Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
Quote Originally Posted by powerpuncher View Post
Quote Originally Posted by TitoFan View Post
Quote Originally Posted by powerpuncher View Post
Thurman was undefeated but I wouldn’t say he was in his prime.


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.

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.