact that morrales had never faced a school slick boxer like raheem, and he got schooled handedly...he couldn't adapt and kept waving his hands for raheem to engage. Then after the fight said one the dumbest things a fighter can say
"he didnt want to fight, he just kept hitting me and moving away" ???
Morralles was one dimensional...that's why he lost twice to MAB i think three times ,twice to PAC, and schooled by Raheem...moralle was highly overrated IMO good, but no way on the same level as MAB and JMM
uh but eric is the only 1 who actually won over pac, marco never came close and jmm always comes up short. I dont think his one demensional thats a big harsh :(
not to mention many believe that Morales won the second fight, which was the most TECHNICAL fight of the 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
levi#1BoxingFan
Elterrible im not sure what goes through your mind on a daily basis, im guessing its kinda like when you've got bunny ears on an old T.V. and your trying to get a signal but theres nothing but snow!:confused: Obviously you didnt read my response little boy so I'm going to repeat myself. I never denied that the Pacquiao vs. JMM fights wern't close, because they were! I'm talking about the comment "the only reason he won was because of the knockdown". Thats jibberish, yea knockdowns are a part of boxing and JMM couldnt stay on his feet and it caused him to lose, no freakin duh Elterrible, so do yourself a favor and try to get a signal! :-\ And why is it that everyone talks about Pacquiao almost losing to JMM (a great fighter) when Mayweather CLEARLY lost to Castillio (a good but not great fighter)?
first off don't call me little boy cause unlike you i'm no kid, it's no jibberish because even a flash knockdown would have done it, don't kid yourself thinking that Manny was anywhere close in stopping JMM, the thing you don't understand is that Pacquiao ONLY won due to the knockdown, cause if it weren't for that, there is NO way anyone would have been able to have him ahead of JMM
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Julius Rain
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
None of what you said changes the fact that morrales had never faced a school slick boxer like raheem, and he got schooled handedly...he couldn't adapt and kept waving his hands for raheem to engage. Then after the fight said one the dumbest things a fighter can say
"he didnt want to fight, he just kept hitting me and moving away" ???
Morralles was one dimensional...that's why he lost twice to MAB i think three times ,twice to PAC, and schooled by Raheem...moralle was highly overrated IMO good, but no way on the same level as MAB and JMM
uh but eric is the only 1 who actually won over pac, marco never came close and jmm always comes up short. I dont think his one demensional thats a big harsh :(
uh yeah and he's also the only one that was beaten into submission twice by pacman since thats what you use to gauge his ability against MAB and JMM. Even the clearly past it MAB managed a decision.
well then going by your way of thinking, Jones Jr must of been pretty one dimensional as well, cause the first time he stepped in the ring against a hard hitting fast southpaw in Tarver he barely got a MD, then got KTFO in 2, with only one shot, brutally KO'd in his next fight against Johnson, and then barely managed to make it out of the 11th to lose by UD against Tarver :rolleyes: funny how that "logic" works out
Re: The Mayweather double standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElTerribleMorales
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Julius Rain
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
None of what you said changes the fact that morrales had never faced a school slick boxer like raheem, and he got schooled handedly...he couldn't adapt and kept waving his hands for raheem to engage. Then after the fight said one the dumbest things a fighter can say
"he didnt want to fight, he just kept hitting me and moving away" ???
Morralles was one dimensional...that's why he lost twice to MAB i think three times ,twice to PAC, and schooled by Raheem...moralle was highly overrated IMO good, but no way on the same level as MAB and JMM
uh but eric is the only 1 who actually won over pac, marco never came close and jmm always comes up short. I dont think his one demensional thats a big harsh :(
not to mention many believe that Morales won the second fight, which was the most TECHNICAL fight of the 3
first off don't call me little boy cause unlike you i'm no kid, it's no jibberish because even a flash knockdown would have done it, don't kid yourself thinking that Manny was anywhere close in stopping JMM, the thing you don't understand is that Pacquiao ONLY won due to the knockdown, cause if it weren't for that, there is NO way anyone would have been able to have him ahead of JMM
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Julius Rain
uh but eric is the only 1 who actually won over pac, marco never came close and jmm always comes up short. I dont think his one demensional thats a big harsh :(
uh yeah and he's also the only one that was beaten into submission twice by pacman since thats what you use to gauge his ability against MAB and JMM. Even the clearly past it MAB managed a decision.
well then going by your way of thinking, Jones Jr must of been pretty one dimensional as well, cause the first time he stepped in the ring against a hard hitting fast southpaw in Tarver he barely got a MD, then got KTFO in 2, with only one shot, brutally KO'd in his next fight against Johnson, and then barely managed to make it out of the 11th to lose by UD against Tarver :rolleyes: funny how that "logic" works out
That's your logic not mine, dude i think you should have someone read aloud to you, because it seems that you're processing the information wrong...you used erik's one victory over pacman as leverage to him being better than JMM and MAB, and the fact that he was able to slug with pacquiao instead of box. It's your logic that he's not one dimensional based off what he did against an underschooled pacman, once roach was able to get manny to wait and counter a little bit, morrales was done. An d they learned that after watching raheem beat the hell out of him, only difference was Zahir didnt hit as hard as Manny.
Now just to entertain the silly comments about roy...only an idiot would argue that jones was one dimensional.
BTW don't take it personal, im sure erik morrales doesn't pay you to be his internet guardian
Re: The Mayweather double standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
blegit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
P4P means you are the best boxer around regardless of size.
Manny has beaten more current linear champs than Floyd has, infact has Floyd beaten any?
Take light welter, Floyd fought Gatti then ran away from Tszyu, he ran up a weight to take longer to beat a fighter that Tszyu had smashed off the canvas.
There is no denying Pacquiao has fought some very dangerous fighters, even dangerous fighters who dont draw crowds, like Marquez, right after he beat Mab, when he could have taken a soft touch, whereas Floyd has avoided all his percieved threats, like Tszyu, Mosely, Cotto, Margarito and Williams.
Lets be fair and get and use the facts straight let not just spew words because you don't like a fighter. Lineal champs mean crap nowadays. The belts are ran by corrupt organizations. And yes, PBF has beaten lineal champs. Remember he got crap for taking on the lineal champ in Baldomir for the most money. And for his debut at 135 he took on the lineal champ in Castillo then did it again. As for Tszyu, PBF wanted Tsyzu and even went to negotiations. Tsyzu's plan was to go at Hatton first. PBF called out Mosley twice when Mosley was a fearsome lightweight knocking everyone out. Both times Mosley flat out refused with excuses. Remember when Mosley went from 135 to 147? Did he do that to avoid Tsyzu? When PBF fought the cash cow DLH he was accused of ducking the real threats. Mosley skipped an entire division to get at DLH and so did Pac. But I think neither ducked anyone. Its called cherrypicking and every fighter does it. Boxing is a business and you must use smart marketing, crafty management, and make intelligent business decisions.
Hell I'd say lineal champ means more than the Belt Champs at this point.
I hope you are not trying to make a case for Mayweather for taking on Baldomir as a lineal champ. That was a horrible fight.
I think it's pointless to say a guy is "scared" by jumping 2 weight divisions.
The fact of the matter.. there just isn't enough time to fight everyone along the way in every weight division, but I legit case against Floyd is not hard to make. He was not the king of ANY of the divisions after Lightweight.
Pac cherrypicks and KOs his opponents. PBF does the same, but makes a mockery of his opponent everytime. He doesn't take care of business, he doesn't take titles away (bar Hatton), and he doesn't give fans anything to be desired.
Re: The Mayweather double standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ElTerribleMorales
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Julius Rain
uh but eric is the only 1 who actually won over pac, marco never came close and jmm always comes up short. I dont think his one demensional thats a big harsh :(
not to mention many believe that Morales won the second fight, which was the most TECHNICAL fight of the 3
first off don't call me little boy cause unlike you i'm no kid, it's no jibberish because even a flash knockdown would have done it, don't kid yourself thinking that Manny was anywhere close in stopping JMM, the thing you don't understand is that Pacquiao ONLY won due to the knockdown, cause if it weren't for that, there is NO way anyone would have been able to have him ahead of JMM
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JonesJrMayweather
uh yeah and he's also the only one that was beaten into submission twice by pacman since thats what you use to gauge his ability against MAB and JMM. Even the clearly past it MAB managed a decision.
well then going by your way of thinking, Jones Jr must of been pretty one dimensional as well, cause the first time he stepped in the ring against a hard hitting fast southpaw in Tarver he barely got a MD, then got KTFO in 2, with only one shot, brutally KO'd in his next fight against Johnson, and then barely managed to make it out of the 11th to lose by UD against Tarver :rolleyes: funny how that "logic" works out
That's your logic not mine, dude i think you should have someone read aloud to you, because it seems that you're processing the information wrong...
you used erik's one victory over pacman as leverage to him being better than JMM and MAB, and the fact that he was able to slug with pacquiao instead of box. It's your logic that he's not one dimensional based off what he did against an underschooled pacman, once roach was able to get manny to wait and counter a little bit, morrales was done. An d they learned that after watching raheem beat the hell out of him, only difference was Zahir didnt hit as hard as Manny.
Now just to entertain the silly comments about roy...only an idiot would argue that jones was one dimensional.
BTW don't take it personal, im sure erik morales doesn't pay you to be his internet guardian
where the hell did i use it as leverage, learn to read buddy i said that Morales' win over Pacquiao was probably more due to Pacquiao's lack of technical ability at the time, because Morales pretty much showed he was shot in his very next fight, not taking it personal at all, just saying that Morales is one dimensional is incredibly narrowminded, and no i don't think that Jones is one dimensional by any means, but using the same logic THAT YOU USED, of how the first time Morales faced a "slick" fighter, he lost by a lopsided margin, the same can be said about Jones Jr, cause well you know very well how he's been as of since the Tarver KO, both fighters (Morales & Jones) lost so many fights (and badly at that) back to back, due to weight problems and decline in ability
as for you last comment, you're one to talk, this is from the dude who thought Taylor was the future of boxing at one point...:rolleyes:
