The definitive Mayweather/Pac article

[miron_lang]

Great article. All claims are backed by solid data .

Al Berstein and Thomas Hauser are two great boxing Journalist

[Greig]

Agree with you totally Miron - guys like Bernstein, Hauser, Mike Katz and George Kimball are people that boxing NEEDS.

Fantastic writers, and in Al's case broadcaster as well.

[miron_lang]

Agree with you totally Miron - guys like Bernstein, Hauser, Mike Katz and George Kimball are people that boxing NEEDS.

Fantastic writers, and in Al's case broadcaster as well.

That's (Article) the complete picture IMO. He didn't insinuate in any way that Pac is innocent but made some examples of fighters with names and date's and their cases with prohibited substances.

I think he feels that he needs to add the many errors that GBP made during the negotiation, Oscar and Schaeffer made some very elementary mistakes, Cant they remember what they said just a few months ago? and totally look moronic making statements that is the complete opposite of what they said just a few months prior.


I just wish some of the guys can write as good as Bernstein and Hauser.

for the thread Greig

[Greig]

Thanks Miron.

I haven't seen the cool click smiley in years!!

[amat]

It's an interesting viewpoint but let's not forget that Hauser has shown a propensity for dislike against Golden Boy in the past. The Judah-Mosley piece was interesting but I believe that was all Jin Mosley's fault. A Mosley-Mayweather matchup may be a little trying as far as how the testing goes.

[blegit]

After reading this very long article I'll just go over a couple of things. First off, I am a Pac fan but I like boxing better than any fighter and I like the truth better than boxing. So I truly keep it real as far as I see. With that said, this article was not fair or balanced. Both parties made bad statements that bit them later. Freddie Roach made a number of statements as to why Pac didn't like needles, blood drawn, etc and later shown to be apparently inaccurate. I am not condemning Pac and what he is doing can, and I hope, be truly natural. But as I bicker with fellow boxing fans I do not get offended for them thinking what they think because Pac is not exactly doing typical things since moving up. The author states what Pac is doing has been done before. Really? Maybe, but who are these fighters who did this before? Pac is the only fighter in boxing history to become world champ in 7 weight classes. In Pac's 5 fights before he started moving up in several weight classes he KO'd 2 of 5 opponents. Since Pac moved in 3 different weight classes in just 4 fights he has KO'd every opponent. 4 of 4. Pac has gotten stronger p4p and quicker since moving up. Even his conditioning coach states the quicker part. Its not the fact that Pac is beating the top guys at different weight classes but how he is doing it. He basically lost maybe 2 or 3 rounds in his 4 fights against bigger and mostly top fighters. Pac may be completely clean but it is asinine to think people are wrong for thinking otherwise. Clean, done before, or not what Pac is doing is at the very least almost never done. Even ousting proven steroid cheats. Achieving more than whats been done before in light of this being the steroid era. Thats where the speculation comes from. When Barry Bonds did what never had been done before by hitting 73 HRs,in the steroid era, if you weren't a die hard fan of Bonds you soon became suspicious. Why not? He ousted everyone even steroid cheats. The author also states what BHop is doing has never been done. WRONG. George Foreman. Since BHop has been 40 he has gone 4-3. Nothing exhilarating. George Foreman turned 40 and went 17-3. Not to mention going 9-0 as a 39 year old after coming off a 10 year retirement. None of this proves anybody is right in there speculation of Pac and since Pac will not accept the random blood tests no one can say he is proven clean. But this article definitely has a purpose of defending Pac and at the very least using misleading statements to do so.

[generalbulldog]

After reading this very long article I'll just go over a couple of things. First off, I am a Pac fan but I like boxing better than any fighter and I like the truth better than boxing. So I truly keep it real as far as I see. With that said, this article was not neutral. I am not condemning Pac and what he is doing can, and I hope, be truly natural. But as I bicker with fellow boxing fans I do not get offended for them thinking what they think because Pac is not exactly doing typical things since moving up. The author states what Pac is doing has been done before. Really? Maybe, but who are these fighters who did this before? Pac is the only fighter in boxing history to become world champ in 7 weight classes. In Pac's 5 fights before he started moving up in several weight classes he KO'd 2 of 5 opponents. Since Pac moved in 3 different weight classes in just 4 fights he has KO'd every opponent. 4 of 4. Pac has gotten stronger p4p and quicker since moving up. Even his conditioning coach states the quicker part. Its not the fact that Pac is beating the top guys at different weight classes but how he is doing it. He basically lost maybe 2 or 3 rounds in his 4 fights against bigger and better fighters. Pac may be completely clean but it is asinine to think people are wrong for thinking otherwise. Clean, done before, or not what Pac is doing is at the very least almost never done. Even ousting proven steroid cheats. Thats where the speculation comes from. The author also states what BHop is doing has never been done. WRONG. George Foreman. Since BHop has been 40 he has gone 4-3. Nothing exhilarating. George Foreman turned 40 and went 17-3. Not to mention going 9-0 as a 39 year old after coming off a 10 year retirement. None of this proves anybody is right in there specualtion or their defending of Pac. But this article definitely has a purpose of defending Pac and at the very least using misleading statements to do so.

Dude man give it up, you saying youre a Pac fan is like saying Bruce Lee is a Floyd fan. Almost all of your posts are about Floyd or something to do with 1 of FLoyd's prospective opponents. You ain't a boxing fan. But a fan of one fighter.
Back to the topic at hand. Since people are trying to discredit the writer. This guy is a pulitzer prize nominated writer, he ain't no nuthugger of anyone. The article is also very well researched. It's a neutral article. Just because it does not conform to your views, doesn't mean it's a shitty article or a shitty writer.