Comments Thread For: Arum: Pacquiao Weighing 142, Much Smaller Than Rios

[DeadLikeMe]

You are entitled to your opinion and nobody can take that away from you or should disrespected but not all of us will agree with your views.

My view is that if the Pacquiao fanatics held his resume to the same scrutiny they do any other fighter, Pac's looks worse in spots than the fighters they are scrutinizing.

[WESS]

Marquez was a 40 year old cherry picked lightweight...and then he knocked Pac tfo at Marquez's worst weight. Manny lost twice to that. Pacquiao dropped the championship rounds to a junior welter with two broken ankles. I had him winning, but Bradley was no welter at the time so it counts very little. Now he is fighting a lightweight coming off a loss on Zhou Shiming's undercard in China. Pacquiao hasn't fought an actual welterweight in years.

Pac has lost two of his last three fights any way you look at it. Now he is fighting a lightweight coming off a loss. The last two years have tarnished Pacquiao's legacy, not added to it.

I don't see how fighting Clottey, Margarito and Mosley enhanced his legacy either. If you stop and look at who he fought, at the weight class he fought them and when he fought them, it's hard to see anything impressive since his win over Cotto. Fighting past prime losers and then fighters that do night fight at WW is nothing to boast about. In fact its down right unacceptable for the supposed fighter of the decade. Outside of the JMM fights, none are even worth talking about unless you want to argue about who actually won when Pac cherry picked JWW Bradley at WW.

[turnedup]

My view is that if the Pacquiao fanatics held his resume to the same scrutiny they do any other fighter, Pac's looks worse in spots than the fighters they are scrutinizing.

Again a matter of opinion, just like people dont like the same fight styles or score fights the same exact way. Broner's resume is trash, so is Quillin's..I don't see you debating those, but hey to each their own. I'll take Pacquaio or Floyd's resume over just about any other active boxer not named Garcia.

[turnedup]

I don't see how fighting Clottey, Margarito and Mosley enhanced his legacy either. If you stop and look at who he fought, at the weight class he fought them and when he fought them, it's hard to see anything impressive since his win over Cotto. Fighting past prime losers and then fighters that do night fight at WW is nothing to boast about. In fact its down right unacceptable for the supposed fighter of the decade. Outside of the JMM fights, none are even worth talking about unless you want to argue about who actually won when Pac cherry picked JWW Bradley at WW.

But it was ok for Cotto to fight Clottey and to fight Margarito and it was ok for Floyd to fight Mosley...Broner's resume is shhh and so is Quillins

[WESS]

You are entitled to your opinion and nobody can take that away from you or should disrespected but not all of us will agree with your views.

Of course everyone won't agree with him. Some people just really enjoy entertainment regardless of the opposition. They just want to see fighters get KO'ed or see some action. It doesn't have to be the best vs the best or fighters that are ranked/P4P. As long as there is action they are happy. That is perfectly fine. However like myself, I don't think DeadLikeMe agree with entertainment over legit opposition.

Take Mayweather vs Khan for instance, that is a **** fight. Hey it might be entertaining and Mayweather will probably get an easy KO and look like a beast. That won't change the fact that it's a **** fight.

[Grimgash]

My view is that if the Pacquiao fanatics held his resume to the same scrutiny they do any other fighter, Pac's looks worse in spots than the fighters they are scrutinizing.

True and False...Pac's resume at lower weights is impressive...at welterweight it's overrated....so I guess which part of the resume you're looking at. It's better than almost all out there...just his WW resume leaves room to be desired. It's hard to seriously question his overall resume, though I'd be impressed if someone could.

[flint]

Flint your reply is nothing more than to make pacman look bad and big up floyd, hating on him all the time.

How is this a cherry pick, wouldnt it be Rios cherry picking pacman or only pacman after two losses and a brutal ko is still a cherry picker?

Bernard Hopkins disagrees with you he said pacman is brave for fighting a hungry aggressive puncher in rios after a ko loss.

again. this is cherry picking at its best

[turnedup]

Of course everyone won't agree with him. Some people just really enjoy entertainment regardless of the opposition. They just want to see fighters get KO'ed or see some action. It doesn't have to be the best vs the best or fighters that are ranked/P4P. As long as there is action they are happy. That is perfectly fine. However like myself, I don't think DeadLikeMe agree with entertainment over legit opposition.

Take Mayweather vs Khan for instance, that is a **** fight. Hey it might be entertaining and Mayweather will probably get an easy KO and look like a beast. That won't change the fact that it's a **** fight.

Boxing hasn't been about the best fighting the best since the 80's if it were about the best we wouldn't need espn classic fights..we'd have a hell of a lot more classic fights in this era. These days it's about numbers...regarding Khan I completely and utterly agree with you but again it's back to the numbers. Neither Guerrero nor Ortiz deserved fights versus Floyd..same way I feel about a ton of other fights we've seen in the past 10 years.

[Grimgash]

Of course everyone won't agree with him. Some people just really enjoy entertainment regardless of the opposition. They just want to see fighters get KO'ed or see some action. It doesn't have to be the best vs the best or fighters that are ranked/P4P. As long as there is action they are happy. That is perfectly fine. However like myself, I don't think DeadLikeMe agree with entertainment over legit opposition.

Take Mayweather vs Khan for instance, that is a **** fight. Hey it might be entertaining and Mayweather will probably get an easy KO and look like a beast. That won't change the fact that it's a **** fight.

Very true, it's no different than Pac-Rios tbh. Neither will get much credit for the wins, but they'll be entertaining... that being said Floyd is a product of being too good. His options are limited... he just beat Canelo...Garcia while deserving no one really gives a chance to win a round or two against Floyd and Garcia doesn't want it. Bradley/Pac are TR... Khan is easy and makes money...also should be exciting maybe that goes hand in hand with making money.

Floyd-Khan is a terrible match-up legacy wise and a crap fight as is Rios-Pac (have to at least make this relevant to the thread) .... but both will make money and Pac/Floyd should both look spectacular in them. You can't fault them for them because what are the other options available? Only one is Bradley-Pac and that's being talked about after this fight so we shall see.

[WESS]

But it was ok for Cotto to fight Clottey and to fight Margarito and it was ok for Floyd to fight Mosley...we get it wess it's pretty obvious you hate every boxer not named Floyd or Adrien.

Clottey was not winning, Margarito was not winning, Mosley was not winning WHEN Pac fought them. The point. Irrelevant opposition for Pac. Well past their best days.

Sorry I hold high expectations for the fighter of the decade.