Mon, 2018-08-20 08:54
Look, let's keep this constructive, and not waste each others time and nitpick, which we have both done a lot of recently.
Mayweather was not fresh as a daisy in 2015, the difference in damage was exaggerated by you, but the closeness of how much the damage difference was, may have been exaggerated by me.
Here's my argument, just first off, you are mad as a hatter if you defend McGregor and say Algieri and Rios suck.
Mayweather, older, more joint issues, more gruelling 2014, all important enough to consider, but, I am not saying that this compensates for the difference in damage, because Pacquiao was in gruelling fights against Marquez 3 times, Morales, knocked out twice early in his career, and he was sparked against Marquez, and you are right in that his more positive style means he averages taking more punches, but here is my argument, Pacquiao was dominant against Morales in II and III, Barrera, Cotto, Mosley, Bradley, he didn't take too much damge in these fights, and against Marquez, it was close, then he got knocked out wutn a single fight finisher, he didn't get battered from corner to corner, and really, Pacquiao being knocked down 5 times in his career, relative to Mayweather never getting dropped, and Mayweather against Castillo 1, Maidana fights, doesn't add up to the punches Pacquiao had taken, doesn't add more damage up that Pacquiao's 5 most damaging fights.
When a fighter takes damage in his career, it doesn't gradually weaken him fight by fight I don't think, it accumulates, and one day, the miles on the clock exprire, Cotto didn't look damaged against Alvarez, he was, but we didn't see evidence of the miles until the Ali fight, Guerrero had miles when he fought Garcia, but he may as well not have had, and he didn't look worn until he lost to Figueroa, same with Salido against Roman, and quite frankly, Pacquiao against Horn.
Pacquiao had more miles than Mayweather, but he was younger (and nowadays, pure age is still obviously a factor, and fighters can weather a lot of damage until they are older than say 36, like Cotto, like Salido, Barrera), he was coming off an easier year, but most significantly, him having more damage than Mayweather wasn't relevant yet, because the accumulating damage on Pacquiao hadn't expired yet.
Ultimately, Mayweather beat Pacquiao when Pacquiao was every bit as dominant, every bit as sustainably successful as Mayweather, Bradley is nearly as good as Maidana, Algieri and Rios are as good as Guerrero, Pacquiao had done every bit as well against Mosley, Pacquiao hadn't shown any signs of decline at all against Rios, Bradley and Algieri, who are simply better than you said, and very few of others expected Mayweather to do anything more than win, just.
You had to be very, very impressed by Mayweather's win over Pacquiao.
Pacquiao had a good chin, was not that damaged, when we were talking about the Matthysse fight, but now, he was very damaged at 36, you had a point that Mayweather being older than Pacquiao and struggling with Maidana might have fooled people because Maidana was the best of the 4 opponents and Pacquiao had miles on the clock, you have a point, but not at all does that dismiss Mayweather's career achievement of beating the fighter everyone said he was running from, you can't deny that at 38, still with some miles himself, hand, joint issues, he was past his prime as well.
Ultimately, you knew Pacquiao was 36, miles, etc, when you made the prediction, you didn't predict Mayweather to win 8-10 rounds, so he exceeded your expectation, take your hat off to him, just like Lomachencko, you knew about age and weight when you made the prediction, you didn't think Loma would win every round (sorry, maybe 5/6), and ake him quit, so he exceeded your expectation, take your hat off to him.
Mon, 2018-08-20 09:21
I told you I'm not going to respond to anything else regarding Mayweather vs. Pacquiao, you are wrong, you don't get it so I'm not going to waste my time anymore. Go write into all of the boxing experts and journalists mailbags and they'll have the same sentiment I have because it is obvious to everyone who is unbiased.
Mon, 2018-08-20 09:36
I'm right, and I know it, and you know it, that's why you don't want to discuss it anymore. Experts will say what I am trying to say, in a nutshell, the bottom line is, Mayweather beating Pacquiao was very, very impressive, just because Pacquiao had taken punches which hadn't added up to a worn fighter yet, you try to take away his credit.
I get what you are saying, but you are wrong, you were wrong on the weight topic as well, size is about what weight you can't make, not how heavy you fight. You can't sanction at a new weight, against a fighter who has been there his whole career, and not be at a weight disadvantage.
Height is a good metric for natural size, most natural heavyweights are at least 6'3, most natural welterweights are at least 5'8, most natural lightweights are at least 5'7. You can have fighters who are 6'0 and carry very little weight, fighters can be short and carry weight well, but height is a good metric for nautral size.
When a fighter exceeds your expectations, give them credit, if a fighter wins and it is nkt pretty, doesn't mean they didn't fight a good fight. Great fighters break rules, do whatever they have to to win, B-Hop, Mayweather, many boxing legends were dirty fighters, you shouldn't hold it against them.
About Us | Contact | Feedback | Site Map | Score the Controversial Fights
Any use or distribution of our content without the express written consent of eyeonthering.com is strictly prohibited.
Copyright © 2018, EYE ON THE RING