Pacquiao: Mayweather Doesn't Want to Fight

[C-Lo]

Mate

Oscar Dela was not not at his best but he will not lose to Cotto the way he lost to Pacquiao. Dela Hoya would land a few left hooks because cotto is not as slippery as pacquiao. and landing a few left hooks could mean a LOT in a fight im sure you'll agree.

on Hatton. same case, you think Hatton will get caught by right hooks a few seconds into the fight againts Cotto? If you look at the phase of PAC-Hatton. very few can keep up with that and Hatton got sparked because he's so aggressive and Pac is accustomed to that phase. in Cotto Hatton got a target that he can actually hit.

My answer is Cotto wouldn't handle either one of them in the same situation. 50/50 on both fights.

You obviously don't watch much Boxing.

You picked Taylor to win the "super six," right?

Thanks Fens! I gave Taylor a shot! Does it count if I wrote a disclaimer? I said he "had the ability to" win the Super Six if he stopped running out of gas. I actually predicted Kessler to win.

At this point, I think Mayweathers probably pulling for Cotto. It's not that he doesn't want Pac. He probably takes either of them fairly easy. I think he outsmarted himself before. Taking Marquez and beating him better was a good way to get leverage for the Pac negotiations. If the public never believes you're better than a certain fighter, you might give up more to prove them wrong. Mayweather beating Marquez was good up to a certain point (no how many small man excuses are made for marquez) as Marquez was the measuring stick. Shutting out marquez was just a little counter productive to money the fight could be making. Mayweather was thinking about his share of the pac fight when he blew out marquez. But overall everyones share for that fight could be smaller now because many people will buy into the unvalid but every present transitive theory (if fighter A goes life and death with fighter B ... and Fighter C embarasses Fighter B... Then Fighter C will also beat fighter A pretty easily.)

A Cotto win shocks the world and everyone forgets his drubbing by margacheato and buys into the loaded glove theory.... He is given a clean slate by those outside of boxing, instantly labeled as the man that beat the man (in Pacquaio) and "legend killer" who's coming after Mayweather. Then they meet in the ring and we get Holyfield/Douglas Part 2.

I can see Mayweather using the Marquez fight as his negotiation tool. But I think Pac's is still stronger. Money can say "I dominated the man that took Pacquiao life and death to beat." But then Manny can say "I dominated and knocked out someone you beat by split decision and someone you took 10 rounds to beat who I beat in 2."

I don't know, that's just me. I just think either way it will be a messy negotiation for a potential Pac/Mayweather fight.

[JazMerkin]

You obviously don't watch much Boxing.

You picked Taylor to win the "super six," right?

Thanks Fens! I gave Taylor a shot! Does it count if I wrote a disclaimer? I said he "had the ability to" win the Super Six if he stopped running out of gas. I actually predicted Kessler to win.

At this point, I think Mayweathers probably pulling for Cotto. It's not that he doesn't want Pac. He probably takes either of them fairly easy. I think he outsmarted himself before. Taking Marquez and beating him better was a good way to get leverage for the Pac negotiations. If the public never believes you're better than a certain fighter, you might give up more to prove them wrong. Mayweather beating Marquez was good up to a certain point (no how many small man excuses are made for marquez) as Marquez was the measuring stick. Shutting out marquez was just a little counter productive to money the fight could be making. Mayweather was thinking about his share of the pac fight when he blew out marquez. But overall everyones share for that fight could be smaller now because many people will buy into the unvalid but every present transitive theory (if fighter A goes life and death with fighter B ... and Fighter C embarasses Fighter B... Then Fighter C will also beat fighter A pretty easily.)

A Cotto win shocks the world and everyone forgets his drubbing by margacheato and buys into the loaded glove theory.... He is given a clean slate by those outside of boxing, instantly labeled as the man that beat the man (in Pacquaio) and "legend killer" who's coming after Mayweather. Then they meet in the ring and we get Holyfield/Douglas Part 2.

I can see Mayweather using the Marquez fight as his negotiation tool. But I think Pac's is still stronger. Money can say "I dominated the man that took Pacquiao life and death to beat." But then Manny can say "I dominated and knocked out someone you beat by split decision and someone you took 10 rounds to beat who I beat in 2."

I don't know, that's just me. I just think either way it will be a messy negotiation for a potential Pac/Mayweather fight.

It won't matter for shit about who beat who more effectively or who scored a KO quicker. What it will come down to is PPV figures. Because of the fact that Mayweather had significantly more viewers for his fights with ODLH, Hatton & JMM, the Pacquiao-Cotto fight will have to do at least 1m+ viewers for Pacquiao to be claiming an equal slice of the pie.

If you use the argument of effectiveness in winning, each could counter the other's argument for why their win over said fighter meant more.

[mnmc10]

id go for a one sided beating and a ko to finish it than to watch a boring fight with very little punches thrown.

[C-Lo]

You picked Taylor to win the "super six," right?

Thanks Fens! I gave Taylor a shot! Does it count if I wrote a disclaimer? I said he "had the ability to" win the Super Six if he stopped running out of gas. I actually predicted Kessler to win.

At this point, I think Mayweathers probably pulling for Cotto. It's not that he doesn't want Pac. He probably takes either of them fairly easy. I think he outsmarted himself before. Taking Marquez and beating him better was a good way to get leverage for the Pac negotiations. If the public never believes you're better than a certain fighter, you might give up more to prove them wrong. Mayweather beating Marquez was good up to a certain point (no how many small man excuses are made for marquez) as Marquez was the measuring stick. Shutting out marquez was just a little counter productive to money the fight could be making. Mayweather was thinking about his share of the pac fight when he blew out marquez. But overall everyones share for that fight could be smaller now because many people will buy into the unvalid but every present transitive theory (if fighter A goes life and death with fighter B ... and Fighter C embarasses Fighter B... Then Fighter C will also beat fighter A pretty easily.)

A Cotto win shocks the world and everyone forgets his drubbing by margacheato and buys into the loaded glove theory.... He is given a clean slate by those outside of boxing, instantly labeled as the man that beat the man (in Pacquaio) and "legend killer" who's coming after Mayweather. Then they meet in the ring and we get Holyfield/Douglas Part 2.

I can see Mayweather using the Marquez fight as his negotiation tool. But I think Pac's is still stronger. Money can say "I dominated the man that took Pacquiao life and death to beat." But then Manny can say "I dominated and knocked out someone you beat by split decision and someone you took 10 rounds to beat who I beat in 2."

I don't know, that's just me. I just think either way it will be a messy negotiation for a potential Pac/Mayweather fight.

It won't matter for shit about who beat who more effectively or who scored a KO quicker. What it will come down to is PPV figures. Because of the fact that Mayweather had significantly more viewers for his fights with ODLH, Hatton & JMM, the Pacquiao-Cotto fight will have to do at least 1m+ viewers for Pacquiao to be claiming an equal slice of the pie.

If you use the argument of effectiveness in winning, each could counter the other's argument for why their win over said fighter meant more.

I didn't even think about the PPV numbers. In that sense, it's a no-brainer Mayweather wins that argument.