Is Pac's win over DLH overrated?

[Da Hammer]

i would say its more underrated because well first i do agree that obviously Oscar is no where near what he once was but at the same time people gotta give credit to Pacquiao because he's the main reason that DLH looked like ****! His speed, movement, and smart boxing is what made his performance so dominate! and DLH said before and after the fight that this was the best shape he had been in years and he never made excuses! He was the HUGE favorite and he got his ass beat by the little beast! Yet people act now like his win was nothing and i really dont understand that at all. Pac made DLH look like ****!

[nnamme]

Lets get things straight Pacs win is not overrated. The reason is because everyone said DLH was going to murder the little man. Its not our fault that you didnt take into consideration that DLH was a bit past it and that his performance against Forbes was a bit below par. The experts said DLH would win without thinking it through logically like a bull in a tea shop.
Its easy in hindsight to say it was overated. If you didnt want to be eating humble pie you should have said it would be an even fight. You cant just because DLH got smoked backtrack. Too late for that.
Its like saying the Buster Douglas fight wasnt an upset. Because you now know Tyson didnt train and he was having late nights and that. To try and take credit away from Buster. You cant do that for Buster. SO you cant take credit away from Pac.

The lesson therefore in making predictions is to consider also the preparations and dedication a boxer gives during the training and not just consider his previous fights! Because if these are not considered in any prediction, excuses will always come out after one wrongly predicts a fight!

[Cadillac Kevin]

this thread was basically about the roach factor. i wanted to get other people's opinions on it. i remember roach saying something about how when he was training oscar he discovered he couldn't cut off the ring and just follows fighters around the ring and such. and he was telling manny he could just walk him right into his left all night and such. i just think that roach's prior training of oscar being an advantage is a bit downplayed, that's all... of course roach had the perfect plan for manny to execute, you know?

either way. consider this.
margarito (30) gets beat the **** up by sugar shane (37) and it is the upset of the century. based mainly on shane's age.
but manny (30) beats oscar (36) the **** up and it is also the upset of the century.
what kind of backwards **** is that?
and oscar didn't look any better against forbes than shane did against mayorga.

i'm not going out of my way to put down your hero pac fans, so don't get all sensitive. just trying to start a rational discussion here.

[them_apples]

I knew Pacquiao would win, just watch a prime Oscar against an older Whitaker...

Prime Pacquiao vs older Hoya....on paper Pacquiao destroys him with skills, Everyone was delusional and thought automatically that Oscar would punish him. Just like how delusional everyone is in thinking Hatton has a chance.

[badboypeenoy]

Considering Roach's prior knowledge of Oscar.
And Oscar's age compared to Pac's age? (36 and 30)
Hm?

Not as overrated over dela Hoya's win over an over-the-hill Chavez or Hatton's win over an over-the-hill Tszyu who was just on retirement-pay-collecting mode.

[badboypeenoy]

this thread was basically about the roach factor. i wanted to get other people's opinions on it. i remember roach saying something about how when he was training oscar he discovered he couldn't cut off the ring and just follows fighters around the ring and such. and he was telling manny he could just walk him right into his left all night and such. i just think that roach's prior training of oscar being an advantage is a bit downplayed, that's all... of course roach had the perfect plan for manny to execute, you know?

either way. consider this.
margarito (30) gets beat the **** up by sugar shane (37) and it is the upset of the century. based mainly on shane's age.
but manny (30) beats oscar (36) the **** up and it is also the upset of the century.
what kind of backwards **** is that?
and oscar didn't look any better against forbes than shane did against mayorga.

i'm not going out of my way to put down your hero pac fans, so don't get all sensitive. just trying to start a rational discussion here.

Margarito was fighting a Mosley who was a former Jr. Middleweight Champ, he was used to fighting bigger guys. It wasn't as if Mosley went in there and planned to receive every shot from Margarito either. The age factor would have mattered it Mosley was up against a faster guy, Margarito was nowhere half as fast as Mosley. On the otherhand, Pacquiao practically jumped from superfeather (had one fight at lightweight) to take on a guy who hasn't been given a beatdown before, was a former #1 P4P best fighter in the planey, and is supposed to be used to taking punches from guys who are bigger than Pacquiao! Put dela Hoya against Hatton at 147 this minute and I don't think he can give dela Hoya a beatdown similar to what Pacman gave; I even think dela Hoya would win. Dela Hoya lost because he cannot catch Pacquiao, I don't think Hatton has the speed to do the same thing.

[jabSTRAIGHTh00k]

I remember reading an article here saying that when roach was training dlh for the mayweather fight, dlh was getting schooled by calderon when they sparred in puerto rico. Calderon validated that statement and said his movement and style is what confused dlh.
Pacquiao simply followed the same style that roach saw in calderon, that why he was able dominate him the way he did.

heres the link btw. //krikya360.com/?m=show&id=17125

[S A M U R A I]

Is it over rated? Hell no. Even Oscar gives Pac all the credit in the world, so why can't the fans?



| |

[fcastro1]

Lets get things straight Pacs win is not overrated. The reason is because everyone said DLH was going to murder the little man. Its not our fault that you didnt take into consideration that DLH was a bit past it and that his performance against Forbes was a bit below par. The experts said DLH would win without thinking it through logically like a bull in a tea shop.
Its easy in hindsight to say it was overated. If you didnt want to be eating humble pie you should have said it would be an even fight. You cant just because DLH got smoked backtrack. Too late for that.
Its like saying the Buster Douglas fight wasnt an upset. Because you now know Tyson didnt train and he was having late nights and that. To try and take credit away from Buster. You cant do that for Buster. SO you cant take credit away from Pac.

very well put hughie!

[nnamme]

The lesson therefore in making predictions is to consider also the preparations and dedication a boxer gives during the training and not just consider his previous fights! Because if these are not considered in any prediction, excuses will always come out after one wrongly predicts a fight!

Just to add to my point above. That's why I would never say Pacquiao's victory over Oscar is overrated, considering all the preparations they have done. It's just that Pacquiao had all the answers to Oscar's style of fighting which was part of the strategy of Roach. Oscar simply did not know how to cut. And his vaunted left hook could not catch Pacquiao because Pacquiao would move sideways to the right after making a combo. No way Pacquiao's win is overrated.