Juan Manuel Marquez Tells Pacquiao To His Face Floyd Would Kick His Ass On ESPN First

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountryBoy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

The difference between pac and floyd is purely boxing.

Pac has to fight marquez 4 times over a period of so many years and still cant win a clear decison over an old fighter.

There is no need for floyd to fight marquez ever again as it was so clear the domination.

If its close again, its the leg cramp excuse.
Pac ducks bradley to fight an old marquez..boxing stinks.

---

True, But Pacquiao smashed Cotto, De La Hoya, Hatton and Mosley whom gave Floyd fits in the ring.

---

Different circumstances and Pac and Floyd are different kinds of fighters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountryBoy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

The difference between pac and floyd is purely boxing.

Pac has to fight marquez 4 times over a period of so many years and still cant win a clear decison over an old fighter.

There is no need for floyd to fight marquez ever again as it was so clear the domination.

If its close again, its the leg cramp excuse.
Pac ducks bradley to fight an old marquez..boxing stinks.

---

True, But Pacquiao smashed Cotto, De La Hoya, Hatton and Mosley whom gave Floyd fits in the ring.

---

You obviously havent been reading the entire thread.

When you have, let us know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Darius Michalczewski was the WBA, IBF and WBO champion. He didn't LOSE the WBA or IBF titles in the ring. He discarded them, which then means the organisations make the title vacant.

The IBF ordered Darrin Allen-vs-William Guthrie for the vacant title. Guthrie won, then lost it to Reggie Johnson who Roy later beat.

The WBA ordered Eddy Smulders-vs-Lou Del Valle for the vacant title. Del Valle won and Roy later beat him.

So how would Roy have won those belts if Michalczewski decided to keep them or had not been stripped? Roy would have to beat him.

Once you establish yourself as THE man in a division you can only lose that accolade by actually losing in the ring. It's common for unified champions to dump or be stripped of belts (check - Barrera, Lewis, Kostya etc), it doesn't take away from their already established position as THE man in the division.

Each organisation has their own set of rules and rankings, which mean different contenders, politics, and they all want paying sanctioning fees.


@IamInuit

Quote:

---

There is no such thing as lineal in this era or Roys because there are no undisputed champions.

---

You can establish THE man in a division, it's just harder to trace because of the sanctioning bodies confusing things, and especially confusing fans.

Off the top of my head check out - Lewis, Hopkins, Barrera, Tyszu, Marquez, Pac, Floyd, Calzaghe, Naz etc.. you can trace the lineage of some of these fighters going back decades and others established themselves as THE universally recognised champion of a division.

---

you are putting too much stock into the BS "lineal title" that isn't even lineal ... especially when there are different versions of it

Michalczewski ended up beating up guys Roy already had defeated and lost to Gonzalez, whom Roy already defeated.

Roy picked up those belts while Michalczewski was fighting his leftovers, hiding in Germany. Roy was the established champ at LHW and P4P #1. Clearly THE MAN to beat at LHW.

Its similar to Tyson cleaning out the HW division and picking up all the belts, while Spinks the "lineal champion" was fighting old Gerry Cooney and ducked Tony Tucker. You really think that Spinks was the "real champion" when he ducked Tucker, whom Tyson defeated? The lineal champion has no mandatory challengers so he can't be stripped or have the title taken away for fighting subpar opposition. At least with the "ABC titles" you have to fight top contenders ... the lineal championship is a paper title, much like the lesser of the two WBA titles of today. You can't just hide in a country as "the lineal champion" when someone else is actively going around collecting titles with you fighting his left overs.

Actually I may be wrong ... Ring magazine awarding Roy with their lineal title may have been their own way of stripping Michalczewski of his lineal title for ducking Roy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TysonBomb

you are putting too much stock into the BS "lineal title" that isn't even lineal ... especially when there are different versions of it

Michalczewski ended up beating up guys Roy already had defeated and lost to Gonzalez, whom Roy already defeated.

Roy picked up those belts while Michalczewski was fighting his leftovers, hiding in Germany. Roy was the established champ at LHW and P4P #1. Clearly THE MAN to beat at LHW.

Its similar to Tyson cleaning out the HW division and picking up all the belts, while Spinks the "lineal champion" was fighting old Gerry Cooney and ducked Tony Tucker. You really think that Spinks was the "real champion" when he ducked Tucker, whom Tyson defeated? The lineal champion has no mandatory challengers so he can't be stripped or have the title taken away for fighting subpar opposition. At least with the "ABC titles" you have to fight top contenders ... the lineal championship is a paper title, much like the lesser of the two WBA titles of today. You can't just hide in a country as "the lineal champion" when someone else is actively going around collecting titles with you fighting his left overs.

Actually I may be wrong ... Ring magazine awarding Roy with their lineal title may have been their own way of stripping Michalczewski of his lineal title for ducking Roy.

---

You still can't seem to grasp that Roy was winning belts Michalczewski had already won and dropped. Going by your reckoning - the more belts the more it proves you're the champ. Therefore, had Michalczewski kept his IBF and WBA titles to go with his WBO, Roy would've only ever been WBC champ.

The Ring and lineal are different. In the late 80s The Ring went out of business, when it returned it no longer recognised lineal champions. In the early 2000's it restarted it's championship policy but IGNORED it's own history. That's why you get the confusion with Jones/Michalczewski. Just because The Ring no longer followed the lineage it didn't mean it stopped, boxing historians continued to trace it. And just because the The Ring wanted Jones to have their belt doesn't mean you can ignore already set in stone history.

Sometimes the lineal champion is not the best fighter in the division. However, it makes far more sense to have one legit champion. Two "world" champs per division is pathetic let alone four - With four different no.1 contenders, four different top tens and each sanctioning body not recognising each others "champion."

Anyone that thinks that multi-champions per division creates better and more meaningful fights hasn't been following boxing to closely.

It's another prime example of how all these alphabet soup title belts have saturated and devalued what it means to be a boxing "world champion".

...we'll find out as soon as he stops duckin'...