You can not use Manny/Shane as proof of how Manny/PBF will go

[mnmc10]

i agree and i also said the same thing on another thread.

[Ant Live]

All threads with Mosley name in it should be LOCKED!!! Better yet, CLOSE!!!

[BIG H]

Idiots will try and say that because Floyd couldn't knock Shane down... but manny could that this automatically means that manny is better.

That is a lot like saying that because Mosley stopped Margarito and knocked him down several times... whilst Margarito lasted the distance with Manny... that Shane is better than manny... obviously last night showed that this is not the case.

What I think it shows is that Manny is better fighting guys who are there, when they're on their bike he is not at his best. I think Floyd would capitalize on this and soften Manny up with some potshots... it'd be the typical Floyd... spending 3-4 rounds figuring a guy out and then pretty much shutting them out from there, Manny's phenomenal athleticism gives him a decent shout but I think Floyd handles him... too big a boxing brain.

This

[Mar]

You can never use fighter a and b to determine what would happen against fighter c. That is just silly. Dougless beat tyson who beat everyone before hand, so did that make dougless a killer or determine what he could do against anyone else cause he ko'ed the best ? No. And pac or floyd beating whoever has nothing to do with how'd they'd fare against each other. Ask salido how much common opponets helped juan ma.

[johnsebastianmiran]

Floyd has yet to be in a fight where he was fighting desperately to survive so the comparisons are not too accurate because no one really knows what he'll do and Manny may or may not be that opponent. He is however one thing for sure that Floyd is not and that is active. I'm taking nothing away from Floyd but ever since the Castillo fight and the fact that he had a hard time, one fight is not a gauge.

[Mars_ax]

Manny vs Shane is proof of nothing, as for Pacquiao vs. Mayweather, if it ever actually happens, I favor Pacquiao for one simple reason: these 2 are evenly matched, however, as good as Mayweather is, there's no substitute for being in the ring regularly, his inactivity will be his downfall.

[Pavlik]

Manny vs Shane is proof of nothing, as for Pacquiao vs. Mayweather, if it ever actually happens, I favor Pacquiao for one simple reason: these 2 are evenly matched, however, as good as Mayweather is, there's no substitute for being in the ring regularly, his inactivity will be his downfall.

i stll think pbf can pot shot manny all night, but i also do think that if they trade shots Pac can seriously hurt him.

[IamInuit]

Manny vs Shane is proof of nothing, as for Pacquiao vs. Mayweather, if it ever actually happens, I favor Pacquiao for one simple reason: these 2 are evenly matched, however, as good as Mayweather is, there's no substitute for being in the ring regularly, his inactivity will be his downfall.

Leonard came back after 3 years to beat Hagler and Jofre came back after more then a 3 year retirement following his loss to Harada and won about 15 straight and then beat Legra for his feather title at 37years of age. Eder was a bantam when he retired and Leonard a welter.

[Mars_ax]

Manny vs Shane is proof of nothing, as for Pacquiao vs. Mayweather, if it ever actually happens, I favor Pacquiao for one simple reason: these 2 are evenly matched, however, as good as Mayweather is, there's no substitute for being in the ring regularly, his inactivity will be his downfall.

i stll think pbf can pot shot manny all night, but i also do think that if they trade shots Pac can seriously hurt him.

Just saying, Pacquiao has been a very active fighter the last 5 years, Mayweather has not. So far PBF has been able to get away with being inactive because of his tremendous skills, but he has NEVER fought anyone on the same level as Pacquiao. Ring-rust will rear it's ugly head, and give Pacquiao, the edge he needs to win this fight.

[Mars_ax]

Manny vs Shane is proof of nothing, as for Pacquiao vs. Mayweather, if it ever actually happens, I favor Pacquiao for one simple reason: these 2 are evenly matched, however, as good as Mayweather is, there's no substitute for being in the ring regularly, his inactivity will be his downfall.

Leonard came back after 3 years to beat Hagler and Jofre came back after more then a 3 year retirement following his loss to Harada and won about 15 straight and then beat Legra for his feather title at 37years of age. Eder was a bantam when he retired and Leonard a welter.

Different fights, different fighters, i'll say this, if Mayweather is able to convincingly defeat Pacquiao being as inactive as he's been, then he is in fact, one of the best of all-time.

[Majesty]

Floyd has yet to be in a fight where he was fighting desperately to survive so the comparisons are not too accurate because no one really knows what he'll do and Manny may or may not be that opponent. He is however one thing for sure that Floyd is not and that is active. I'm taking nothing away from Floyd but ever since the Castillo fight and the fact that he had a hard time, one fight is not a gauge.

Why do boxing fans always consider this a bad thing? That a fighter hasn't been made to have to fight life or death desperately to survive. Wouldn't that be a feather in the cap of the fighter to have been able to win against hard opposition and not be taken into the trenches. If Pacquiao had more of a history where he had to fight desperately to survive then that would mean that it's easier to drag him into the trenches and desperation mode than it is to take Mayweather to the same place, so wouldn't that be a bad thing if one fighter has shown in their career they can be taken there while the other hasn't no matter who was up against him? It's kind of like saying, Fighter A hasn't shown that he can be hurt to the body yet, Fighter B has been hurt to the body many times before, so if Fighter B can make Fighter A hurt to the body he can win. But what happens if Fighter A attacks Fighter B to the body?

So NOT being taken to the trenches shouldn't be seen as a disadvantage against someone that has. It means you don't put yourself in position to be taken there, not that you can't.

[IamInuit]

Manny vs Shane is proof of nothing, as for Pacquiao vs. Mayweather, if it ever actually happens, I favor Pacquiao for one simple reason: these 2 are evenly matched, however, as good as Mayweather is, there's no substitute for being in the ring regularly, his inactivity will be his downfall.

Leonard came back after 3 years to beat Hagler and Jofre came back after more then a 3 year retirement following his loss to Harada and won about 15 straight and then beat Legra for his feather title at 37years of age. Eder was a bantam when he retired and Leonard a welter.

Different fights, different fighters, i'll say this, if Mayweather is able to convincingly defeat Pacquiao being as inactive as he's been, then he is in fact, one of the best of all-time.

I do not dispute that. I just do not agree with the conclusion you draw from the time off.

[awdleyfuturehalloffamer]

I doubt if floyd will ever be in a fight where he has to survive unless he gets hit with one lucky shot. Nobody has been able to slow down his upper torso movement to the point where he is easy to hit. His speed of upper body movement coupled with his great footwork and great defence makes it hard for any fighter to hurt him bad enough to put him in survival mode. You might as well say his speed of everything.