Mayweather v Pacquiao - Confirmed - Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website

Mayweather v Pacquiao - Confirmed

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 13 of 13 << First < 9 10 11 12 13

Stuk Top half 12 May 15 7.29pm
Quote TheJudge at 12 May 2015 6.26pm Quote Stuk at 12 May 2015 6.07pm Quote TheJudge at 12 May 2015 6.05pm Quote Stuk at 12 May 2015 6.00pm Quote TheJudge at 12 May 2015 5.53pm Not quite. I appreciate that Naseem was lighter but he hit like a middleweight and Hagler could have matched Mayweather at an agreed weight of around 150 lbs. Lets not get worked up about weight. The best fighters can fight at a number of weights. Chavez faded towardthe end and lost to De la Hoya but he wqsw a knockout specialist and Mayweather would have had to hide that chin the whole fight in his usual boring manner. Edited by TheJudge (12 May 2015 5.55pm) Well Naseem fought at the 3 weights below Mayweather's lightest of his 5, and Hagler never moved out of the middleweight division. That's the thing, he would've hidden that chin - danced around him, out-punched him and taken the points win. That's boxing. If you say so. I would like to have seen those fights none the less. Don't get me wrong so would I, but you can only fight in your era and weights. You are a bit obsessed with weight. I agree that the Prince might have lost speed at a heavier weight and look sluggish like he did against Barerra when he was not conditioned but Hagler and Mayweather could certainly fought at an agreed weight. It's one of the fundamentals of boxing. Naseem at his heaviest would lose to Mayweather at his lightest. My reasoning being that Naseem was all about speed and he'd be his slowest, while Floyd being lighter would barely affect his abilities. Hagler at 150lbs would have an advantage and be much more likely to win, but this is all hypothetical and can only ever be opinion. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 12 May 15 7.29pm

Quote TheJudge at 12 May 2015 6.26pm

Quote Stuk at 12 May 2015 6.07pm

Quote TheJudge at 12 May 2015 6.05pm

Quote Stuk at 12 May 2015 6.00pm

Quote TheJudge at 12 May 2015 5.53pm

Not quite. I appreciate that Naseem was lighter but he hit like a middleweight and Hagler could have matched Mayweather at an agreed weight of around 150 lbs.

Lets not get worked up about weight. The best fighters can fight at a number of weights.
Chavez faded towardthe end and lost to De la Hoya but he wqsw a knockout specialist and Mayweather would have had to hide that chin the whole fight in his usual boring manner.

Edited by TheJudge (12 May 2015 5.55pm)

Well Naseem fought at the 3 weights below Mayweather's lightest of his 5, and Hagler never moved out of the middleweight division.

That's the thing, he would've hidden that chin - danced around him, out-punched him and taken the points win. That's boxing.

If you say so. I would like to have seen those fights none the less.

Don't get me wrong so would I, but you can only fight in your era and weights.

You are a bit obsessed with weight. I agree that the Prince might have lost speed at a heavier weight and look sluggish like he did against Barerra when he was not conditioned but Hagler and Mayweather could certainly fought at an agreed weight.

It's one of the fundamentals of boxing. Naseem at his heaviest would lose to Mayweather at his lightest. My reasoning being that Naseem was all about speed and he'd be his slowest, while Floyd being lighter would barely affect his abilities.

Hagler at 150lbs would have an advantage and be much more likely to win, but this is all hypothetical and can only ever be opinion.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 12 May 15 7.36pm
Quote imbored at 12 May 2015 6.28pm Quote Stuk at 12 May 2015 5.40pm Quote TheJudge at 12 May 2015 5.21pm Ro Quote Stuk at 12 May 2015 4.11pm Quote TheJudge at 12 May 2015 3.49pm Quote Stuk at 11 May 2015 9.27pm Quote TheJudge at 11 May 2015 8.31pm Quote JL85 at 11 May 2015 1.35pm Quote TheJudge at 11 May 2015 12.26pm Quote JL85 at 11 May 2015 10.58am Quote TheJudge at 11 May 2015 10.01am Quote JL85 at 11 May 2015 8.30am Quote TheJudge at 10 May 2015 11.41pm Quote JL85 at 09 May 2015 12.58am Quote Brentmiester_General at 09 May 2015 12.52am Mayweather has dodged PacMan for years. There's no doubt about that. He's watched his light fade and then agreed to fight him. Wouldn't expect anything less from Mayweather. 5 years ago PacMan was putting on some of the most impressive diaplays in the ring that I have witnessed in my 35 years. To say that Maywether would still have beaten him when Manny was in his prime is just wrong. There's no telling now which way it would have gone though but I think, over the course of a few fights(which is what we should have had) the decisions would have been shared. Ultimately Maywether has robbed us of what could have been some of the most thrilling boxing bouts in the sports history. This, as well as the woman bashing is why I will never respect him. Disagree, think the gap would have been wider. One has to question Pacquiao's reluctance to take a blood test coinciding with his quite incredible rise through the weight classess whilst seemingly increasing his explosive punching power which was then followed by a huuuuuuuge decline in speed and power when drug testing was suggested and rejected. 5 years down the line and miraculously, Pacquiao can now handle a blood test that would normally "significantly weaken" him. Edited by JL85 (09 May 2015 12.59am) Edited by JL85 (09 May 2015 12.59am) So you are suggesting Pacquiao took steroids ? And you think that is unusual among sportsmen ? I'm suggesting it's a possibility. And no, i don't think it's unusual. What i think is unusual is how often it's suggested Mayweather dodged Pacquiao but no the other way, considering the facts. Well why would Pacquiao avoid Mayweather ? Surely it was in his interests to fight him but not necessarily the other way around. He may have had no choice but to avoid him due to the PED's he may have been taking.It's important to remember that Mayweather originally agreed to the fight with the stipulation that random blood testing was carried out. It was Pacquiao who wouldn't agree to that and thus "dodged" the fight. Pacquiao might have refused the conditions but Mayweather would have know that he had no choice. If he really wanted the fight he would not have insisted on any conditions. Which suggests he knew something we didn't. It's not exactly an unreasonable demand. Many have agreed since, including Pacqiuao. Had he agreed then, the fight would have gone ahead. But if Mayweather did know that Paquiao was on the gear, then he would also know that he couldn't submit to blood testing. Therefore Mayweather cleverly avoided the fight. He called his bluff. Why would you fight someone you suspect of cheating? As for the fight. Mayweather did exactly what he wanted and what he always does. The best boxer ever, no doubt about it. You cannot be serious. Mayweathyer certainly is not the best boxer ever and he clearly, in my view, used the blood test gambit to avoid the fight. Why risk fighting someone who might beat you when you can keep earning massive money fighting people you know you can beat. That is how boxing works, unless you value the challenge over the money. He is. It's not even open for debate. Boxer and fighter/entertainer are not the same thing. Avoid the fight? The one he just won, right? The one he just won five years too late you mean. So he is better than Ali, Ray Robinson, Willie Pep, Ray Leonard, Larry Holmes, I could go on a long time. Do you think he would have beaten Marvin Hagler or Chavez ? What about a prime condition Prince Naseem even ? Mayweather is a fine technical boxer I'm sure but the best ever ? Perrrrrlease. Edited by TheJudge (12 May 2015 5.22pm) He's the older man. It's not like he was waiting for his opponent to be 40 while he's still 30 odd. Hagler and Naseem were never in any of his weights, you might as well ask me about Lennox Lewis. Hypothetical situations are no answer, but I reckon he's a better boxer than Chavez ever was. Just because you've decided that Mayweather is the best boxer ever, it doesn't mean that every other possible contender for that title has to exist in the same or even close weight category to him. What if someone thinks the best boxer ever is a heavyweight for instance? Edited by imbored (12 May 2015 6.39pm) Then call them the best heavyweight boxer ever, unless they've moved through the weights. Roy Jones Jr at one point in his career could have laid claim to the best pound for pound boxer ever but he ruined the latter part of his career. I'd award that to Lennox over Marciano personally. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 12 May 15 7.36pm

Quote imbored at 12 May 2015 6.28pm

Quote Stuk at 12 May 2015 5.40pm

Quote TheJudge at 12 May 2015 5.21pm

Quote Stuk at 12 May 2015 4.11pm

Quote TheJudge at 12 May 2015 3.49pm

Quote Stuk at 11 May 2015 9.27pm

Quote TheJudge at 11 May 2015 8.31pm

Quote JL85 at 11 May 2015 1.35pm

Quote TheJudge at 11 May 2015 12.26pm

Quote JL85 at 11 May 2015 10.58am

Quote TheJudge at 11 May 2015 10.01am

Quote JL85 at 11 May 2015 8.30am

Quote TheJudge at 10 May 2015 11.41pm

Quote JL85 at 09 May 2015 12.58am

Quote Brentmiester_General at 09 May 2015 12.52am

Mayweather has dodged PacMan for years. There's no doubt about that. He's watched his light fade and then agreed to fight him. Wouldn't expect anything less from Mayweather. 5 years ago PacMan was putting on some of the most impressive diaplays in the ring that I have witnessed in my 35 years. To say that Maywether would still have beaten him when Manny was in his prime is just wrong. There's no telling now which way it would have gone though but I think, over the course of a few fights(which is what we should have had) the decisions would have been shared.
Ultimately Maywether has robbed us of what could have been some of the most thrilling boxing bouts in the sports history. This, as well as the woman bashing is why I will never respect him.

Disagree, think the gap would have been wider.

One has to question Pacquiao's reluctance to take a blood test coinciding with his quite incredible rise through the weight classess whilst seemingly increasing his explosive punching power which was then followed by a huuuuuuuge decline in speed and power when drug testing was suggested and rejected.

5 years down the line and miraculously, Pacquiao can now handle a blood test that would normally "significantly weaken" him.

Edited by JL85 (09 May 2015 12.59am)

So you are suggesting Pacquiao took steroids ?

And you think that is unusual among sportsmen ?

I'm suggesting it's a possibility. And no, i don't think it's unusual. What i think is unusual is how often it's suggested Mayweather dodged Pacquiao but no the other way, considering the facts.

Well why would Pacquiao avoid Mayweather ? Surely it was in his interests to fight him but not necessarily the other way around.

He may have had no choice but to avoid him due to the PED's he may have been taking.It's important to remember that Mayweather originally agreed to the fight with the stipulation that random blood testing was carried out.

It was Pacquiao who wouldn't agree to that and thus "dodged" the fight.

Pacquiao might have refused the conditions but Mayweather would have know that he had no choice.
If he really wanted the fight he would not have insisted on any conditions.

Which suggests he knew something we didn't.

It's not exactly an unreasonable demand. Many have agreed since, including Pacqiuao. Had he agreed then, the fight would have gone ahead.

But if Mayweather did know that Paquiao was on the gear, then he would also know that he couldn't submit to blood testing. Therefore Mayweather cleverly avoided the fight.

He called his bluff. Why would you fight someone you suspect of cheating?

As for the fight. Mayweather did exactly what he wanted and what he always does. The best boxer ever, no doubt about it.

You cannot be serious.

Mayweathyer certainly is not the best boxer ever and he clearly, in my view, used the blood test gambit to avoid the fight. Why risk fighting someone who might beat you when you can keep earning massive money fighting people you know you can beat. That is how boxing works, unless you value the challenge over the money.

He is. It's not even open for debate. Boxer and fighter/entertainer are not the same thing.

Avoid the fight? The one he just won, right?

The one he just won five years too late you mean.

So he is better than Ali, Ray Robinson, Willie Pep, Ray Leonard, Larry Holmes, I could go on a long time.

Do you think he would have beaten Marvin Hagler or Chavez ? What about a prime condition Prince Naseem even ?
Mayweather is a fine technical boxer I'm sure but the best ever ? Perrrrrlease.

Edited by TheJudge (12 May 2015 5.22pm)

He's the older man. It's not like he was waiting for his opponent to be 40 while he's still 30 odd.

Hagler and Naseem were never in any of his weights, you might as well ask me about Lennox Lewis.

Hypothetical situations are no answer, but I reckon he's a better boxer than Chavez ever was.

Just because you've decided that Mayweather is the best boxer ever, it doesn't mean that every other possible contender for that title has to exist in the same or even close weight category to him. What if someone thinks the best boxer ever is a heavyweight for instance?

Edited by imbored (12 May 2015 6.39pm)

Then call them the best heavyweight boxer ever, unless they've moved through the weights. Roy Jones Jr at one point in his career could have laid claim to the best pound for pound boxer ever but he ruined the latter part of his career.

I'd award that to Lennox over Marciano personally.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge 12 May 15 8.49pm
Let me get this straight. You are saying that Marciano is the second best heavyweight of all time ? Are you Italian ? Rocky Marciano does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath of any of the great heavyweights. His undefeated record is due mainly to him fighting crap. And please don't mention his defeat of Joe Louis. Joe Louis was 37. Lewis is one of the better heavyweights but when he beat Tyson, Mike was past his best and I doubt Lennox would have laid a glove on Ali, Holmes or Joe Lois. He struggled to beat Frank Bruno and Klitchko. Edited by TheJudge (12 May 2015 8.49pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

12 May 15 8.49pm

Let me get this straight. You are saying that Marciano is the second best heavyweight of all time ?
Are you Italian ?

Rocky Marciano does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath of any of the great heavyweights. His undefeated record is due mainly to him fighting crap.
And please don't mention his defeat of Joe Louis. Joe Louis was 37.
Lewis is one of the better heavyweights but when he beat Tyson, Mike was past his best and I doubt Lennox would have laid a glove on Ali, Holmes or Joe Lois. He struggled to beat Frank Bruno and Klitchko.

Edited by TheJudge (12 May 2015 8.49pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 12 May 15 9.14pm
Quote TheJudge at 12 May 2015 8.49pm Let me get this straight. You are saying that Marciano is the second best heavyweight of all time ? Are you Italian ? Rocky Marciano does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath of any of the great heavyweights. His undefeated record is due mainly to him fighting crap. And please don't mention his defeat of Joe Louis. Joe Louis was 37. Lewis is one of the better heavyweights but when he beat Tyson, Mike was past his best and I doubt Lennox would have laid a glove on Ali, Holmes or Joe Lois. He struggled to beat Frank Bruno and Klitchko. Edited by TheJudge (12 May 2015 8.49pm) Marciano was a great heavyweight of his era. He fought all there was to fight, it's no fault that no other 'great' existed during his peak years. Hagler had Hearns and they both had Leonard, not to mention Duran. Comparing heavyweights or other fighters out of their time is pointless......It's always going to be subjective and hence pointless. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

12 May 15 9.14pm

Quote TheJudge at 12 May 2015 8.49pm

Let me get this straight. You are saying that Marciano is the second best heavyweight of all time ?
Are you Italian ?

Edited by TheJudge (12 May 2015 8.49pm)

Marciano was a great heavyweight of his era. He fought all there was to fight, it's no fault that no other 'great' existed during his peak years.

Hagler had Hearns and they both had Leonard, not to mention Duran.

Comparing heavyweights or other fighters out of their time is pointless......It's always going to be subjective and hence pointless.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 12 May 15 9.43pm
Quote TheJudge at 12 May 2015 8.49pm Let me get this straight. You are saying that Marciano is the second best heavyweight of all time ? Are you Italian ? Rocky Marciano does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath of any of the great heavyweights. His undefeated record is due mainly to him fighting crap. And please don't mention his defeat of Joe Louis. Joe Louis was 37. Lewis is one of the better heavyweights but when he beat Tyson, Mike was past his best and I doubt Lennox would have laid a glove on Ali, Holmes or Joe Lois. He struggled to beat Frank Bruno and Klitchko. Edited by TheJudge (12 May 2015 8.49pm) No I'm just using him as an example, given public opinion of him. At the same time I'm not going to denigrate his achievements. He did all that in 5 years and, as Stirlingsays says, he fought everyone be could at the time. Please don't tell me he's a failure for once again knowing when not to take an automatic disadvantage, which he knew himself when a comeback was mooted. Going back to the modern era, I highly rate both the Klitchko's too. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 12 May 15 9.43pm

Quote TheJudge at 12 May 2015 8.49pm

Let me get this straight. You are saying that Marciano is the second best heavyweight of all time ?
Are you Italian ?

Edited by TheJudge (12 May 2015 8.49pm)

No I'm just using him as an example, given public opinion of him.

At the same time I'm not going to denigrate his achievements. He did all that in 5 years and, as Stirlingsays says, he fought everyone be could at the time. Please don't tell me he's a failure for once again knowing when not to take an automatic disadvantage, which he knew himself when a comeback was mooted.

Going back to the modern era, I highly rate both the Klitchko's too.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

RainhamEagle Bermondsey 12 May 15 10.01pm
How do you rate the potential of Anthony Joshua, Stuk?
Alert a moderator to this post

RainhamEagle

Bermondsey 12 May 15 10.01pm

How do you rate the potential of Anthony Joshua, Stuk?

Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge 12 May 15 10.07pm
Marciano was the best of his era and that is about all you can say. His status in boxing is due to the 0 record and the fact that he is white.
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

12 May 15 10.07pm

Marciano was the best of his era and that is about all you can say. His status in boxing is due to the 0 record and the fact that he is white.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 12 May 15 10.46pm
Quote RainhamEagle at 12 May 2015 10.01pm How do you rate the potential of Anthony Joshua, Stuk? Very, very highly. I hope he doesn't bulk up much more though. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 12 May 15 10.46pm

Quote RainhamEagle at 12 May 2015 10.01pm

How do you rate the potential of Anthony Joshua, Stuk?

Very, very highly.

I hope he doesn't bulk up much more though.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 12 May 15 10.51pm
Quote TheJudge at 12 May 2015 10.07pm Marciano was the best of his era and that is about all you can say. His status in boxing is due to the 0 record and the fact that he is white. His whiteness is completely irrelevant. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 12 May 15 10.51pm

Quote TheJudge at 12 May 2015 10.07pm

Marciano was the best of his era and that is about all you can say. His status in boxing is due to the 0 record and the fact that he is white.

His whiteness is completely irrelevant.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 13 of 13 << First < 9 10 11 12 13

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Mayweather v Pacquiao - Confirmed

Site Map

Sponsors