Printable View
How many prime undefeated fighters has Pac-Man beat?
No one is disputing his future hall of fame status but is this the first prime (slightly injured) undefeated champion he is facing?
How is an undefeated Tim Bradley style different from Keith Thurman?
If manny beats an undefeated Thurman at 40 years old then this will truly set up a mega fight against Crawford or Spence.
Who cares if his opponents were undefeated or not, they were still legends who were greater than Bradley or Horn.
Bradley was undefeated but not a champion, in the rematch Bradley was a champion but not really and undefeated but not really. If you count him in spite of this it is the 3rd occasion he has faced an undefeated champion. Going 1-1. Losing to Mayweather badly and beating Bradley in the rematch.
As Master mentioned losses don’t matter much. Historically losing, or showing vulnerability, is a good way to draw a PAC fight. He’s fought enough greats to ignore their condition when he fought them. Young fighters would do well to learn from him. 7 losses, so what, 8, 9, doesn’t matter if he wins or loses, he’s the best because he’s popular.
Whatever I may think of Thurman he has to have a deeper ring imagination and fluid mover than Bradley. I like Tim but hearing him repeating he thought he won clear by around 8-4 was just silly talk. I remember someone had the wisdom to think a young undefeated Lucero had a chance with Manny, they cursed that poor young man ;D.
Add Thurman to the list.
Manny has nothing to prove anymore.
Just retire.
I would not mind if he retires Khan first and then maybe just go all out against Spence/Crawford.Quote:
Originally Posted by imp
He can’t beat them. Why would he walk into an almost sure KO loss? He’s been offered the Crawford fight for years, he knows. Putting him in with those guys is just mean. They aren’t ThurmanQuote:
Originally Posted by MasterI would not mind if he retires Khan first and then maybe just go all out against Spence/Crawford.Quote:
Originally Posted by imp
Thurman was undefeated but I wouldn’t say he was in his prime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
On which side of his peak would you say he's on? Not disagreeing (well... yes, really)..... just curious. Still hasn't gotten there? Or past it?
Past it, his best was when he beat Porter and Garcia.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
On which side of his peak would you say he's on? Not disagreeing (well... yes, really)..... just curious. Still hasn't gotten there? Or past it?
I think he could be at his peak without his huge layoff but I think everyone saw that he didn’t look great against Lopez. I’m not saying he would or wouldn’t have beaten Pacquiao a few years ago, but I think he was a better fighter 3 years ago when he was more active.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
On which side of his peak would you say he's on? Not disagreeing (well... yes, really)..... just curious. Still hasn't gotten there? Or past it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncherI think he could be at his peak without his huge layoff but I think everyone saw that he didn’t look great against Lopez. I’m not saying he would or wouldn’t have beaten Pacquiao a few years ago, but I think he was a better fighter 3 years ago when he was more active.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
On which side of his peak would you say he's on? Not disagreeing (well... yes, really)..... just curious. Still hasn't gotten there? Or past it?
The layoff is definitely a factor. While being worn out by too many wars is bad...... being inactive for such a long time during your peak years is probably nearly as bad. Yes, he looked horrible against Lopez. It's what had a lot of people giving Manny more of a chance to beat him. Logically Manny should not have been able to do that. Then again Manny defied the odds when he went up all those weight classes and took out some great fighters.
So I'm thinking he's at his physical peak..... but that peak has become a bit blunted by the inactivity.
Like I said in another thread, this was a great match up and they knew it. When you are a huge name in boxing, you can pick and choose who you want to fight. You generally pick guys who you know you can beat with the biggest name. There is a reason he didn’t fight Spence or Crawford. He knows that he will lose to both of them. He saw Thurman looking rusty and knew that Thurman had a lot of flaws that could be exploited so he chose that fight. A fight against a named fighter who he matched up well against and could fight him at the right time.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncherI think he could be at his peak without his huge layoff but I think everyone saw that he didn’t look great against Lopez. I’m not saying he would or wouldn’t have beaten Pacquiao a few years ago, but I think he was a better fighter 3 years ago when he was more active.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
On which side of his peak would you say he's on? Not disagreeing (well... yes, really)..... just curious. Still hasn't gotten there? Or past it?
The layoff is definitely a factor. While being worn out by too many wars is bad...... being inactive for such a long time during your peak years is probably nearly as bad. Yes, he looked horrible against Lopez. It's what had a lot of people giving Manny more of a chance to beat him. Logically Manny should not have been able to do that. Then again Manny defied the odds when he went up all those weight classes and took out some great fighters.
So I'm thinking he's at his physical peak..... but that peak has become a bit blunted by the inactivity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncherLike I said in another thread, this was a great match up and they knew it. When you are a huge name in boxing, you can pick and choose who you want to fight. You generally pick guys who you know you can beat with the biggest name. There is a reason he didn’t fight Spence or Crawford. He knows that he will lose to both of them. He saw Thurman looking rusty and knew that Thurman had a lot of flaws that could be exploited so he chose that fight. A fight against a named fighter who he matched up well against and could fight him at the right time.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncherI think he could be at his peak without his huge layoff but I think everyone saw that he didn’t look great against Lopez. I’m not saying he would or wouldn’t have beaten Pacquiao a few years ago, but I think he was a better fighter 3 years ago when he was more active.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
On which side of his peak would you say he's on? Not disagreeing (well... yes, really)..... just curious. Still hasn't gotten there? Or past it?
The layoff is definitely a factor. While being worn out by too many wars is bad...... being inactive for such a long time during your peak years is probably nearly as bad. Yes, he looked horrible against Lopez. It's what had a lot of people giving Manny more of a chance to beat him. Logically Manny should not have been able to do that. Then again Manny defied the odds when he went up all those weight classes and took out some great fighters.
So I'm thinking he's at his physical peak..... but that peak has become a bit blunted by the inactivity.
LOL..... you almost made Pac sound like Canelo.
If Pac is a bit Canelo-ish in that regard right now..... the difference is he's earned it over many years of fighting the best at their peaks and taking on all comers. Ginger's been doing that since Day One.
He has been like that for years. I’m not blaming him but it’s just how it is with superstar fighters. All I’m saying is that he chose Thurman specifically to fight. Nobody would blame him for not fighting any top welterweight because of his age. He took the Thurman fight because he saw a weakness in Thurman and knew he could win.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncherLike I said in another thread, this was a great match up and they knew it. When you are a huge name in boxing, you can pick and choose who you want to fight. You generally pick guys who you know you can beat with the biggest name. There is a reason he didn’t fight Spence or Crawford. He knows that he will lose to both of them. He saw Thurman looking rusty and knew that Thurman had a lot of flaws that could be exploited so he chose that fight. A fight against a named fighter who he matched up well against and could fight him at the right time.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncherI think he could be at his peak without his huge layoff but I think everyone saw that he didn’t look great against Lopez. I’m not saying he would or wouldn’t have beaten Pacquiao a few years ago, but I think he was a better fighter 3 years ago when he was more active.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
On which side of his peak would you say he's on? Not disagreeing (well... yes, really)..... just curious. Still hasn't gotten there? Or past it?
The layoff is definitely a factor. While being worn out by too many wars is bad...... being inactive for such a long time during your peak years is probably nearly as bad. Yes, he looked horrible against Lopez. It's what had a lot of people giving Manny more of a chance to beat him. Logically Manny should not have been able to do that. Then again Manny defied the odds when he went up all those weight classes and took out some great fighters.
So I'm thinking he's at his physical peak..... but that peak has become a bit blunted by the inactivity.
LOL..... you almost made Pac sound like Canelo.
If Pac is a bit Canelo-ish in that regard right now..... the difference is he's earned it over many years of fighting the best at their peaks and taking on all comers. Ginger's been doing that since Day One.