[quote=Julius Rain;731356]
Quote Originally Posted by Majesty View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Julius Rain View Post

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
Pac dominated marco both times, people can say marco was past it but there always saying that everytime he is losing. Em on the other hand did beat pac the first fight which was a close fight im sure we both will agree. If people are making excuses for these to great mexican fighters that they were past it well was pac primed when he dominated marco? lost to eric,knock him twice and then drew with jmm? won in the rematch? Aint that the double standard when it comes to pac?
who did Morales ever beat AFTER losing to RAHEEM? that's right, nobody, and yea i am one of the people that now credits a portion of Morales' win to Manny's lack of experience and although i feel prime for prime Morales had the style to beat Pacquiao, i think that the Morales that beat Pacquiao would lose to the Manny of now
OK you are right floyd demolish everybody he fought, but i'll ask you a simple question. Is he as ambitious when it come to having a tough fighting schedule like pac?

Pac: within about 15 months - mab(first fight at 126), jmm, eric(first fight at 130) = two different division.

Pac : within about 14 months - jmm, diaz, oscar, hatton = 4 different divison

Pac: next - cotto?, floyd/jmm winner?, mosley?

If floyd was as tough as pac he would of fought casamayor,koysta,mosely, cotto,margarito, williams, a long time ago or atleast one of them no but his fighting a lightweight champion currently
on that same note, if Manny was so tough he would have given Marquez an immediate rematch instead of jumping weight to fight the bum David Diaz, a weight drained shot DLH, and Mayweather's leftovers, is that how i feel, no, i give credit where credit is due, and IMO even though i feel Mayweather would beat Pacquiao, and that he's more skilled than him, i think both fighters have accomplished just as much, unlike you, i'm giving an un-biased opinion