This is my unbiased analysis of the proposed May/Pac super-fight. Both fighters have various arguments to why they are the favorite. I'll present them as follows:
PRO-PAC ARGUMENTS:
1. The south-paw argument
Mayweather's previous struggles against slick, speedy southpaws work in Pac's favor. Will May's shoulder-roll be somewhat neutralized because of this?
2. The overwhelming argument
How will Mayweather cope with the workrate, speed, angles, relentlessness and warrior heart of Pac?
3. The Kentucky Floyd Chicken argument
Some think Floyd is genuinely scared of Pac. Being scared of an opponent could not possibly be good thing.
4. The "cherry-picking" argument
Some believe Floyd is a ducker and hasn't stepped up to genuine threat. They believe Pacquiao is breed of fighter that Floyd has never fought.
5. The Mayweather is past-time argument
This argument gained light after the Mosley fight. Some sub-arguments of this argument are: his legs are slower, his reflexes are slower (round 2 Mosley fight), he is past his prime.
PRO-MAY ARGUMENTS:
1. The Marquez argument
I personally think this is a strong argument. Pac really struggled against the technical brilliance of JMM, so how will he fare against the greatest (in my opinion) technician to ever step in the ring?
2. The blood-taking argument
With the (somewhat baseless) speculations of Pac using PEDs, many think he wouldn't be the same fighter with these stringent testing methods.
3. The undefeated argument
May's personal favorite argument to use in interviews. "41 have tried, 41 have failed." Pac has lost 3 bouts with some believing he should have lost more (Marquez I&II are controversial)
4. The Pacquiao defense argument (Related to the Marquez argument)
It's no secret that Pac takes hits, a lot of hits. How will this dubious defense fare against the "precision-perfect" fists of the one of the greatest counter-punchers of all time?
5. The "cherry-picking" argument
Some believe Pac (or perhaps I should say Roach and Arum) has been fighting either washed-up, dehydrated fighters that have been coming off the back of career defining losses [Cotto, Hatton, possibly Clottey, now Marg].
---
So there you have it guys, my observation of the arguments people are using when fantasizing about this fight. I'm sure I missed some, so feel free to add arguments in the mix.
My conclusion: it's close. Nonetheless, if I had to beat I would bet on May. I think the "Marquez" and "Pacquiao defense" arguments are quite strong. Just my two cents!
PRO-PAC ARGUMENTS:
1. The south-paw argument
Mayweather's previous struggles against slick, speedy southpaws work in Pac's favor. Will May's shoulder-roll be somewhat neutralized because of this?
2. The overwhelming argument
How will Mayweather cope with the workrate, speed, angles, relentlessness and warrior heart of Pac?
3. The Kentucky Floyd Chicken argument
Some think Floyd is genuinely scared of Pac. Being scared of an opponent could not possibly be good thing.
4. The "cherry-picking" argument
Some believe Floyd is a ducker and hasn't stepped up to genuine threat. They believe Pacquiao is breed of fighter that Floyd has never fought.
5. The Mayweather is past-time argument
This argument gained light after the Mosley fight. Some sub-arguments of this argument are: his legs are slower, his reflexes are slower (round 2 Mosley fight), he is past his prime.
PRO-MAY ARGUMENTS:
1. The Marquez argument
I personally think this is a strong argument. Pac really struggled against the technical brilliance of JMM, so how will he fare against the greatest (in my opinion) technician to ever step in the ring?
2. The blood-taking argument
With the (somewhat baseless) speculations of Pac using PEDs, many think he wouldn't be the same fighter with these stringent testing methods.
3. The undefeated argument
May's personal favorite argument to use in interviews. "41 have tried, 41 have failed." Pac has lost 3 bouts with some believing he should have lost more (Marquez I&II are controversial)
4. The Pacquiao defense argument (Related to the Marquez argument)
It's no secret that Pac takes hits, a lot of hits. How will this dubious defense fare against the "precision-perfect" fists of the one of the greatest counter-punchers of all time?
5. The "cherry-picking" argument
Some believe Pac (or perhaps I should say Roach and Arum) has been fighting either washed-up, dehydrated fighters that have been coming off the back of career defining losses [Cotto, Hatton, possibly Clottey, now Marg].
---
So there you have it guys, my observation of the arguments people are using when fantasizing about this fight. I'm sure I missed some, so feel free to add arguments in the mix.
My conclusion: it's close. Nonetheless, if I had to beat I would bet on May. I think the "Marquez" and "Pacquiao defense" arguments are quite strong. Just my two cents!
Comment