Maidana vs Pacquiao

[Hulk]

To be fair, aside from Marquez, Manny has beaten up every common opponent worse than Mayweather n often finished them sooner.

[Ron Swanson]

I agree Pac would do better. He'd employ the lateral movement Floyd did not use that Marcos struggles with.

I saw Mayweather use plenty of lateral movement. He'd move side to side and waste time out of range, think he could hurt Maidana with a check left hook then find himself on the ropes. Everyone struggles with lateral movement, both the bull and the matador, simply because its a farce in a squared circle. What Pacquiao would do is throw the lead left whilst slipping the jab then turn Maidana and circle away to Maidana's blindside. Lateral movement in a squared circle = getting caught on the ropes.

Even turning someone you escape laterally before re-engaging. Floyd backed straight back most of the night. You move laterally to avoid getting caught on the ropes. I don't even begin to understand what you are getting at with "lateral movement in a ssquared circle=getting caught on the ropes" are you saying moving laterally makes you get caught on the ropes? Because if so you are terrible wrong. Or are you saying Floyd was caught on the ropes repeatedly? In that case you are right. If you want to see how lateral movement can keep you off the ropes and not allow a big puncher get off because their feet aren't ready watch Mayweather/Corrales.

If you move laterally/side to side in a square all your going to do is eventually hit the sides. It's just common sense. Circling is how you avoid hitting the sides (ropes), keep the fight in the centre of the squared circle, conserve energy and, most importantly, ensure that you are always in a position to throw effective punches whilst literally being one step ahead of your opponent. Floyd was at his worst when he used lateral movement against Maidana. He was needlessly wasting time and energy against a swarmer which could have been put to better use early on attacking the body and turning him into punches, he was only negatively reinforcing the impression that Maidana was forcing him to run and, worst of all, he was not in a position to throw effective combinations to keep him at bay. That was the real reason he kept finding himself against the ropes. Believing that simply moving side to side in a box will greatly alter the course of a fight is not only a terrible mistake but an absurd insinuation.

Now I know not to speak to you in boxing terms. Every person here who has boxed knew exactly what I meant because it's common boxing vernacular . But you describe the word from a mathematical POV. I suspect you are just being difficult. Or when someone mentions. A clinche do you picture the fighter tightening his butthole? Now I'm being difficult. In the future when we are discussing something and I use boxing terminology it will be intended to be the boxing definition on this boxing message board not not literal definition, cool? If we talk on a mathematical board we can use mathematical definitions.

[Ron Swanson]

To be fair, aside from Marquez, Manny has beaten up every common opponent worse than Mayweather n often finished them sooner.

If you're going to be fair you should also mention Floyd fought all but Hatton at more natural weights and Pac fought all but Cotto when they were older.

[Max Power]

It's clear.

Besides JMM, Pac did better against common opponents than what Floyd did.

Maidana fight proves that Pac (a "super Maidana) is still very much the possible number 1 guy in boxing and Floyd has to prove otherwise otherwise he'll never be TBE.

[cyclone]

To be fair, aside from Marquez, Manny has beaten up every common opponent worse than Mayweather n often finished them sooner.

to be fair...first is better than worse.

Manny could/should have fought Shane before Floyd..when Mosley had just taken Margarito's title...but he wanted no parts.

"Shane..can you make 142?" Freddy Roach

[cyclone]

It's clear.

Besides JMM, Pac did better against common opponents than what Floyd did.

Maidana fight proves that Pac (a "super Maidana) is still very much the possible number 1 guy in boxing and Floyd has to prove otherwise otherwise he'll never be TBE.

What kind of Rabies ass logic is this....?

ALL the common opponents say:
"Floyd would beat Pacman..

Pac is not a "super Maidana"..being that Marcos has never been face-planted for 10 minutes.

Oscar had a TITLE and was still knocking people out when Floyd beat him.
Shane had a TITLE and was still knockin people out when Floyd beat him.

[Mr140]

Different is that Mayweather still beat all the guys clearly and besides Cotto beat them first. Pac has never ever really beaten Jmm most everyone though lost the fight then he got kncoked the fuck out. Mayweather didn't lose a round to the guy and as for the fight depends how Pacs chin holds up. He has not faced a big puncher really since the Jmm destruction and look like shit vs Bradley. We will see in next fight exactly were both guys are which should be in coming year or so i guess right maybe more.

[jahmez]

I agree Pac would do better. He'd employ the lateral movement Floyd did not use that Marcos struggles with.

I saw Mayweather use plenty of lateral movement. He'd move side to side and waste time out of range, think he could hurt Maidana with a check left hook then find himself on the ropes. Everyone struggles with lateral movement, both the bull and the matador, simply because its a farce in a squared circle. What Pacquiao would do is throw the lead left whilst slipping the jab then turn Maidana and circle away to Maidana's blindside. Lateral movement in a squared circle = getting caught on the ropes.

Even turning someone you escape laterally before re-engaging. Floyd backed straight back most of the night. You move laterally to avoid getting caught on the ropes. I don't even begin to understand what you are getting at with "lateral movement in a ssquared circle=getting caught on the ropes" are you saying moving laterally makes you get caught on the ropes? Because if so you are terrible wrong. Or are you saying Floyd was caught on the ropes repeatedly? In that case you are right. If you want to see how lateral movement can keep you off the ropes and not allow a big puncher get off because their feet aren't ready watch Mayweather/Corrales.

If you move laterally/side to side in a square all your going to do is eventually hit the sides. It's just common sense. Circling is how you avoid hitting the sides (ropes), keep the fight in the centre of the squared circle, conserve energy and, most importantly, ensure that you are always in a position to throw effective punches whilst literally being one step ahead of your opponent. Floyd was at his worst when he used lateral movement against Maidana. He was needlessly wasting time and energy against a swarmer which could have been put to better use early on attacking the body and turning him into punches, he was only negatively reinforcing the impression that Maidana was forcing him to run and, worst of all, he was not in a position to throw effective combinations to keep him at bay. That was the real reason he kept finding himself against the ropes. Believing that simply moving side to side in a box will greatly alter the course of a fight is not only a terrible mistake but an absurd insinuation.

Now I know not to speak to you in boxing terms. Every person here who has boxed knew exactly what I meant because it's common boxing vernacular . But you describe the word from a mathematical POV. I suspect you are just being difficult. Or when someone mentions. A clinche do you picture the fighter tightening his butthole? Now I'm being difficult. In the future when we are discussing something and I use boxing terminology it will be intended to be the boxing definition on this boxing message board not not literal definition, cool? If we talk on a mathematical board we can use mathematical definitions.

Lol there was nothing mathematical about what I posted - you're just a fucking dumbcunt! Anyone who has boxed before knows that side to side movement is just another name for running. You force yourself into an ultra squared - up position from where you cannot throw punches with any proper leverage let alone combinations, you sacrifice all of your range and are reduced to fending and running - that's half the reason why people hate Floyd so much! When Floyd starting to keep the fight in the centre of the ring by turning and circling (thereby also placing himself into a position to "sit down on his punches and dig to the body") lo and behold the fight turned into his favor. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Maybe next time you post on the boxing board you should try disengaging your asshole from Floyd's penis if only for a moment so that you could start posting opinions of value instead of endlessly praising the Lord of coonery Himself

[109253]

Maidana does not have chances

[Ron Swanson]

I agree Pac would do better. He'd employ the lateral movement Floyd did not use that Marcos struggles with.

I saw Mayweather use plenty of lateral movement. He'd move side to side and waste time out of range, think he could hurt Maidana with a check left hook then find himself on the ropes. Everyone struggles with lateral movement, both the bull and the matador, simply because its a farce in a squared circle. What Pacquiao would do is throw the lead left whilst slipping the jab then turn Maidana and circle away to Maidana's blindside. Lateral movement in a squared circle = getting caught on the ropes.

Even turning someone you escape laterally before re-engaging. Floyd backed straight back most of the night. You move laterally to avoid getting caught on the ropes. I don't even begin to understand what you are getting at with "lateral movement in a ssquared circle=getting caught on the ropes" are you saying moving laterally makes you get caught on the ropes? Because if so you are terrible wrong. Or are you saying Floyd was caught on the ropes repeatedly? In that case you are right. If you want to see how lateral movement can keep you off the ropes and not allow a big puncher get off because their feet aren't ready watch Mayweather/Corrales.

If you move laterally/side to side in a square all your going to do is eventually hit the sides. It's just common sense. Circling is how you avoid hitting the sides (ropes), keep the fight in the centre of the squared circle, conserve energy and, most importantly, ensure that you are always in a position to throw effective punches whilst literally being one step ahead of your opponent. Floyd was at his worst when he used lateral movement against Maidana. He was needlessly wasting time and energy against a swarmer which could have been put to better use early on attacking the body and turning him into punches, he was only negatively reinforcing the impression that Maidana was forcing him to run and, worst of all, he was not in a position to throw effective combinations to keep him at bay. That was the real reason he kept finding himself against the ropes. Believing that simply moving side to side in a box will greatly alter the course of a fight is not only a terrible mistake but an absurd insinuation.

Now I know not to speak to you in boxing terms. Every person here who has boxed knew exactly what I meant because it's common boxing vernacular . But you describe the word from a mathematical POV. I suspect you are just being difficult. Or when someone mentions. A clinche do you picture the fighter tightening his butthole? Now I'm being difficult. In the future when we are discussing something and I use boxing terminology it will be intended to be the boxing definition on this boxing message board not not literal definition, cool? If we talk on a mathematical board we can use mathematical definitions.

Lol there was nothing mathematical about what I posted - you're just a fucking dumbcunt! Anyone who has boxed before knows that side to side movement is just another name for running. You force yourself into an ultra squared - up position from where you cannot throw punches with any proper leverage let alone combinations, you sacrifice all of your range and are reduced to fending and running - that's half the reason why people hate Floyd so much! When Floyd starting to keep the fight in the centre of the ring by turning and circling (thereby also placing himself into a position to "sit down on his punches and dig to the body") lo and behold the fight turned into his favor. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Maybe next time you post on the boxing board you should try disengaging your asshole from Floyd's penis if only for a moment so that you could start posting opinions of value instead of endlessly praising the Lord of coonery Himself

There it is, insults, bullshit and racism. You're exposed. Never speak to me because you are useless trash and I will never speak to you.

[jahmez]

No you've just got nothing to say because you know shit about boxing. Every one of your posts is about Floyd the business man, Floyd the ATG, Floyd the legitimate matchmaker blah blah blah. None of your posts hold any value. It would be cool if you could explain and break down technically why Floyd could win a fight beyond simply saying some corny cliché like "lateral movement". Instead all of your posts amount to worthless gossip.

[Master]

@jahmez take it easy and do not take things so personally. Ron is talking sense and there is no need to make insults.

[chris6878]

I agree Pac would do better. He'd employ the lateral movement Floyd did not use that Marcos struggles with.

Pac can't even beat Floyd's tuneup...JMM.

Maidana would put Pactrash back to sleep.

you sir just typed an idiotic statement. How many times did jmm and pac fight. sooner or later you will figure your opponent out.

your reasoning is chock full o ignorance

[jahmez]

@jahmez take it easy and do not take things so personally. Ron is talking sense and there is no need to make insults.

He's a big boy and if he can be smartass so can I

[Max Power]

I agree Pac would do better. He'd employ the lateral movement Floyd did not use that Marcos struggles with.

Pac can't even beat Floyd's tuneup...JMM.

Maidana would put Pactrash back to sleep.

you sir just typed an idiotic statement. How many times did jmm and pac fight. sooner or later you will figure your opponent out.

your reasoning is chock full o ignorance

What JMM does have that Floyd doesn not as well is toughness. That's what enabled him to withstand Pac. I don't see the same in Floyd.

Not saying he would but I'm saying he could CRUSH that defence.

It's a reasonable scenario and Floyd knows it. Why else do you think he'd publically humiliate himself with his cowardice for so long!