Yea this proves how lackluster an opponent Diaz was...

[OumaFan]

who cares, only the biggest Pac hugger would act like Diaz was a big win, it was what it was, a fairly soft opponent for a fight at a new weight class.

Bit off topic but Diaz-Morales wasn't really a gift, just a questionable decision but not a huge robbery, if that had not been Morales then there wouldn't have been much uproar at all about it but he's got so many fans (rightfully so) who were pissed about having one final accomplishment taken away from him so you get all this robbery talk. IMO. A fairly close fight actually.

[ElTerribleMorales]

Nobody disputes those numbers... or puts any blame on them... that's not the point... when millions are involved of course they're going to take the risk.

Sports Science is only ever predictive in matters such as this, faith and confidence further skewer a fighter's perception of his limits, but like I've said the deciding factor is always $$$.



It's not a case of who's to 'blame' for these fights happening... it's a case of assessing the circumstances objectivly and deciding how much credit you think the victor deserves based off the outcomes.

exactly, the point i was trying to make is that although his win over Hatton was a complete work of art, that's the only fight that he really deserves full credit in as of late, DLH was weight drained (and horribly at that) and Diaz basically confirmed what we all knew, that he's crap, don't see how he can be past it, when he really never got there to begin with

[Julius Rain]

so much on using David Diaz as a name on Pacquiao's record, he was lucky to get a gift decision against a shot Morales and well apparently another gift decision against a shot Jesus Chavez

Diaz returns from layoff to edge Chavez - Boxing - Yahoo! Sports

so sad but yet so funny

[piye]

Diaz was a very durable opponent he took ten rounds of punishment much more than Hatton did.

And to be honest him struggling with lesser fighters now is probably a result of that taking a beating like he did takes a lot out of a fighter.

[ElTerribleMorales]

Diaz was a very durable opponent he took ten rounds of punishment much more than Hatton did.

And to be honest him struggling with lesser fighters now is probably a result of that taking a beating like he did takes a lot out of a fighter.

all i gotta say to disprove that is Ramon Montano

[jahmez]

it's a case of assessing the circumstances objectivly and deciding how much credit you think the victor deserves based off the outcomes.

My post regarding the respective "tale of the tapes" comprehensivley assessed the objective circumstances. I did not try to use the same old subjective opinions that so and so was damaged goods and so and so was not in their prime and so and so had slight flatulence the night of the fight. I only used official statistics to support my argument the very same way Mayweather and his fans often do (hence the cheesy references to Floyd). As for deciding how much credit the victor deserves? I leave that to the fans of each fighter because I'm not interested in standing toe to toe attempting to land haymakers in a brawl that is often reduced to a display of unintelligent low blows. "Well my pokemon can punch harder than yoursss!" "Well my pokemon can counter better than yoursss!".

And now for something completely different... If people don't want to read about Pacquiao or Mayweather don't. You see a thread that is obviously related to them, you read through every reply but instead of posting an intelligent comment like everyone else you roll your eyes and whinge like a little girl "aww do we always have to mention their name?". Some of you even get a little frownie wownie, stomp your feet and throw a tantrum, pottie mouth and all. If you don't want to hear about the two most popular boxers on the planet go and start a Peter Buckley thread.

[JazMerkin]

I guess this thread has as much to do abotu David Diaz as the next thread has to do abotu Pacquiao, Hopkins, ODLH, and Floyd Mayweather.

Let's try to keep our topics a little more separated. I'm sort of tired of reading about JUST the top names in the boxing.

Aren't you the guy who made the Mayweather calls HBO racist thread with no link or footage, that seemed to serve no purpose other than for a few posters to go on about how hard life is as a white man. Glass houses aren't the best place to throw stones

[piye]

One thing I really hate on the internet is, excuse my language; pussy's who have a hidden fucking agenda but are to pussy to be direct how cowardly is that?

If you want to make a Pacman bashing thread go ahead but Pacman is great for boxing why bother?

[killersheep]

One thing I really hate on the internet is, excuse my language; pussy's who have a hidden fucking agenda but are to pussy to be direct how cowardly is that?

If you want to make a Pacman bashing thread go ahead but Pacman is great for boxing why bother?

Well I think he was pretty clear with what his intentions were on his initial post. Not sure what he was hiding tbh.

[piye]

It was clear that he wanted to call Pacmans credentials in to question what was hidden is why? why would a boxing fan want to discredit one of boxing's biggest names?

That's what I meant when i mentioned the TS having a hidden agenda and being a coward.

[AdamGB]

^
So basically it comes back to not being allowed to make an assessment of a fighter if it's unpopular with his fans.

it's a case of assessing the circumstances objectively and deciding how much credit you think the victor deserves based off the outcomes.

My post regarding the respective "tale of the tapes" comprehensivley assessed the objective circumstances. I did not try to use the same old subjective opinions that so and so was damaged goods and so and so was not in their prime and so and so had slight flatulence the night of the fight. I only used official statistics to support my argument the very same way Mayweather and his fans often do (hence the cheesy references to Floyd). As for deciding how much credit the victor deserves? I leave that to the fans of each fighter because I'm not interested in standing toe to toe attempting to land haymakers in a brawl that is often reduced to a display of unintelligent low blows. "Well my pokemon can punch harder than yoursss!" "Well my pokemon can counter better than yoursss!".

Listen, if you want to base your analysis of a fight on nothing more than a fighter's "tale of the tape" stats then that's your call.

I find it ironic that you're talking about pokemon cards but by limiting the factors that you're using to assess the stock of a fighters victory to merely the tale of the tape you're essentially reducing boxing to a game of top trumps.

Factors such as Oscar de La Hoya being so drained it took an IV drip to rehydrate him are not opinions as you called them... but facts, unfortunately these facts aren't going to be popular with pac fanboys so they choose to ignore them because they want to milk as much out of a win as they possibly can
(it should be noted that Pac DOES deserve credit for beating ODLH... unfortunatly if you try to question exactly how much then pac fanboys will try and act like you are saying he deserves none at all... "but how many boxers have moved up this much" etc etc... that's not the point!)

I see nothing wrong with making your own, educated opinion of a fighter based on different factors. There's a lot of talk about agendas in this thread.. but the people with agendas are the ones who chose to omit certain facts from themselves to protect 'their' fighter.

ODLH being drained takes only a small bit of credit from Pac... so choosing to ignore facts like that stinks of either being scared to make your own opinion or simply not wanting to make one which wouldn't suit your fighter.

[jahmez]

Factors such as Oscar de La Hoya being so drained it took an IV drip to rehydrate him are not opinions as you called them... but facts, unfortunately these facts aren't going to be popular with pac fanboys so they choose to ignore them because they want to milk as much out of a win as they possibly can

I never gave credit to Pacquiao in my posts.Not once.I made it clear that my posts had nothing to do with "deciding how much credit you think the victor deserves based off the outcomes" as you put it.I made it clear from the very start that my posts were in regards to people arguing that "Pacquiao is more of a coward than Mayweather in regards to the cathweight situation".The reason why I only mentioned the "tale of the tape" is because once again my post is about the catchweight situation.Pacquiao and Mayweather are responsible for offering the catchweights.Pacquiao had nothing to do with Oscar de La Hoya choosing to be "so drained it took an IV drip to rehydrate him".

ODLH being drained takes only a small bit of credit from Pac... so choosing to ignore facts like that stinks of either being scared to make your own opinion or simply not wanting to make one which wouldn't suit your fighter.

Here's my opinion.ODLH being drained takes a large bit of credit from Pac. Jumping two classes and coming in the heaviest he has ever weighed,bringing the fight all night,trying to KO and eventually TKOing the much bigger man who was the -165 favourite gives a large bit of that credit back.Marquez jumping two weight classes coming in the heaviest he has ever weighed takes away a large bit of credit from Mayweather.Countering, scoring 1 KD and winning by UD against the much smaller man who was the +353 underdog gives a small bit of that credit back.Choosing to ignore a catchweight that was already a monumental challenge for the little man takes that small bit of credit and intergrity back.

I see nothing wrong with making your own, educated opinion of a fighter based on different factors. There's a lot of talk about agendas in this thread.. but the people with agendas are the ones who chose to omit certain facts from themselves to protect 'their' fighter.

I've always been a big fan of your posts and respected them as much as Chris Nagel's, Scrap's and Andre's so calling me a "pac fanboy" for no reason and taking my posts out of context was suprising.Looks like those low blows were inevitable.

[ElTerribleMorales]

^
So basically it comes back to not being allowed to make an assessment of a fighter if it's unpopular with his fans.

it's a case of assessing the circumstances objectively and deciding how much credit you think the victor deserves based off the outcomes.

My post regarding the respective "tale of the tapes" comprehensivley assessed the objective circumstances. I did not try to use the same old subjective opinions that so and so was damaged goods and so and so was not in their prime and so and so had slight flatulence the night of the fight. I only used official statistics to support my argument the very same way Mayweather and his fans often do (hence the cheesy references to Floyd). As for deciding how much credit the victor deserves? I leave that to the fans of each fighter because I'm not interested in standing toe to toe attempting to land haymakers in a brawl that is often reduced to a display of unintelligent low blows. "Well my pokemon can punch harder than yoursss!" "Well my pokemon can counter better than yoursss!".

Listen, if you want to base your analysis of a fight on nothing more than a fighter's "tale of the tape" stats then that's your call.

I find it ironic that you're talking about pokemon cards but by limiting the factors that you're using to assess the stock of a fighters victory to merely the tale of the tape you're essentially reducing boxing to a game of top trumps.

Factors such as Oscar de La Hoya being so drained it took an IV drip to rehydrate him are not opinions as you called them... but facts, unfortunately these facts aren't going to be popular with pac fanboys so they choose to ignore them because they want to milk as much out of a win as they possibly can
(it should be noted that Pac DOES deserve credit for beating ODLH... unfortunatly if you try to question exactly how much then pac fanboys will try and act like you are saying he deserves none at all... "but how many boxers have moved up this much" etc etc... that's not the point!)

I see nothing wrong with making your own, educated opinion of a fighter based on different factors. There's a lot of talk about agendas in this thread.. but the people with agendas are the ones who chose to omit certain facts from themselves to protect 'their' fighter.

ODLH being drained takes only a small bit of credit from Pac... so choosing to ignore facts like that stinks of either being scared to make your own opinion or simply not wanting to make one which wouldn't suit your fighter.

exactly, who gives a shit if he's one of boxing's biggest names, the fact that he's being blown up to be a god-like figure not only by some of his fans but sportswriters is ridiculous, like i said, only 1 of his last 3 wins really meant something, DLH and Diaz were basically cherry picked opponents no different than Mayweather, his only meaningful win as of late that he should get full credit for is Hatton, and what a win it was

[mnmc10]

so what ur saying is pbf and pac had handpicked weak opponents thus should not be given the praise they are getting. those are two of the most known fighters in boxing and they dont deserve it. is it safe to say that boxing knowadays aint worth shiet? ofcourse there are other boxer out there but this are two of the best nowadays.

[ElTerribleMorales]

so what ur saying is pbf and pac had handpicked weak opponents thus should not be given the praise they are getting. those are two of the most known fighters in boxing and they dont deserve it. is it safe to say that boxing knowadays aint worth shiet? ofcourse there are other boxer out there but this are two of the best nowadays.

no, they don't deserve the praise of being considered top 20 p4p ATG much less top 10 p4p ATG, hell and popularity doesn't mean shit when it comes to their place in history, if so Mike Tyson and Oscar De La Hoya would have easily be top 5 p4p easy, and anyone who knows two shits of boxing knows that that couldn't be farther from the truth

are Pacquiao and Mayweather great talents? without a doubt

have either done enough to even be considered greatest of all time? no, not even close, both have hand picked plenty of their opponents at the right time to make them look great, key examples, Mayweather/Marquez and Pacquiao/DLH, both have taken on bums when there was a live opponent available in that given weight class, Mayweather/Brusseles when it could have been Mayweather/Hatton or Mayweather/Tszyu and Pacquiao/Diaz when it could have been Pacquiao/ Juan Diaz or Pacquiao/Katsidis

there's not much of a difference between Pacquiao and Mayweather, besides the fact that one is leaps and bounds more talented (Floyd), and the other is usually more entertaining (Manny)