Is Manny Pacquiao Bad For Boxing?

[ICB]

Yeah but Barrera had his debut in 1989 so what do you expect. Just cuz Manny beat Barrera doesnt mean that would always be the case. If a prime Barrera fought the Pac who fought Torrencampo and Singursat we'd all be saying that Barrera had Pacs number

Its all about stages of career. Pac got Mab at the right time. I also felt he got Oscar at the right time.

Im not saying Singursat has Mannys number. Im saying he got Pac at the right time just as Manny got Barrera at the right time.

But thats totally different GAME, Manny Pacquiao wasn't anywhere close to what he is now and he was still very raw and young plus that was 10 years ago. And we all know that he was badly weight-drained thats why he lost his title on the scales.

Thats totally different to MAB who was in his peak, because he became a better boxer after losing to Junior Jones x2. And he was coming off the best wins of his career against Johnny Tapia, Naseem Hamed, Erik Morales 2, Kevin Kelley, ETC.

And he was P4P number 3, yes he was having problems prior to the fight, but you still can't say MAB wasn't in his peak because he was.

And you say he made his pro debut in 1989, but what does that prove ? he was 15 when he made his pro debut. And and about 28 of his fights were against mediocre opponents, because he was a boy fighting men. He was only 29 in the Manny Pacquiao fight, and he was in his peak coming off his best performances of his career.

Im a big MAB fan but sometimes you just have to be honest, Manny Pacquiao had MAB's number end of. I agree that the 2nd fight doesn't mean that much, but the 1st fight clearly does. That was a great win for Manny Pacquiao, and i was sad when i see it.

But facts are facts GAME Manny Pacquiao has got MAB's number, but thats nothing to be ashamed of. Because all great fighters meet a certain style they can't handle, and Manny Pacquiao is a great fighter himself.

Thats your opinion and you can belive what you like but you are very quick to make excuses for Pacs losses. Dont you think it had anything to do with him losing to the better man that night?

I happen to believe boxing is all about stages of career and a fighter may lose to a lesser fighter just because he isnt at his best anymore. There are several examples of this

I do not think that Singursat is better than Pac but he got him at the right time

I do not think Berbick is better than Ali but he got him at the right time

I do not think Rahman is better than Lewis but he got him at the right time

I do not think Willy Wise is better than Chavez but he got him at the right time

and

I do not think Manny is better than Barrera or Oscar. He just got them at the right time.

Thats boxing.

Those examples you have given are totally different to MAB vs Manny Pacquiao, Muhammad Ali had been shot for years. And was suffering from damage to the brain, and had just took a horrible beating off Larry Holmes.

I don't really think Hasim Rahman got Lennox Lewis at the right time, it was more due to Lennox Lewis taking Hasim Rahman lightly. And Lennox Lewis got caught by a lucky punch and if they fought 100 times, they would never happen again. And again i fail to see the comparison here.

That was JCC's 108th fight of course he will lose to bums like that, being 37 and having so many wars. But he did beat him in the rematch, and again this has nothing to do with our discussion.

And i've already explained Manny Pacquiao was still raw, and he was weight drained which is why he lost his title on the scales. That was 10 years ago, totally irrelvant now.

As i've said to you in this thread GAME, MAB was P4P number 3 and was coming off the best performances of his career. And he was at his peak, those examples you gave me there, were fighters that were clearly shot.

Another example was a fighter being seriously weight drained, and still young and raw and was nowhere near at his peak. And the last example was of a fighter taking another fighter too lightly.

I doubt MAB would of taken Manny Pacquiao too lightly, infact has MAB ever taken any opponent lightly ? and again i fail to see how any of those comparison's you put up there are comparable to MAB vs Manny Pacquiao.

Yes MAB did have some troubles outside the ring, but because the fight was so one sided. I really doubt it would of mattered that much anyway. Manny Pacquiao's just too fast for MAB, just like Junior Jones was.

Manny Pacquiao has MAB's number and that is a fact, im a massive MAB fan so don't think im a Manny Pacquiao fan because im not, i do respect the guy but im not a fan. But you just have to admit it but its nothing to be ashamed of, because Manny Pacquiao is an excellent fighter.

[GAME]

By that logic Torrencampo has Pacs number. I dont agree with that but there you go.

[ICB]

By that logic Torrencampo has Pacs number. I dont agree with that but there you go.

Sorry GAME but you've got me confused here bud. Manny Pacquiao beat MAB when he was P4P number 3 and coming off his best performances. And was probably considered to be at his peak at that time, before he fought Manny Pacquiao.

So how does Manny Pacquiao only being 17 years old. Only having his 12 pro fight. And being raw/wild and not being anywhere near his peak, equal to Rustico Torrencampo having Manny Pacquiao's number ?

Or being comparable to MAB vs Manny Pacquiao ? do you seriously believe if they fought now that Rustico Torrencampo would stand a chance ? because he beat an 17 year old version of Manny Pacquiao ?

[GAME]

By that logic Torrencampo has Pacs number. I dont agree with that but there you go.

Sorry GAME but you've got me confused here bud. Manny Pacquiao beat MAB when he was P4P number 3 and coming off his best performances.

So how does Manny Pacquiao only being 17 years old. Only having his 12 pro fight. And being raw/wild and not being anywhere near his peak, equal Rustico Torrencampo having Manny Pacquiao's number ?

Or being comparable to MAB vs Manny Pacquiao. do you seriously believe if they fought now that Rustico Torrencampo would stand a chance ? because he beat an 17 year old version of Manny Pacquiao ?

Are you serioulsy suggesting that If that Manny who got beat by those guys, faced a prime Barrera, he would stand a chance?

I duno why you keep brininging up Barreras ranking back in 2003 cuz he clearly hadnt trained a day for that fight and it was the worst he has ever been entering into any fight. How else do you explain years later when a washed up Barrera coming off a loss took on the new and improved Manny and Pac couldnt land a glove on him. Barrera boxed at his own pace and did want he wanted. Pac couldnt figure him out but won on workrate against a guy who had been boxing since 1989 so he is bound to be showing signs of wear and tear yet manny couldnt even floor him

All im saying is Manny got Marco at the right time and so did the other fighters Ive listed. Doesnt make em better and doesnt mean they have the other guys number . They just won that night but on another night it would have been different.

[ICB]

By that logic Torrencampo has Pacs number. I dont agree with that but there you go.

Sorry GAME but you've got me confused here bud. Manny Pacquiao beat MAB when he was P4P number 3 and coming off his best performances.

So how does Manny Pacquiao only being 17 years old. Only having his 12 pro fight. And being raw/wild and not being anywhere near his peak, equal Rustico Torrencampo having Manny Pacquiao's number ?

Or being comparable to MAB vs Manny Pacquiao. do you seriously believe if they fought now that Rustico Torrencampo would stand a chance ? because he beat an 17 year old version of Manny Pacquiao ?

Are you serioulsy suggesting that If that Manny would got beat by those guys faced a prime Barrera he would stand a chance

I duno why you keep brininging up Barreras ranking back in 2003 cuz he clearly hadnt trained a day for that fight and it was the worst he has ever been entering into any fight. How else do you explain years later when a washed up Barrera coming off a loss took on the new and improved Manny and Pac couldnt land a glove on him. Barrera boxed at his own pace and did want he wanted. Pac couldnt figure him out but won on workrate against a guy who had been boxing since 1989 so he is bound to be showing signs of wear and tear yet manny couldnt even floor him

All im saying is Manny got Marco at the right time and so did the other fighters Ive listed. Doesnt make em better and doesnt mean they have the other guys number . They just won that night but on another night it would have been different.

GAME your making too much of these early losses, Manny Pacquiao was 17 years old for crying out loud. He was only a boy, and the other was when he was weight drained and he was still only 20 years old. And despite Manny Pacquiao being seriously weight drained, and nowhere near his peak. The KO itself was controversial, i thought it was a low blow myself but whatever.

Do you know how many great fighters have had early losses in there career's ? Alexis Arguello, Dick Tiger, Henry Armstrong, ETC. I really don't see how its irrelvant to Manny Pacquiao or these fighters, because the fighters that beat them then would of been battered from pillar to post, if they fought them later in there career.

Im bringing up MAB's ranking because he was considered at his peak then, based on coming off his best performance and thats really the end of it. Yes entering the Manny Pacquiao fight, he wasn't at his peak. Because he did have problems, i never said he didn't.

But he did get beaten one sidedly, and again based on how one sided it was. I don't really think it would of mattered had a 100 percent MAB been in there.

The reason MAB done better in the 2nd fight, was because he fought overly cautious. Not taking hardly any risks, which isn't his style. He couldnt fight on the inside because he was getting out speeded and beat to the punch each time.

And any fighter would look bad against a very experiened legend, who is just on the defensive most of the time. Points wise it was still pretty one sided, and it was actually sad to see that fight. As a MAB fan because that just isn't his style, and when he boxed he would be a mixture of a boxer/puncher.

[GAME]

Sorry GAME but you've got me confused here bud. Manny Pacquiao beat MAB when he was P4P number 3 and coming off his best performances.

So how does Manny Pacquiao only being 17 years old. Only having his 12 pro fight. And being raw/wild and not being anywhere near his peak, equal Rustico Torrencampo having Manny Pacquiao's number ?

Or being comparable to MAB vs Manny Pacquiao. do you seriously believe if they fought now that Rustico Torrencampo would stand a chance ? because he beat an 17 year old version of Manny Pacquiao ?

Are you serioulsy suggesting that If that Manny would got beat by those guys faced a prime Barrera he would stand a chance

I duno why you keep brininging up Barreras ranking back in 2003 cuz he clearly hadnt trained a day for that fight and it was the worst he has ever been entering into any fight. How else do you explain years later when a washed up Barrera coming off a loss took on the new and improved Manny and Pac couldnt land a glove on him. Barrera boxed at his own pace and did want he wanted. Pac couldnt figure him out but won on workrate against a guy who had been boxing since 1989 so he is bound to be showing signs of wear and tear yet manny couldnt even floor him

All im saying is Manny got Marco at the right time and so did the other fighters Ive listed. Doesnt make em better and doesnt mean they have the other guys number . They just won that night but on another night it would have been different.

GAME your making too much of these early losses, Manny Pacquiao was 17 years old for crying out loud. He was only a boy, and the other was when he was weight drained and he was still only 20 years old. And despite Manny Pacquiao being seriously weight drained, and nowhere near his peak. The KO itself was controversial, i thought it was a low blow myself but whatever.

Do you know how many great fighters have had early losses in there career's ? Alexis Arguello, Dick Tiger, Henry Armstrong, ETC. I really don't see how its irrelvant to Manny Pacquiao or these fighters, because the fighters that beat them then would of been battered from pillar to post, if they fought them later in there career.

Im bringing up MAB's ranking because he was considered at his peak then, based on coming off his best performance and thats really the end of it. Yes entering the Manny Pacquiao fight, he wasn't at his peak. Because he did have problems, i never said he didn't.

But he did get beaten one sidedly, and again based on how one sided it was. I don't really think it would of mattered had a 100 percent MAB been in there.

The reason MAB done better in the 2nd fight, was because he fought overly cautious. Not taking hardly any risks, which isn't his style. He couldnt fight on the inside because he was getting out speeded each time.

And any fighter would look bad against a very experiened legend, who is just on the defensive most of the time. Points wise it was still pretty one sided, and it was actually sad to see that fight. As a MAB fan because that just isn't his style, and when he boxed he would be a mixture of a boxer/puncher.

Which is my point that its a bout stages of career and Manny may have lost early in his career but it doesnt mean those guys have his number. I wouldnt say Oscar has Chavez' number either

We are gonna have to agree to disagree on this one ice or we will just keep on going round in cirlces repeating the same points.

Ive heard what you say and I disagree. I say that any fighter can be beaten at any stage of their career but on a different night they may have beaten the same guy. Barrera and Pac can both say this about their losses.

[The Congressman]

GAMEboy is digging deeper and deeper grave for himself with his poor logic. 'So sad.

[GAME]

GAMEboy is digging deeper and deeper grave for himself with his poor logic. 'So sad.

Ironic that you use a word that is so often used to describe Pacfans

[Violent Demise]

But thats totally different GAME, Manny Pacquiao wasn't anywhere close to what he is now and he was still very raw and young plus that was 10 years ago. And we all know that he was badly weight-drained thats why he lost his title on the scales.

Thats totally different to MAB who was in his peak, because he became a better boxer after losing to Junior Jones x2. And he was coming off the best wins of his career against Johnny Tapia, Naseem Hamed, Erik Morales 2, Kevin Kelley, ETC.

And he was P4P number 3, yes he was having problems prior to the fight, but you still can't say MAB wasn't in his peak because he was.

And you say he made his pro debut in 1989, but what does that prove ? he was 15 when he made his pro debut. And and about 28 of his fights were against mediocre opponents, because he was a boy fighting men. He was only 29 in the Manny Pacquiao fight, and he was in his peak coming off his best performances of his career.

Im a big MAB fan but sometimes you just have to be honest, Manny Pacquiao had MAB's number end of. I agree that the 2nd fight doesn't mean that much, but the 1st fight clearly does. That was a great win for Manny Pacquiao, and i was sad when i see it.

But facts are facts GAME Manny Pacquiao has got MAB's number, but thats nothing to be ashamed of. Because all great fighters meet a certain style they can't handle, and Manny Pacquiao is a great fighter himself.

Thats your opinion and you can belive what you like but you are very quick to make excuses for Pacs losses. Dont you think it had anything to do with him losing to the better man that night?

I happen to believe boxing is all about stages of career and a fighter may lose to a lesser fighter just because he isnt at his best anymore. There are several examples of this

I do not think that Singursat is better than Pac but he got him at the right time

I do not think Berbick is better than Ali but he got him at the right time

I do not think Rahman is better than Lewis but he got him at the right time

I do not think Willy Wise is better than Chavez but he got him at the right time

and

I do not think Manny is better than Barrera or Oscar. He just got them at the right time.

Thats boxing.

I don't really think Hasim Rahman got Lennox Lewis at the right time, it was more due to Lennox Lewis taking Hasim Rahman lightly. And Lennox Lewis got caught by a lucky punch and if they fought 100 times, they would never happen again. And again i fail to see the comparison here.

I always take exception when i read something like that. Cuz it makes no sense. The main objection in Boxing is to hit your opponent. Why is Rahman's punch lucky?

[LEGION]

Thats your opinion and you can belive what you like but you are very quick to make excuses for Pacs losses. Dont you think it had anything to do with him losing to the better man that night?

I happen to believe boxing is all about stages of career and a fighter may lose to a lesser fighter just because he isnt at his best anymore. There are several examples of this

I do not think that Singursat is better than Pac but he got him at the right time

I do not think Berbick is better than Ali but he got him at the right time

I do not think Rahman is better than Lewis but he got him at the right time

I do not think Willy Wise is better than Chavez but he got him at the right time

and

I do not think Manny is better than Barrera or Oscar. He just got them at the right time.

Thats boxing.

I don't really think Hasim Rahman got Lennox Lewis at the right time, it was more due to Lennox Lewis taking Hasim Rahman lightly. And Lennox Lewis got caught by a lucky punch and if they fought 100 times, they would never happen again. And again i fail to see the comparison here.

I always take exception when i read something like that. Cuz it makes no sense. The main objection in Boxing is to hit your opponent. Why is Rahman's punch lucky?

For real. I hate to this day watching Lennox get knocked silly like that; but that is one punch I can say wasn't lucky. And as you said; they make a living off throwing punches and though Rahman isn't the best HW that ever lived he didn't get where he did throwing lucky ones. Flip the coin and you could say Lewis got lucky in the rematch.

[Violent Demise]

I don't really think Hasim Rahman got Lennox Lewis at the right time, it was more due to Lennox Lewis taking Hasim Rahman lightly. And Lennox Lewis got caught by a lucky punch and if they fought 100 times, they would never happen again. And again i fail to see the comparison here.

I always take exception when i read something like that. Cuz it makes no sense. The main objection in Boxing is to hit your opponent. Why is Rahman's punch lucky?

For real. I hate to this day watching Lennox get knocked silly like that; but that is one punch I can say wasn't lucky. And as you said; they make a living off throwing punches and though Rahman isn't the best HW that ever lived he didn't get where he did throwing lucky ones. Flip the coin and you could say Lewis got lucky in the rematch.

I thought it was one of the greatest things ever. Nothing against Lewis. But that idiotic grin on his face as he backed away with his hands down irritated me. Than BAM! Down he goes. And hard. Looked like a sniper got his ass. All time great classic moment

[LEGION]

I always take exception when i read something like that. Cuz it makes no sense. The main objection in Boxing is to hit your opponent. Why is Rahman's punch lucky?

For real. I hate to this day watching Lennox get knocked silly like that; but that is one punch I can say wasn't lucky. And as you said; they make a living off throwing punches and though Rahman isn't the best HW that ever lived he didn't get where he did throwing lucky ones. Flip the coin and you could say Lewis got lucky in the rematch.

I thought it was one of the greatest things ever. Nothing against Lewis. But that idiotic grin on his face as he backed away with his hands down irritated me. Than BAM! Down he goes. And hard. Looked like a sniper got his ass. All time great classic moment

Well I guess it depends on viewpoint; I just about needed kleenex and IV fluids to keep me afloat.

But I'll say in a way I agree with you because it humiliated Lewis enough to get his sh#t back together and about decapitate Rahman in the rematch; which was good enough for me. Teach him to be making movies and showing up to a training camp weeks before a fight if I remember right. Lessons learned te hard way are sometimes the best.

[porkypara]

Is an exciting popular KO boxer bad for boxing?


Got to be one of the stupidest thread titles I have ever read since I have been posting on this site.

Coz the title is so crazey/stupid I have not bothered to read to even read any of the posts on it.

[DaxxKahn]

Thats your opinion and you can belive what you like but you are very quick to make excuses for Pacs losses. Dont you think it had anything to do with him losing to the better man that night?

I happen to believe boxing is all about stages of career and a fighter may lose to a lesser fighter just because he isnt at his best anymore. There are several examples of this

I do not think that Singursat is better than Pac but he got him at the right time

I do not think Berbick is better than Ali but he got him at the right time

I do not think Rahman is better than Lewis but he got him at the right time

I do not think Willy Wise is better than Chavez but he got him at the right time

and

I do not think Manny is better than Barrera or Oscar. He just got them at the right time.

Thats boxing.

I don't really think Hasim Rahman got Lennox Lewis at the right time, it was more due to Lennox Lewis taking Hasim Rahman lightly. And Lennox Lewis got caught by a lucky punch and if they fought 100 times, they would never happen again. And again i fail to see the comparison here.

I always take exception when i read something like that. Cuz it makes no sense. The main objection in Boxing is to hit your opponent. Why is Rahman's punch lucky?

It wasn't a l;ucky punch it was a well timed shot against a fighter who came in Cocky, undertrained thinking there was no need to take his opponent seriously.

Same fate he suffered in the McCall fight.

I am the biggest Lewis fan on this board as most the long time members know but the thruth is the truth.

Though it killed me to see Lennox dropped like that he showed what he was made of by coming back to not only win the rematch but completly dominate it and make Rahman a fool of.

He did what a champion should.

[ICB]

Thats your opinion and you can belive what you like but you are very quick to make excuses for Pacs losses. Dont you think it had anything to do with him losing to the better man that night?

I happen to believe boxing is all about stages of career and a fighter may lose to a lesser fighter just because he isnt at his best anymore. There are several examples of this

I do not think that Singursat is better than Pac but he got him at the right time

I do not think Berbick is better than Ali but he got him at the right time

I do not think Rahman is better than Lewis but he got him at the right time

I do not think Willy Wise is better than Chavez but he got him at the right time

and

I do not think Manny is better than Barrera or Oscar. He just got them at the right time.

Thats boxing.

I don't really think Hasim Rahman got Lennox Lewis at the right time, it was more due to Lennox Lewis taking Hasim Rahman lightly. And Lennox Lewis got caught by a lucky punch and if they fought 100 times, they would never happen again. And again i fail to see the comparison here.

I always take exception when i read something like that. Cuz it makes no sense. The main objection in Boxing is to hit your opponent. Why is Rahman's punch lucky?

I mean lucky in a way that if they fought 100 times, that would never happen again. Because Hasim Rahman clearly isn't nowhere near Lennox Lewis's class. But i agree that Lennox Lewis deserved it for acting like an idiot, going backwards in a straight line then dropping his hands, what does he think is going to happen ?