Resumes - Mayweather vs Pacquiao

[Gandalf]

Manny Pac's resume swarms all over that of Mayweather's over the past five years. I don't think Manny has won all of his fights, but he has fought the better opponents P4P all in all.

Would a win by Floyd over Shane make him equal or even surpass Pac's resume?

Well, I did say over the past five years. It would be an impressive win, but Cotto arguably got to Mosley already. I do think the Cotto/Mosley fight was very close though and it could have gone either way.

Manny had the clear opportunity to make his legacy and turned his nose up at the idea of a fair and equal drug testing procedure. No matter what Manny does from here on out, his legacy is seriously tarnished by his inability to face Mayweather. Manny has the better resume but he has done himself in by chickening out of the Mayweather fight.

I think we will see some of the fallout in the Pac/Clottey PPV figures.

[killersheep]

Manny Pac's resume swarms all over that of Mayweather's over the past five years. I don't think Manny has won all of his fights, but he has fought the better opponents P4P all in all.

Would a win by Floyd over Shane make him equal or even surpass Pac's resume?

Well, I did say over the past five years. It would be an impressive win, but Cotto arguably got to Mosley already. I do think the Cotto/Mosley fight was very close though and it could have gone either way.

Manny had the clear opportunity to make his legacy and turned his nose up at the idea of a fair and equal drug testing procedure. No matter what Manny does from here on out, his legacy is seriously tarnished by his inability to face Mayweather. Manny has the better resume but he has done himself in by chickening out of the Mayweather fight.

I think we will see some of the fallout in the Pac/Clottey PPV figures.

I think another factor that will effect those PPV figures is the fact that they are trying to get Margarito back on the card. For me personally I usually buy the big PPVs, and my decision to get this one or not lies strictly with the fact of Margarito gets on it or not. I know I'm not in the majority on this, but I'm not alone either.

[CFH]

Would a win by Floyd over Shane make him equal or even surpass Pac's resume?

Well, I did say over the past five years. It would be an impressive win, but Cotto arguably got to Mosley already. I do think the Cotto/Mosley fight was very close though and it could have gone either way.

Manny had the clear opportunity to make his legacy and turned his nose up at the idea of a fair and equal drug testing procedure. No matter what Manny does from here on out, his legacy is seriously tarnished by his inability to face Mayweather. Manny has the better resume but he has done himself in by chickening out of the Mayweather fight.

I think we will see some of the fallout in the Pac/Clottey PPV figures.

I think another factor that will effect those PPV figures is the fact that they are trying to get Margarito back on the card. For me personally I usually buy the big PPVs, and my decision to get this one or not lies strictly with the fact of Margarito gets on it or not. I know I'm not in the majority on this, but I'm not alone either.

So you won't be buying Pac - Clottey is Margarito is on the card? I won't be buying it anyways, but I hope a lot of people take the same position you are (though I doubt many will).

[killersheep]

Well, I did say over the past five years. It would be an impressive win, but Cotto arguably got to Mosley already. I do think the Cotto/Mosley fight was very close though and it could have gone either way.

Manny had the clear opportunity to make his legacy and turned his nose up at the idea of a fair and equal drug testing procedure. No matter what Manny does from here on out, his legacy is seriously tarnished by his inability to face Mayweather. Manny has the better resume but he has done himself in by chickening out of the Mayweather fight.

I think we will see some of the fallout in the Pac/Clottey PPV figures.

I think another factor that will effect those PPV figures is the fact that they are trying to get Margarito back on the card. For me personally I usually buy the big PPVs, and my decision to get this one or not lies strictly with the fact of Margarito gets on it or not. I know I'm not in the majority on this, but I'm not alone either.

So you won't be buying Pac - Clottey is Margarito is on the card? I won't be buying it anyways, but I hope a lot of people take the same position you are (though I doubt many will).

That is correct my $50-$60 contribution to Arum and co. hinges on that single event.

[piye]

Facts are in the last four fights for both fighter they have fought three common opponents in Oscar, Hatton and JMM but Mayweather is deemed to not have fought good opponents recently and Pac to fight everyone!

[JJson]

From InTheNeutralCorner

With regards to the motive for Floyd's demand being suspicious, please read this link. Although it puts the blame on a lot of people, read the item with regards to Mayweather

.

This statement by the author of that article vitiate any evidence of his objectivity. He wrote,

If I blame anyone above all others, it’s Mayweather. If he hadn’t introduced this blood-testing regime proposal, the fight happens. It was a wholly unreasonable request. Mayweather should know better than anyone that a 16-year-old fighter can rise from 106 pounds to 147 pounds by the time he gets into his 30s and still be great, because like Pacquiao, he did it, too. The only evidence Mayweather had was the suspicion of his shady dad, which isn’t worth a damn. Even if Mayweather truly thinks Pacquiao is on steroids – and Mayweather seems to think lots of people are on steroids now, like Mosley, for whom there also is zero evidence of ongoing PED abuse – I’m not sure what he’s so worried about. He’s said many times he can beat Pacquiao with ease, because Pacquiao sucks, basically. If you can make $40 million easily beating someone, steroids or no, why not just do it?

He is saying that Floyd Mayweather is wrong to seek a level playing field in this competition, and should just risk his health and livlihood to make forty million dollars. The anti-intellectualism that inundate this kind of reasoning is livid. Basic commonsense and objective reasoning would take examination of this point to a contemplation of the value of forty million dollars in exchange for ones mental equilibrium, or even one's life. This writer seem to be in a time warp extending back centuries, when slaves were put to fight each other and the concerns over their health was minimal to the concerns for the audience to enjoy the bloody and brutal show. This is how he comes off to me, and I am sure also to many others.

Floyd said that he could beat Manny. He did not say that he could beat Manny on steriods. What level of miscomprehension is so pervasive in the mindset of this analyst, that he is unable to parse the difference between these two things? Manny also said he could beat Floyd, so why should he blame Floyd more for introducing the condition, than Manny for not taking it? Either way the fight would have been made.

Nothing he puts out in that piece impeaches my argument that our experience with the deaths and permanent brain damage suffered by some fighters should have made us, logically, very receptive to the notion of olympic style drug testing. This writer, it would appear, belong to the group of people I identify as the Floyd Haters. Their visceral yearning to see him get beat down has conditioned a kind of madness in their cognitive output. I find it agonizingly incomprehensible that these people, who are probably paid to provide objective analysis on boxing and other sport related issues, and who are in effect opinion leaders of a sort, can be so concretely oriented in their reasonings. Floyd Mayweather's concern for his life and mental health after boxing supercedes his craving for money. I guess this sort of contributes cognitive dissonance to those who stereotype boxers as pugilist without a brain, and thus should have no concerns about their mental longevity. Please, I am not impressed by these kinds of experts.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

RESPONSE TO JJson: (sorry, I don't seem to be able to put your quotes in their individual boxes)

First of all, can you make your English simpler? I haven't read any posters here with a more heavy use of the English language than you. We are in a boxing forum to discuss boxing (or non-boxing) issues, and we're not here to practice our English writing skills. But I do commend you for your excellent writing skills (although we may disagree with the content).

Quote:
He is saying that Floyd Mayweather is wrong to seek a level playing field in this competition, and should just risk his health and livlihood to make forty million dollars. The anti-intellectualism that inundate this kind of reasoning is livid. Basic commonsense and objective reasoning would take examination of this point to a contemplation of the value of forty million dollars in exchange for ones mental equilibrium, or even one's life. This writer seem to be in a time warp extending back centuries, when slaves were put to fight each other and the concerns over their health was minimal to the concerns for the audience to enjoy the bloody and brutal show. This is how he comes off to me, and I am sure also to many others.

What the author seems to be implying is why ask for the blood test NOW when the only evidence he has is the suspicion of his dad. And Floyd seems to be concerned now with the level of the playing field. Was he concerned with that when he fought Marquez? He already had a lot of advantage over Marquez and yet he still did not seem to have any intention in complying with the agreed weight. Floyd will try to get all the advantage if he can dictate the terms & I don't see anything wrong with that. A smart boxer will be doing that. Unfortunately for him, he was supposed to face Pacquiao who many considers as of equal stature to him (some would even say as above Floyd considering that Pac is the current P4P) and to whom he cannot impose his terms.

Quote:
Floyd said that he could beat Manny. He did not say that he could beat Manny on steriods. What level of miscomprehension is so pervasive in the mindset of this analyst, that he is unable to parse the difference between these two things? Manny also said he could beat Floyd, so why should he blame Floyd more for introducing the condition, than Manny for not taking it? Either way the fight would have been made.

How could Floyd know how Manny is like on steroids? So, are you implying that Floyd thinks that Manny was indeed on steroids during his previous bouts & that he does not think that he can beat that Manny?

Quote:
Nothing he puts out in that piece impeaches my argument that our experience with the deaths and permanent brain damage suffered by some fighters should have made us, logically, very receptive to the notion of olympic style drug testing. This writer, it would appear, belong to the group of people I identify as the Floyd Haters. Their visceral yearning to see him get beat down has conditioned a kind of madness in their cognitive output. I find it agonizingly incomprehensible that these people, who are probably paid to provide objective analysis on boxing and other sport related issues, and who are in effect opinion leaders of a sort, can be so concretely oriented in their reasonings. Floyd Mayweather's concern for his life and mental health after boxing supercedes his craving for money. I guess this sort of contributes cognitive dissonance to those who stereotype boxers as pugilist without a brain, and thus should have no concerns about their mental longevity. Please, I am not impressed by these kinds of experts.[/quote]

You are questioning the credibility of this writer even though he puts the blame on almost everyone who were involved in the negotiations. You accuse him of being a Floyd Hater for finding fault in Mayweather. Isn't he also a Pac Hater for that item that he wrote about Manny? His article appears to me as an unbias writing.
Which writer do you find credible? Can you show me an article that you consider as credible & unbias?

We all have our own prejudices. We may find that both Pacquiao & Mayweather are at fault for their fight not going through but we tend to find more fault in one over the other. For anyone to even think that either of them is clean & innocent in that megafight negotiation fiasco is the one showing his extreme bias and not making sense.

[InTheNeutralCorner]

From InTheNeutralCorner

With regards to the motive for Floyd's demand being suspicious, please read this link. Although it puts the blame on a lot of people, read the item with regards to Mayweather

.

This statement by the author of that article vitiate any evidence of his objectivity. He wrote,

If I blame anyone above all others, it’s Mayweather. If he hadn’t introduced this blood-testing regime proposal, the fight happens. It was a wholly unreasonable request. Mayweather should know better than anyone that a 16-year-old fighter can rise from 106 pounds to 147 pounds by the time he gets into his 30s and still be great, because like Pacquiao, he did it, too. The only evidence Mayweather had was the suspicion of his shady dad, which isn’t worth a damn. Even if Mayweather truly thinks Pacquiao is on steroids – and Mayweather seems to think lots of people are on steroids now, like Mosley, for whom there also is zero evidence of ongoing PED abuse – I’m not sure what he’s so worried about. He’s said many times he can beat Pacquiao with ease, because Pacquiao sucks, basically. If you can make $40 million easily beating someone, steroids or no, why not just do it?

He is saying that Floyd Mayweather is wrong to seek a level playing field in this competition, and should just risk his health and livlihood to make forty million dollars. The anti-intellectualism that inundate this kind of reasoning is livid. Basic commonsense and objective reasoning would take examination of this point to a contemplation of the value of forty million dollars in exchange for ones mental equilibrium, or even one's life. This writer seem to be in a time warp extending back centuries, when slaves were put to fight each other and the concerns over their health was minimal to the concerns for the audience to enjoy the bloody and brutal show. This is how he comes off to me, and I am sure also to many others.

Floyd said that he could beat Manny. He did not say that he could beat Manny on steriods. What level of miscomprehension is so pervasive in the mindset of this analyst, that he is unable to parse the difference between these two things? Manny also said he could beat Floyd, so why should he blame Floyd more for introducing the condition, than Manny for not taking it? Either way the fight would have been made.

Nothing he puts out in that piece impeaches my argument that our experience with the deaths and permanent brain damage suffered by some fighters should have made us, logically, very receptive to the notion of olympic style drug testing. This writer, it would appear, belong to the group of people I identify as the Floyd Haters. Their visceral yearning to see him get beat down has conditioned a kind of madness in their cognitive output. I find it agonizingly incomprehensible that these people, who are probably paid to provide objective analysis on boxing and other sport related issues, and who are in effect opinion leaders of a sort, can be so concretely oriented in their reasonings. Floyd Mayweather's concern for his life and mental health after boxing supercedes his craving for money. I guess this sort of contributes cognitive dissonance to those who stereotype boxers as pugilist without a brain, and thus should have no concerns about their mental longevity. Please, I am not impressed by these kinds of experts.

I just realized something with regards to you calling that author a Floyd Hater. You didn't read his whole article, did you?

[InTheNeutralCorner]

Manny Pac's resume swarms all over that of Mayweather's over the past five years. I don't think Manny has won all of his fights, but he has fought the better opponents P4P all in all.

Would a win by Floyd over Shane make him equal or even surpass Pac's resume?

Well, I did say over the past five years. It would be an impressive win, but Cotto arguably got to Mosley already. I do think the Cotto/Mosley fight was very close though and it could have gone either way.

Manny had the clear opportunity to make his legacy and turned his nose up at the idea of a fair and equal drug testing procedure. No matter what Manny does from here on out, his legacy is seriously tarnished by his inability to face Mayweather. Manny has the better resume but he has done himself in by chickening out of the Mayweather fight.

I think we will see some of the fallout in the Pac/Clottey PPV figures.

It's true that Manny's legacy is tarnished by his inability to face Mayweather. But that also holds true for Floyd. They may both be remembered as the P4P greats who chickened out from fighting each other.

There will definitely be some fallout in the Pacquiao/Clottey PPV figures, but if it hits 700,000 buys I will consider that a success. Remember that Clottey is not a PPV attraction and we have a fight here between two non-American.

[JazMerkin]

Both fighters have legacies that near on everybody presently under-appreciates. Their resumes in actuality are as good as any from the recent golden eras. Should both win their upcoming fights, they will almost certainly fight.

I personally blame Arum most of all because he seemed the least keen to make the match. People blame the fighters, but the fact is that in all of Pac's last 3 negotiations (pre-Clottey), there has been a point where Manny hasn't wanted to budge on an issue and the fight was nearly off. With Oscar, Hatton and Cotto, Arum flew to the Phillipines to fix the issue and make the fight. This time, he seemed delighted the fight was off and doing the best to get out of it.

I suspect he's worried that Manny won't win or there wasn't enough time to promote it and he'd rather make more money off a few more in-house fights like Margarito or Valero, than risk burning the current Pacquiao momentum. This bastard has ruined boxing more than any other promoter as far as I'm concerned, but most people are unaware of his role in weak PPVs, fights never happening and the creation of more alphabets. So like many thing, it's Arum's fault.