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

[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.

[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.