Mayweather Needs Pacquiao
by Drunken cutman on Dec 28, 2009 1:04 PM EST
Email
PrintBefore I write this I want it to be clear that I am not a Mayweather hater, in fact you could count me as a fan. I admire his technical skills and his brilliant style, however I think his resume is a bit patchy for a man who sees himself as the greatest boxer of all time. Secondly I am no Pacquiao fanboy. I think he is great to watch,excellent at boxing and superb for the sport but I in no way see him as infallible and proof of that can be seen in the fact that I would pick Mayweather to beat him if they fight. Thridly this is not about Mayweather being a coward, or blood tests, so I would appreciate it if no one mentionss either, especially the latter.
What I am trying to do here is create an objective comparison between the two fighters who currently contest one another for the place of number one p4p in the sport. I am basing this comparison on their resumes and will be ultimately trying to assertain who will be remembered better by history.
To start I am going to compare the fighters they have both faced. Oscar De La Hoya is a bit of a no brainer here. Weight drained and faded when he faced Pacquiao, that win really counts for very little. However it should be remembered that the vast majority of fans and boxing writers picked De La Hoya to win, even to win widely. Fighting Oscar may have been easy for Manny but it was expected to be a stern challenge. Mayweather faced De La Hoya at 154 where Oscar was far more comfortable and Floyd clearly wasn't at his absolute best. Even though Pacquiao's win over De La Hoya was far more dominant than Mayweather's, Mayweather's still counts for more.
However it is a different story with Ricky Hatton. To say that Floyd wasn't at his best at 154 is nothing compared to how Hatton looked at 147. He had only had one fight there and in it he very nearly got beaten by Luis Collazo. Compared to his dominance at 140 Hatton really didn't look that good as a welterweight, mainly because he had lost his overpowering strength. Mayweather's victory over Hatton was a very good display of a boxing from mayweather combined with a terrible style matchup and discomfort at the weight for Hatton. On the other hand Pacquiao took on Hatton at the weight class where he ruled. He had just beat up Paulie Malignaggi and was the Ring junior welterwegiht champ. Manny knocked him out in two which was phenomenal and while it is true that the style matchup here sucked for Hatton too it seems clear to me who fought the better Ricky, and who beat him more convincingly.
In terms of comon opponents I like to ignore Marquez for various reasons which I will touch on later. Now I would like to compare their most recent opponents seeing as they were both welterweight fights and are very relevant to my point. Pacquiao took on a top 5 welterweight, top 2 or 3 even, and beat him in dramatic fashion. Crushing knockdowns. superb handspeed and excellent resilience were all on display. Pacquiao dominated a very good fighter in Miguel Cotto and astounded many people in the boxing community, including me. Mayweather did something far less impressive in taking on Marquez, a guy who looked uncomfortable at lightweight. Frankly Marquez should be at 130 to be at his best and was 15 pounds out of his comfort zone and had never fought at junior welterweight let alone welterweight. I'm honestly not sure I would pick Marquez against any top ten welterweight and if he fought Pacquiao at that weight it would be over in two.
As far as I'm concerned Pacquiao outclassed Mayweather in terms of opposition in their most recent fight and Marquez simply had no business being at that wegiht. The fight Floyd had with his essentially counts for nothing.
Now lets look at some opponents from a little further back. David Diaz or Baldomir? Who was worse? Probably Diaz actually but the thing here is that Pacquiao was just stopping off in the lightweight division on his way to junior welter for a big fight with ricky. Mayweather actually expects us to buy Baldomir as a serious opponent. Sorry Floyd but 5 loss Carlos doesn't cut it at this level.
How about Judah? Well to be fair Judah probably fought his best fight against Floyd and he did trouble him early on. However he also only won four rounds in that fight, maybe even three. He had also just lost to carlos Baldomir, was chinny and had never been able to face adversity particularly well. Compare him to Barrera or the Marquez that Manny fought at super featherweight and he doesn't look good. Barrera was slightly faded but very, very far from shot and Marquez was a brilliant counterpuncher at that weight and proved to be a bad style matchup for Pacquiao. Frankly if you need it explained to you why those two fighters are better than the likes of Judah or Corley then you need your head examined.
Mayweather beat Arturo Gatti in a very convincing fashion but for all of Gatti's resilience and legendary warrior mentality he was still a B class opponent and there were much tougher challenges which Floyd could have taken. Compare him to Erik Morales who Manny beat the second time. I don't really count the third match as Morales was past it then but in the 2nd fight Erik was overmatched not because he was shot but because Pacquiao was really good.
Mayweather has good wins over Corrales and Castillo but I would like to point out the often overlooked fact that Corrales was very weight drained for that fight. I think Mayweather would have beaten him anyway but it is worth noting.
To conlude I don't think Mayweather has ever beaten anyone that great. Lots of good opponents but no great ones. Ali is remembered for Frazier and Foreman, Hagler is remembered for Hearns, Pacquiao will be remembered for Barrera, Morales and Cotto, who is Mayweather going to be remembered for? His resume isn't that good despite his tremendous skills and if he beats Pacquiao none of that will matter. I hope he does improve legacy because it's clear that he is capable of it. However I am increasingly doubtful that he will.
FanPosts are user-created content written by community members of Bad Left Hook, and are generally not the work of our editors. Please do not source FanPosts as the work of Bad Left Hook.
113 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good post
I don’t think I’m being controversial if I opine that Mayweather’s best (certainly his “biggest”) win was against DLH. It’s probably the only fight he’s gone into over the past 10 years where he hasn’t been the overwhelming favourite, and he had to really pull it out of the bag later in the fight, from what I recall.
Manny’s resume is beyond reproach, I think. Beating up Morales (twice) was the turning point, for me – I didn’t think anyone could do that to “El Terrible”.
Not sure that Manny CV will help him beat Mayweather, though!
Unrelated (slightly) – any idea what happened to that recent fanpost from the “six” guy – the one with Malignaggi as expert witness on Pac’s juicing?? I’m guessing it got zapped
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
I just noticed that it's gone
Perhaps the author removed it. Or maybe it was deemed too inflamatory.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 28, 2009 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
Unrelated (slightly) – any idea what happened to that recent fanpost from the "six" guy – the one with Malignaggi as expert witness on Pac’s juicing?? I’m guessing it got zapped
It was a full article copy and paste with no credit given.
Bad Left Hook
"If bulls**t was poetry, Ray 'Boom Boom' Mancini's name would be Shakespeare." -- Dennis Rappaport
by Scott Christ on Dec 28, 2009 6:18 PM EST up reply actions
3 points.
1. I very very strongly disagree with the statement that the Oscar win for Pacquiao “really counts for very little”. Whether or not Oscar was weight drained (he was), Pacquiao had moved up 4 weight divisions in 2 fights. He should have had very little chance. Beating an average top twenty welterweight would have been an amazing achievement, but Pacquiao, to put it as eloquently as is necessary, beat the shit out of a future Hall of Famer, a man who had challenged for a title at middleweight (against one of the greatest middleweight fighters of all time), the biggest name in the sport, the man a lot of people credit with keeping boxing ‘alive’, whatever that means. Yes, Oscar was old, but he only moved down one division while Pacquiao moved up two, and Oscar was only one fight removed from fighting a split decision with Floyd. In a lot of ways, I consider the Oscar win more relevant than the Hatton and Cotto wins, because Pacquaio beat them when he was already established as a 140/147 fighter, but it was against Oscar that he established himself.
2. Diaz was not a stop-off at lightweight “on his way to junior welter for a big fight with Ricky”. Manny fought Oscar between Hatton and Diaz. If Diaz was a ‘stop-off’ at 135, then Oscar must also have been a ‘stop-off’ at 147, if the destination at the end of the journey was Hatton at 140, and that doesn’t make sense.
3. While I agree that Floyd won’t be remembered kindly by posterity, and certainly not for his efforts at welterweight, I think you understate when you say “Pacquiao will be remembered for Barrera, Morales and Cotto”. Add Hatton, Oscar, and Marquez to that list, and you have six future Hall of Fame fighters that Manny has beaten on his swathe through the divisions…..
Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."
(SC, 28/12/09; http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/12/27/1221143/mayweather-pacquiao-update-bob#comments)
Well I really don't think De La Hoya was
anything special in that fight and I believe Manny has at least five better wins. Surely you don’t think that prime De La Hoya would have been anything like as easy for Pacquiao to beat? If he could beat him at all.
You’re absolutely right about Diaz and I simply wasn’t thinking properly when I wrote this. Blame how tired I was. Diaz was still just a stop off in the lightweight division for Pacquiao regardless of what came next.
I saw those three wins as his most accomplished, in retrospect I could easily replace Morales with Hatton. I didn’t see much point in listing all the people I had already mentioned in the piece.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 29, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
Five better wins? Really? Even considering the jump in weight?
Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."
(SC, 28/12/09; http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/12/27/1221143/mayweather-pacquiao-update-bob#comments)
Yes considering how shot and drained Oscar was
I totally acknowledge that the fight was taken as a considerable challenge but it just turned out to be very easy.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 29, 2009 12:43 PM EST up reply actions
It only turned out to be very easy because of how good Manny was/is.
Had it been Marquez making that jump, I think Oscar would still have won the fight.
Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."
(SC, 28/12/09; http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/12/27/1221143/mayweather-pacquiao-update-bob#comments)
Are you denying that Oscar was shot and drained?
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 29, 2009 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
No. But it took a phenomenal fighter to beat him.
Had he fought Luis Collazo, I think he would have won.
Had Marquez made the jump, Oscar would have won.
Had he fought anyone outside of the top 6 at 147, I think he’d have won.
Basically, I’m saying the win, and the fashion of it, says more about Manny than it does about that specific incarnation of Oscar.
Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."
(SC, 28/12/09; http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/12/27/1221143/mayweather-pacquiao-update-bob#comments)
Do you think hjat it's a top five win for Manny?
I find it hard to see any way to argue that Pacquiao fought a better version of Oscar than Mayweather.
Otherwise fair enough, I’m not convinced but you still make a good point.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 29, 2009 6:50 PM EST up reply actions
Yes.
I think the jump in weight to fight a HoF fighter, and the destructive nature of the win when he was a 5/2 underdog (and written off by most of us) makes this a top 3 win for him.
I’d also guess that in 20 years,people will talk more about his win over Oscar than over pretty much everyone else, unless he beats Floyd. Thus far, the Oscar fight defines Manny’s career more than any other.
Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."
(SC, 28/12/09; http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/12/27/1221143/mayweather-pacquiao-update-bob#comments)
I'll deny it (or at least try!)
I remember when they came to the centre of the ring at the start of R1 I was thinking, “oh shit, DLH is just TOO big – this is ridiculous”. By the end of the fight, I wondered how the hell DLH could have ever beaten him; and I think a lot of this “Oscar was drained” talk was just an excuse on the part of DLH and his GBP team to protect his “Legacy”. It’s a rare example of the loser of the battle getting to write history, in my book. We’ll never know how DLH would have done that night against any other top WW, drained or no; however, hindsight also gives us the Hatton and (esp) Cotto fights: were they weight drained (well, maybe Hatton, but it was moot in the end)? And Oscar, despite getting comprehensively beat, didn’t really get beat up as badly as those two guys. I don’t think I would be going out on a limb by saying that, with hindsight, Pac is a significantly better 140-147 fighter than anybody Oscar fought, including Mosley.
A younger DLH could, maybe, have beaten an earlier, one-dimensional version of Pac (slightly equalising the weights where required); however, the two-fisted, bigger, Roach-refined, post-2007 version would have beaten any model of Oscar.
As a notch on Manny’s ring-post, for me, it’s right up there with Morales II and Cotto.
I still think PBF’s style is all wrong for Manny, although I’d like to be proven wrong!
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
Yeah, I’d go there too.
1. Marquez II
2. Barrera I
3. Morales II
4. Cotto
5. Hatton
Bad Left Hook
"If bulls**t was poetry, Ray 'Boom Boom' Mancini's name would be Shakespeare." -- Dennis Rappaport
by Scott Christ on Dec 29, 2009 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
I think the jump in weight makes the fight more relevant.
He was recognized as comfortable at 140/147 AFTER Oscar. Do you not remember the outcry when Oscar “took the fight”? We all derided him as someone obsessed with fighting smaller fighters, beating up on guys who were no risk to him (Steve Forbes, anyone?)
Manny having 3 fights spanning 4 weight classes, culminating in a destruction and retiring of a HoF fighter naturally 30lbs bigger than him, was, and is, outrageous. It defined him. To now say other fights are more relevant to his legacy smacks of revisionism, to me. None of us gave Manny a chance against Oscar. Now he’s in G.O.A.T P4P conversations, and that started after the Oscar fight.
Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."
(SC, 28/12/09; http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/12/27/1221143/mayweather-pacquiao-update-bob#comments)
I think you’re underestimating the strength of the other five wins.
Bad Left Hook
"If bulls**t was poetry, Ray 'Boom Boom' Mancini's name would be Shakespeare." -- Dennis Rappaport
by Scott Christ on Dec 29, 2009 3:11 PM EST up reply actions
Hell, I'm not saying any of them were bad;
I was the one that added 3 to the 3 proposed in the opening post.
I just think that trivialising the Oscar fight is crazy talk.
Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."
(SC, 28/12/09; http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/12/27/1221143/mayweather-pacquiao-update-bob#comments)
Isn't legacy, by definition, 'revisionist'?! :)
I think perhaps in terms of jump in weight, Cotto was more relevant in that there were no excuses of being shot/weight drained. He was arguably a top 3 WW in his prime, and Hatton looked as good as he ever did prior to Pac.
I hated every minute of training, but I said, ‘’Don’t quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.'’ (Bernard Hopkins)
You're right.
And Pac’s is being revised after every fight. Manny’s post-Oscar wins should give the lie to him (DLH) being “shot” or “weight-drained”. Look how soft DLH was at MW – a solid 154 fighter shouldn’t look like that 6 pounds north, esp in the prime of his career. And I’m pretty sure Hatton had more to lose before his fight with Pacquiao than did DLH! Oscar was always a skinny guy, and I don’t think he had that much difficulty getting down to 147. I mean, he was hardly dehydrated – he only put 2 pounds on in the 24 hours before the fight.
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
They tried to rehydrate him in the dressing room
that indicates serious trouble making weight.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 29, 2009 6:53 PM EST up reply actions
Why didn’t they bother in the 24 hours leading up to the fight? Lots of fighters get dehydrated to make weight; the only way he wouldn’t have kept the replacement water in him would be if he hadn’t taken on electrolytes (well, sodium at least). I can’t believe DLH/GBP would have overlooked that. Dehydrated is McGuigan vs Cruz – he was hallucinating in the dressing room afterwards – not DLH that night against Pacquiaio. Oscar was perfectly lucid (well, sort of – you know what he’s like), in interview post-fight. I’d be interested to know what the deal with the weight gain (or lack, thereof) was, though.
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
Cotto is still arguably a top 3 welterweight.... :)
Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."
(SC, 28/12/09; http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/12/27/1221143/mayweather-pacquiao-update-bob#comments)
by Chaos100 on Dec 29, 2009 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I don't agree on Hatton.
The Hatton that fought Paulie would have been destroyed in short order by the Hatton that fought Kostya Tszyu….
Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."
(SC, 28/12/09; http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/12/27/1221143/mayweather-pacquiao-update-bob#comments)
Hmm
I’m really not sure about that. Regardless of whethe or not it was his best win he still looked very good, far from ruined.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 29, 2009 6:53 PM EST up reply actions
Oscar was seen as a big challenge
before the fight but once it got going it became apparent that he was very faded if not shot and the did have trouble making weight. Do you think prime Oscar would really have been so easy to beat?
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 29, 2009 6:57 PM EST up reply actions
1. I very very strongly disagree with the statement that the Oscar win for Pacquiao "really counts for very little". Whether or not Oscar was weight drained (he was), Pacquiao had moved up 4 weight divisions in 2 fights. He should have had very little chance. Beating an average top twenty welterweight would have been an amazing achievement, but Pacquiao, to put it as eloquently as is necessary, beat the shit out of a future Hall of Famer, a man who had challenged for a title at middleweight (against one of the greatest middleweight fighters of all time), the biggest name in the sport, the man a lot of people credit with keeping boxing ‘alive’, whatever that means. Yes, Oscar was old, but he only moved down one division while Pacquiao moved up two, and Oscar was only one fight removed from fighting a split decision with Floyd. In a lot of ways, I consider the Oscar win more relevant than the Hatton and Cotto wins, because Pacquaio beat them when he was already established as a 140/147 fighter, but it was against Oscar that he established himself.
I think most people felt that way about Pacquiao’s chances against DLH because nobody thought somebody could move up that quickly and actually carry their strength and speed along with them. Just look at Marquez. That’s pretty much how it usually plays out. They look slow and fat. Pacquiao looked stronger and faster. It was surprising because it was the exception to the rule.
It seems you're taking away credit for all of Mayweather's victories
I would say that Hatton was ruined by Mayweather (happens to boxers all the time). If there is no credit for Mayweather beating Corrales and Marquez, certainly there is less credit for Pacman for beating Hatton and DLH after Floyd did. Cotto also has not looked the same since getting knocked out (he didn’t look that good against Clottey or Pacman).
My point is that besides the wins against guys way past their prime (DLH is the only name that really comes to mind) both fighters should get credit for ALL of their wins. Manny has fought better competition so far, but that is because there were better oppurtunities to take those fights. It’s easily forgotten that Mayweather cleared out two divisions himself before moving in weight to take on greater challenges.
Why was Hatton ruined?
I mean really other than being beaten, and not brutally at that, what was it that makes you think he was ruined. In my opinion he looked better than ever after that fight when he totally beat up Malignaggi. I really see that as his best win because of how well he performed there. Other than that I fail to see why beating someone first makes your win more credible. I feel the weights of the respective fights mean that Manny beat the better Hatton but there really is no big difference.
I’m pretty sure I do give credit for Mayweather beating Corrales actually, even though he was very weight drained. I also don’t really understand where people come from with the idea that Cotto was ruined after the beating he took from Margarito. He looked very good against Clottey, beating a top five welterweight with a very good defense and tricky style.
I give Mayweather credit for selling such an obvious and massvie mismatch in his fight with Marquez but almost none for the actual win. Would you really consider Marquez a legitimate welterweight opponent for the apparent champion of that division? Surely not when he could have fought Berto, Mosley, Cotto or Clottey instead.
Your last paragraph strikes me as a touch odd. Recently mayweather has had plenty of opportunities to fight against much stronger opposition but has not taken them. Mayweather did his best work at 130 in my opinion and in recent years hasn’t come close to facing the level of opposition that Pacquiao has.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 29, 2009 12:53 PM EST up reply actions
It could be argued that Mayweather's knockout of Hatton made him timid.
Some guys become really gunshy after being knocked out for the first time. After that fight, Hatton looked like he would hesitate a little before jumping in and brawling (his bread and butter). Even in the first couple rounds of the Malignaggi fight, he looked a little timid until he realized Paulie has absolutely no power. Speaking of Malignaggi, Hatton looking good against him means nothing IMO. He was a perfect match up for a brawler who just got knocked out.
Regarding Mayweather’s last couple of years, he didn’t have a huge money fight after Hatton. While I agree that Cotto and Mosley would have been good opponents, Mosley was coming off the Cotto loss and Cotto wasn’t a big enough name to make a huge money fight with at the time Mayweather “retired”. When a huge fight emerged after Pacman blew up in the national media, Mayweather quickly unretired and made a fight against a guy who had given Manny problems in two fights. While it’s obvious that Marquez didn’t belong at 147, I feel that fight showed that Manny is going to have a hard time with Floyd’s power and evasiveness.
I’m not saying that Mayweather couldn’t have found a good fight instead of taking a break. I’m saying there wasn’t a fight out there that would pay him what he made in the Hatton fight until Manny beat up DLH and Hatton himself. And honestly, that is what motivates Floyd to fight now.
While it’s obvious that Marquez didn’t belong at 147, I feel that fight showed that Manny is going to have a hard time with Floyd’s power and evasiveness.
Why? Manny and Marquez are massively different fighters and will both have very seperate approaches to the fight.
I am well aware that Mayweather was only after the money but frankly he can makebig money with anyone. Cotto has a big following, as big as Marquez’s, and Margarito’s was bigger than either of them.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 30, 2009 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
Why... it's because they are comparitive in their size
All three guys Manny has fought at 140 above have been stationary targets (or coming straight to him) and have been straight punchers (Pacquiao saw almost all of the shots he took). Floyd showed against Marquez that a). he is very hard to hit when you are the smaller guy, and b). he can rock you when you try to close the distance and miss with your first punch. These characteristics will be the two biggest obstacles Pacman will have to conquer if he is going to beat Mayweather.
As far as money fights go, Mayweather’s fights before he retired were DLH (huge media and casual fan following) and Hatton (huge British following). Where would he have went from there to make AS MUCH money as he made in those fights? Not Mosley, who just lost to Cotto. Not Cotto, who had 2 more big fights before the Pacquiao fight to increase his name recognition. Not Paul Williams, who had almost no name at that time. Not even Pacquiao at the time would have made the fight as big as the Hatton or DLH fights were. These are all fights WE would have loved to see, but the money and hype would not have been as big as either of Floyd’s previous two fights, which is why they didn’t happen.
Forgot to address Margarito.
He was a nobody when Mayweather retired (lost to Paul Williams not too far away from when Floyd took his leave) and had a very short window of popularity due to the beatdown of Cotto. That fight also made Cotto’s name bigger, especially after we found out what Margarito was up to. If anybody should have cashed in on Margarito’s popularity, it should have been Pacquiao. But in all honesty, it would have been a bad match-up for either one of them because of the height and reach advantage (same thing with them against Paul Williams).
There’s no doubt that fighting Cotto or Margarito would have made Mayweather less money than his De La Hoya or Hatton fights. I just don’t see that as a reason not to fight them. There have been a lot of #1 PFP fighters in the history of boxing, and none of Floyd’s predecessors ever refused to engage in anything besides mega-fights. There are always going to be times when you are between mega-fights, and the proper response in those situations is to take the next best thing that’s available.
Fighting Cotto in 2008 would not have been as big as fighting Hatton, but it still would have been pretty damn big. It was more than an acceptable fight, even for a Gigantic Mega Superstar, and he should have taken it.
Taco Pal
I agree with all that.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 30, 2009 7:10 PM EST up reply actions
not disagreeing with that
But he didn’t take the fight because it wasn’t going to make him as much money. That’s the reason, plain and simple.
I think what most people are missing is that Floyd’s plan worked to perfection. Get out of the spotlight for a minute, let someone he matches up well with build up his name, and then return for an even bigger paycheck. Again, I would have loved to see him fight a lot of different people too, but what I am saying is the REASON he didn’t.
The reason he didn't take the fights
is beside the point in terms of considering his legacy. The fact that he did or didn’t is all that is really pertinent to this topic.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 31, 2009 6:20 AM EST up reply actions
he is very hard to hit when you are the smaller guy
Mayweather is hard to hit anyway. And really that fight more told us that Mayweather is hard to hit if you’re really slow because of how much weight you’ve had to put on. Also Pacquiao is a good bit faster than Marquez.
he can rock you when you try to close the distance and miss with your first punch
To be fair Maquez’s chin isn’t that great but yeah that punch was perfect. Again though I feel that Pacquiao will be fast and durable enough to stop that happening as easily.
I get that Floyd primarily fights for money but that doesn’t really concern his legacy except to indicate part of the reason why it’s not that good.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 30, 2009 7:10 PM EST up reply actions
It will concern his legacy if he keeps winning the huge fights.
Most fighters are hesitant to take bad match-ups unless they have to. Honestly, Pacquiao is doing the same thing. An old DLH, an overhyped Hatton, and a smaller welterweight in Cotto. Why didn’t Manny take on Mosley? Paul Williams? The same reason Mayweather didn’t; they’re not really favorable matchups for a smaller welterweight. They both have cherry picked to an extent since moving up in weight, as most fighters do. Roy Jones didn’t call out Lennox Lewis or a Klitchko when he fought at heavyweight. Nobody wanted to move up in weight to fight hopkins for over 5 years (until Trinidad I think?) It just doesn’t make sense for the smaller fighter.
...
and? That Pacquiao’s wins are better than Mayweather’s was my conclusion. I based this on the quality of opposition and felt that justifying choices for opposition was beside the point.
Saying that Mayweather’s legacy will improve if he keeps winning big fights is something of no-brainer…
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 31, 2009 6:23 AM EST up reply actions
Here is my stance on that
Pacquiao has a better resume in terms of his dominant division (all of the Morales, Marquez, Barrera fights). Floyd has a better resume rising through divisions (his fights against DLH, Hatton, and Baldomir are better than Pacquiao’s fights against DLH, Hatton, DIaz, and Cotto).
I’m don’t think we should penalize Mayweather for not having the competition in his division coming up that Pacquiao did and I’m tired of hearing that Pacquiao takes on all comers. Is that why he’s fighting Malinaggi next? THEY BOTH have cherry picked their fights while moving up in weight and I give Mayweather the edge in competition because his win against DLH was better than any fight Pacquiao has won since moving up and Floyd’s win against Hatton is better than any fight of Manny’s besides his win against Cotto. And that affects both of their legacies.
Floyd has a better resume rising through divisions (his fights against DLH, Hatton, and Baldomir are better than Pacquiao’s fights against DLH, Hatton, DIaz, and Cotto).
Explain how? He fought Hatton at a weight we knew wasn’t good for Ricky, as Hatton had badly struggled against Luis Collazo in his only previous fight at 147. Baldomir, to put it bluntly, had a four-leaf clover up his ass against Judah and then beat a terribly shot Arturo Gatti. In no way is Mayweather over Baldomir a better win than Pacquiao’s over Cotto.
Manny beat the better Ricky and Floyd beat the better Oscar. But when you get to Baldomir v. Cotto, it’s not close. The Cotto that Pacquiao beat would have beaten the Baldomir that Floyd beat 12 times out of 10. Baldomir’s a rugged dude and I’ve got nothing against him, but that debate isn’t even close IMO.
Bad Left Hook
"If bulls**t was poetry, Ray 'Boom Boom' Mancini's name would be Shakespeare." -- Dennis Rappaport
by Scott Christ on Dec 31, 2009 6:01 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Explaination
First off, I wasn’t comparing fight to fight (especially Baldomir vs. Cotto). Cotto was by far Pacquiao’s best victory.
Now to Ricky Hatton. I don’t get this thinking that the Hatton Pacquiao beat was better than the Hatton Floyd beat. Hatton looked good in the Mayweather fight. He looked comfortable, fought his fight, and lost. Collazo has showed us in a series of fights now that he is a legitimate welterweight and a tough challenge for anyone. So why hold it against Hatton that he won a tough fight against Collazo?
After Floyd knocked Hatton out, he comes back to beat Malignaggi (which any top ranked fighter should) and everyone decides he’s back? Only to continue to be tenetative against Pacquiao and get knocked out in two rounds? My view has always been that Hatton was a bit overrated and his fight plan is one that doesn’t work against most elite fighters, especially after getting knocked out (guys whose bread and butter is coming forward and bullying fighters usually struggle after really getting knocked out the first time). I saw no evidence while comparing the two fights that Hatton was better in the Pacquiao fight as far as feeling better, looking faster, or boxing better. With that said, I give Floyd the advantage in their mutual win due to the fact that Hatton was unbeaten and the gunshy effect that happens to many fighters after getting knocked out,.
Here’s how I list the fights both have took at higher weights:
1.Floyd vs. DLH
2. Manny vs. Cotto
3. Floyd vs. Hatton
4. Manny vs. Hatton
5. Manny vs. DLH
6. Floyd vs. Baldomir (at least give him credit for fighting a natural welterweight, and the biggest in physical size either one of them has fought).
7. Manny vs. Diaz (I give Diaz a lot of props in this fight for the beating he took).
If you agree with this list (which I know some people won’t), then Floyd’s top two fights have been better than Manny’s and Manny’s wins against DLH and Diaz don’t overtake Baldomir by enough to give Manny the overall edge.
Even if you switch the two Hatton fights, at worst the two resumes are even. Yes, Baldomir vs. the Cotto fight gets smoked. But what about Baldomir vs. Diaz? Even Baldomir vs. the DLH Manny faced? The quality of those fights isn’t that far apart (although I’m not saying anything bad about Pacquiao for taking or winning either one of these fights)
Hatton looked good in the Mayweather fight. He looked comfortable, fought his fight, and lost
Have you seen the fight? Hatton was frustrated and there’s no way he fought his fight there. Even if Hatton was comortable at that wegiht he still wasn’t nearly as good there as he was at 140. I think that saying Hatton was gunshy is silly, all he tried to do was run in and hit people!
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jan 1, 2010 1:22 PM EST up reply actions
But what about Baldomir vs. Diaz? Even Baldomir vs. the DLH Manny faced?
What about the Baldomir vs Barrera, Morales or Marquez?
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jan 1, 2010 1:24 PM EST up reply actions
This is off the argument.
I’m talking about the fighters they fought after moving at of their preferred weight class. And I forgot to include the Judah fight, another high quality oppenent Floyd fought above his weight class. That would be #5 on my list, ahead of Manny vs. DLH.
And I forgot to include the Judah fight, another high quality oppenent Floyd fought above his weight class.
Judah who had just lost to crummy Baldomir and hasn’t beaten anyone else worth a crap since then. I don’t see Judah as much of a scalp. The last good fighter he beat was Cory Spinks in 2005, over a year before he fought Mayweather.
Bad Left Hook
"If bulls**t was poetry, Ray 'Boom Boom' Mancini's name would be Shakespeare." -- Dennis Rappaport
A couple things on Judah
Judah had a good showing against Mayweather, as well as Cotto the next year. While he’s not an elite fighter by any means, he was still a high quality opponent at the time and a tougher challenge than DLH or Diaz was when Pacquiao fought them, IMO.
Judah’s showing against Mayweather was alright, but he proved what Floyd said about him beforehand. He’s a six-round fighter. But I’ll give you that Floyd’s Zab > Manny’s Oscar and definitely Floyd’s Zab > Manny’s Diaz.
Bad Left Hook
"If bulls**t was poetry, Ray 'Boom Boom' Mancini's name would be Shakespeare." -- Dennis Rappaport
I didn't realise that
my bad. Still there’s no way the Baldomir win comes close to the Cotto one.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jan 1, 2010 4:02 PM EST up reply actions
Not even an argument between the two.
But how does Baldomir rate against DLH or Diaz when Pacquiao fought them. Pretty close or better, I think.
Probably about the same
I quote from the the original article.
David Diaz or Baldomir? Who was worse? Probably Diaz actually but the thing here is that Pacquiao was just stopping off in the lightweight division on his way to junior welter for a big fight with ricky. Mayweather actually expects us to buy Baldomir as a serious opponent. Sorry Floyd but 5 loss Carlos doesn’t cut it at this level.
Kindly excuse inaccuracy in my fight chronology.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jan 1, 2010 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
Baldomir had like 9 losses coming into that fight, actually. And I get why Floyd fought him — Baldomir was hot and he WAS the lineal champion, The Man at 147. But it doesn’t make him good or mean that he had any shot against Mayweather.
Bad Left Hook
"If bulls**t was poetry, Ray 'Boom Boom' Mancini's name would be Shakespeare." -- Dennis Rappaport
My accuracy isn't doing so well here
I shall put in more research next time!
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jan 2, 2010 5:53 PM EST up reply actions
He didn't try to bully Mayweather the whole fight?
He was frustrated because, like everybody else, he was having a hard time hitting Floyd and was getting caught with a lot of counters. To his credit, he tried harder, which left him open for a big shot, which he got hit with, and he got knocked out. Hatton fought exactly the way he always fought, except for one important detail: he couldn’t hit Mayweather. Do you blame that on his weight? I guess everybody Floyd fought has been at the wrong weight then!
No of course I don't blame it on weight
please don’t be misunderstand me. I never once said that Floyd only beat Hatton because of weight. What I did say is that Hatton was more comfortable at 140 so Pacquiao beat the better version of him IMO.
Mayweather would have beaten Hatton at any weight.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jan 1, 2010 4:04 PM EST up reply actions
I understand your argument.
We just disagree about who fought the better version. It’s basically me thinking Hatton getting knocked out before facing Pacquiao means more than him fighting at 140 because of his fighting style and his performances since the Mayweather fight.
" Even if Hatton was comortable at that wegiht he still wasn’t nearly as good there as he was at 140."
This has nothing to do with his actual weight, it has to do with the size of the opponents he is fighting. Juan Diaz is a great example of this; he still fights his style, but above 130 it’s not as effective because his punches don’t have as much effect on his opponent because they’re bigger and stronger, and he is getting hit with harder punches because his OPPONENT is stronger. He got stunned by a Malignaggi punch! It’s because why Paulie is the weakest puncher among the junior welterweights, he still hits harder than most fighters at lightweight due to his size.
Juan Diaz is a great example of this; he still fights his style, but above 130 it’s not as effective
Not to nitpick but Juan Diaz has never fought at 130.
Bad Left Hook
"If bulls**t was poetry, Ray 'Boom Boom' Mancini's name would be Shakespeare." -- Dennis Rappaport
I presume he meant 135
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jan 1, 2010 4:01 PM EST up reply actions
On balance
it’s a combination of the two things. Having extra weight can throw a fighter as it slows them down and basically makes everything feel different.
With Hatton you’re probably right that the reason he wasn’t comfortable at the weight was mostly because he lost his considerable strength advantage which is so important to his way of fighting.
I don’t really see how that’s not about weight though…
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jan 1, 2010 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
My point is that Hatton didn't look physically uncomfortale in the fight because of the extra weight.
Some guys, like DLH when he went to 160, look out of shape going up in weight. Hatton walks around at a much higher weight and looked in great shape at 147. Marquez also didn’t look great at 144, and Juan Diaz at 140 also.
But you concede he was less effective at 147?
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jan 1, 2010 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
No.
In fact, I would say his win against Collazo at 147 is one of the top three in his career. He then fought ten hard, pretty competitive rounds with the then #1 p4p fighter before getting caught with a big counter and being knocked out. I don’t think there is any shame in that for Hatton and honestly, how much better could he have done? Lost a decision, I guess.
I don’t understand how you are saying Pacquiao fought the better Hatton. Hatton was not fighting with his usual aggresiveness, allowing Pacquiao to stand in front of him and pop shot him, and then he got caught with one good punch in the 1st round and really got tenative. That contributed to him getting knocked out the next round because he wasn’t aggresive when he was coming at Pacquiao. His mannerisms and his fight plan were not the same as the Hatton that beat Kostya Tszyu or Collazo. I don’t see how you can argue against that.
I can argue with it pretty easily
but even if I persist all year I’m never going to change your mind. Which is fair enough I suppose. It’s your mind.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jan 2, 2010 12:05 PM EST up reply actions
kinda, because Collazo's good
But kinda not, because I thought Hatton lost that fight.
(Not that you were asking me but I’m pretty much on the same wavelength as DC here)
Bad Left Hook
"If bulls**t was poetry, Ray 'Boom Boom' Mancini's name would be Shakespeare." -- Dennis Rappaport
My point is that besides the wins against guys way past their prime (DLH is the only name that really comes to mind) both fighters should get credit for ALL of their wins
I might be reading this wrong, but I actually give Floyd great credit for beating Oscar. Floyd went up in weight to a class where he simply does not belong, made great in-fight adjustments, and beat a damn good fighter. It’s one of his very best wins, IMO.
Bad Left Hook
"If bulls**t was poetry, Ray 'Boom Boom' Mancini's name would be Shakespeare." -- Dennis Rappaport
by Scott Christ on Dec 29, 2009 1:28 PM EST up reply actions
I agree
I think the guy meant when he fought Pacquiao.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 29, 2009 2:08 PM EST up reply actions
Good post, Cutman. I understand the desire to compare the fighters based on their big event fights, as it has the greatest bearing on how they’ll be remembered by the fair weather boxing fans. However, I think both guys were titans at their lower weight classes, and you’ve only mentioned Corrales for Mayweather. Floyd won that title against a game Genaro Hernandez. Maybe you saw it as an easy fight or you think Hernandez got old (and retired) overnight, but no one thought that before the fight. And Hernandez put the pressure on him, be sure; Floyd definitely won his first title the hard way against a good champion. I think Arum poisoned the well for people’s opinions on Floyd by revealing that he ducked harder hitters and bigger guys as he moved up in weight class, but before he ran into a promotional problem, Floyd was building a great legacy. And Floyd could put on a show. He could tell Jim Lampley he was picking the Patriots in-between jabs in the middle of a round!
I think they’re just too different as fighters, and they will be remembered and respected for very different reasons, making it hard to say one was better unless they actually face each other.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Dec 29, 2009 5:57 PM EST reply actions
I still think Mayweather will be remembered well
but not as a really great fighter. Or he will be remembered as having the skills but not actually following through with it and taking on top opposition. I agree that his best work was in the lower divisions.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 29, 2009 6:56 PM EST up reply actions
I think there’s an apt sports analogy when comparing the resumes of the two fighters: Mayweather is Peyton Manning to Pacquiao’s Tom Brady. Mayweather has the better pedigree (Golden Gloves, Olympics) and his career follows that of a first overall pick, where many things are handed to him and he is brought along correctly and carefully. Whereas Pacquiao came from adversity, fighting whomever they put in front of him just to get out of Asia. He did everything from taking fights as a late replacement to taking on fighters he probably wasn’t ready to face just to earn his spot. He’s the quintessential late rounder.
There’s no denying that Manning and Brady are both greats, but many people choose Brady because he’s delivered on the big stage against the best competition so many times. But Manning will leave with a lot of records, MVP’s and at least one championship. It’s hard to tell right now if Super Bowl rings (in this analogy, big fights against the best available fighters) will really be the final word in comparing these two.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Dec 29, 2009 8:56 PM EST up reply actions
nice analogy...and clearly Brady over Manning,
in my own humble biased Pats opinion…lol
I hated every minute of training, but I said, ‘’Don’t quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.'’ (Bernard Hopkins)
I am..
was born in Boston though, so I follow a little.
I hated every minute of training, but I said, ‘’Don’t quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.'’ (Bernard Hopkins)
Mayweather Doesn't Need Pacquiao.
who is Mayweather going to be remembered for? His resume isn’t that good despite his tremendous skills and if he beats Pacquiao none of that will matter
So basically, you’ve concluded that Mayweather doesn’t need Pacquiao. Hear me out. Mayweather is obviously on his way out. He’s obviously focusing on cashing a check as opposed to cashing a legacy. At this stage in his career, is he really interested in his legacy? I don’t think so, because if he was, then he would have fought the guys that would have added more meaning to his legacy. Mayweather needs Pacquiao strictly to line his pockets with some cool millions. I don’t see him facing Mosley any time soon. Then again I don’t see Pacquiao** facing Mosley either.
And here’s my opinion. Pacquiao’s last 3 fights.
One, I agree with BrianBrock, legacy is revisionist at best.
- Mayweather Jr. has a strong argument by stating he defeated Hatton when he was undefeated and it meant something. Taking nothing away from Hatton performance against Pacquiao but Mayweather has a point.
- **Oscar De La Hoya . . . ok, yeah, whatever. The Mosley question. Come to think about it, if it is really all about legacy . . . Why face Oscar who lost to Mosley and Mayweather Jr.? Or did De La Hoya represent a bigger financial opportunity as opposed to a greater opportunity to add to his legacy? Hmmmm . . .
- Facing Miguel Cotto at the right time. Yeah, they put on a great fight. Freddie Roach knew it was the right time to fight Cotto because like many other boxers and coaches believe, Margarito changed Cotto.
Happy Holidays and A Happy New Year
Cotto
Cotto was also a great matchup for Pacquiao because he doesn’t have a lot of power (I’m talking about one-shot power) and is best when he comes straight forward (very similar to Hatton’s style). That was perfect for Manny to pick him apart. I also agree that the Margarito fight changed Cotto, as I also say about the Mayweather fight changing Hatton. Getting knocked out also had this effect on Jones after Tarver, Trinidad after Hopkins, and many others. Some guys react positively after getting knocked out; most boxers drop down a level after really getting knocked out or beaten down.
I feel you may have missed the point of the article somewhat
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 30, 2009 1:00 PM EST up reply actions
The article is discussing legacy and their recent quality of opponents. Many pundits feel that Mayweather Jr. has a long history of ducking quality opponents while Pacquiao has faced the best of the best of the best, etc.
This issue comparing who they fought, when they fought and particularly how they fought has been addressed on a number of occassions. Mayweather Jr. has already went to further lengths, contradicting himself at times, talking about who, when and particularly how he fights.
I’ll add interesting parallels between Mayweather and Pacquiao.
- you stated Marquez had no business fighting at that weight. Well Freddie Roach knew, more than anyone else, that Oscar De La Hoya had no business fighting Pacquiao at that weight.
- Many people felt Pacquiao lost one his fights against Marquez and many people felt Mayweather recieved a gift decision against Castillo in their first fight.
- Pacquiao and Mayweather Jr. wouldn’t be this huge IF they did not fight Oscar De La Hoya. Oscar was/is(?) what Mike Tyson was to the heavyweight division, an opportunity to connect with casual fans and an opportunity to make money.
Legacy? I don’t know about all that. Mayweather Jr. apparently does not care.
Happy Holidays and A Happy New Year
by VeeisAnimated on Dec 30, 2009 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
I used to think Mayweather didn’t care about legacy too, but after listening to how vehemently (if poorly) he tried to defend himself in his argument with R.A. the Rugged Man, I changed my mind. I think it’s more than Mayweather buys his own B.S.
Yeah he really does think
that he’s the best boxer of all time.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 30, 2009 2:27 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not sure he actually truly believes that
but he wants everyone else to think that, without going through the burden of proving it against the very best opposition at his weight consistently.
I hated every minute of training, but I said, ‘’Don’t quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.'’ (Bernard Hopkins)
by BrianBrock on Dec 30, 2009 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I think there’s a middle ground there. Floyd did basically admit in a recent interview (which I think may have read about on this site, though I can’t remember) that he isn’t really the greatest of all time. But I also think, however, that he honestly believes that his record is much, much more impressive than it really is. I also think he believes that he is showing impressive modesty by admitting he isn’t really the greatest of all time.
I agree in that....
…he thinks his record is better than it is. He genuinely, no bs believes that JMM was a great win while even his mother/closest friend/Option27 would at best say it was just good….lol
His head is amazingly big but his confident words don’t always seem to be backed up by his body language/actions. He has an insecurity that someone supremely confident that ’I’m the best’ would maybe not have….
I hated every minute of training, but I said, ‘’Don’t quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.'’ (Bernard Hopkins)
Oscar De La Hoya had no business fighting Pacquiao at that weight.
Grr. Aside from this being very obvious I did point that out in the post.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 30, 2009 2:30 PM EST up reply actions
lol
great post btw, enjoyed reading it.
I hated every minute of training, but I said, ‘’Don’t quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.'’ (Bernard Hopkins)
I'm glad :)
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 30, 2009 2:50 PM EST up reply actions
I agree, enjoyed this post,
and the debate it generated. Now, as I was saying, DLH was made to look bad because Manny was so good that night, not because of weight issues (marginal, IMHO).
And listen up good, because I’ve NEVER been as sure about anything in my life as I have of this bombshell: I have seen definitive proof that Oscar De La……oh, wait a minute, somebody’s at the door.
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
hehe
Do you concede that Oscar was shot or at least very faded? If not I may expolde.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 30, 2009 7:11 PM EST up reply actions
Ok, ok, ow!
Aah, my arm! I’ll give you that he was past his best – is that good enough?!
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
I suppose so...
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 30, 2009 7:32 PM EST up reply actions
Now, as I was saying, DLH was made to look bad because Manny was so good that night, not because of weight issues (marginal, IMHO).
Arguing that Oscar wasn’t horribly weight-drained and that it didn’t affect his performance is outrageous to me. The man was clearly not in shape at all, knew it, has admitted it (at least before he decided that Manny DID hit him really hard and that Manny MUST have been juiced up) and Roach even said that he saw IV marks in Oscar’s arm, meaning they tried to hydrate him fast in the locker room before the fight. I mean he was clearly not in fighting shape. He was a wreck.
Bad Left Hook
"If bulls**t was poetry, Ray 'Boom Boom' Mancini's name would be Shakespeare." -- Dennis Rappaport
by Scott Christ on Dec 30, 2009 8:34 PM EST up reply actions
I'm sorry that you find it outrageous.
But I can’t agree that dehydration was a deciding factor, or being weight drained (whatever that means – tell that to Bradley Wiggins). If Oscar was dehydrated at 147, then he would have put on a lot of weight in the 24 hours leading up to fight night – as many fighters do. The fact that he didn’t suggests that he wasn’t. And IV fluids? Come on. Roach, great trainer that he is, says a lot of stuff before and after fights, and not all of it 100% gospel either. IV fluid replacement is normally delivered very slowly to dehydrated/hypovolemic patients (125ml/hour, usually), for good reasons: unless Oscar had a problem with GI absorption, then IV isn’t the way to go, especially an hour before the fight.
I’m not saying that DLH wasn’t past it: he was; but I am saying that the whole weight/dehydration issue is a non-issue vs Pacquiao on the night. I thought the Hatton and Cotto fights would have cleared that up.
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
The clearly gaunt, out of shape condition that Oscar was in was without any question an “issue” in the fight against Pacquiao. The man did not cut weight properly at all and was a total disaster physically. I thought the alarms should have gone off a lot louder when he weighed in at 145 and looked bone dry at the weigh-in. I also wouldn’t doubt that they screwed up trying to rehydrate him. They didn’t get anything else about the weight cut right, why start on the night of the fight?
Bad Left Hook
"If bulls**t was poetry, Ray 'Boom Boom' Mancini's name would be Shakespeare." -- Dennis Rappaport
by Scott Christ on Dec 31, 2009 5:47 AM EST up reply actions
I agree with SC on this one
I was kinda holding my tongue earlier but I am certain that Oscar was weight drained and that it affected this fight.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 31, 2009 6:25 AM EST up reply actions
Sorry to labour the point,
but if his physical appearance, rather than the 145 figure, was such a big deal, then why didn’t anybody comment on it at the time i.e. at the weigh in? I can’t find any contemporaneous news sources that mention it, either. It was only after he got beat that it became an issue.
What did I think of his appearance at the weigh-in (based on video and photos – I wasn’t there)? Well, he looked to have very little subcutaneous fat i.e., he was “cut”, as they say. But that’s usually a good thing, surely? I mean he certainly wasn’t “cut” at 160. He probably looked a bit leaner than he did at 154 – no big deal, he’s lost 9 pounds. Oh, and I also thought he looked apprehensive, but I can’t really blame him for that.
I’m not sure what “looking” dry really means, tbh. If you mean dehydrated, then I think that’s a difficult diagnosis to make from afar, as is being weight-drained. Unfortunately, it’s really hard to make an objective judgment as to Oscars physical condition based upon his performance in the fight, because of an important external factor outside of his control: Manny Pacquiao. If he was a runner or cyclist or swimmer or weightlifter it would obviously be much easier to say, “well these times/weights are really down: something’s up”.
If Oscar wants us to us to believe that he lost the fight due to being weight-drained and/or dehydrated, then he needs to provide some objective supporting evidence, because the burden of proof is on him. Blood (ha!) electrolytes and urine osmolality would indicate any problems with dehydration. Weight-drained suggests lack of stamina and/or strength – does he have any documentary evidence of this from training camp? If he doesn’t have this evidence, or doesn’t want to release it into the public domain, then he and his people should shut their traps and take the defeat on the chin.
I’m not trying to be pedantic about this (honestly!), but I think that any judgments we make about DLH’s condition based upon visual clues at the weigh in, and his performance against Manny are very subjective, and not “without any question”
Sorry for the long-winded post – when I get on my high horse I sometimes can’t stop galloping
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
Another angle, perhaps
was the fact that the last time that he weighed in at 147 was in March 2001 v Gatti(for the 4 years prior to that he never weighed in at less than 146.5), and for the next 7 years he was fighting at mainly 154.
So visually people are going to see a difference of 9lbs at weigh in. Thats A Lot when you’ve seen someone at 154/+ for 7 years. Add to that the fact of his sluggishness in his last out against Forbes at 150 (after pushing PBF as close as anyone has, at 154).
Physically its extremely difficult/impossible to come down in weight at his age and be effective. I believe at that age people are going up rather than down, especially that significantly. There are precedents for what Pacquiao has done, and I’m sure Brick or someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t think of one with DLH.
I hated every minute of training, but I said, ‘’Don’t quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.'’ (Bernard Hopkins)
That's fair
And he was getting long in the tooth. I think the fact that he didn’t look cut at 160 implies that his body wasn’t too receptive to putting on extra muscle naturally (i.e. by just eating more and doing the same boxing training), and 154 may have been the highest he could possibly get and still look in really good shape. In which case, losing those 9lbs might not have been the drag it’s perceived to be.
As for precedents – maybe RJJ? Shit, no, forget that one!
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
SRL vs Terry Norris, 1991?
SRL hadn’t fought as low as 154 since 1984 and, erm…he got whupped by Norris…forget that one too.
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
How about...
my mate Sugar Shane? He spent a few years north of Welterweight, 2003-2006, looked to be fading a bit (esp vs Winky), then was able to come down to 147 and look rejuvenated
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
Every boxer is different in terms of how well
they handle weight jumps, just like the effects of age, so comparisons aren’t really applicable.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 31, 2009 12:05 PM EST up reply actions
True
And Shane didn’t have to fight Manny, either
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
by FCF on Dec 31, 2009 4:55 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Shane is about 3 times
as good at welter now than De La Hoya was when he fought Pacquiao. Do you seriously think Manny could beat up Mosley the was he did Oscar?
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Jan 1, 2010 1:26 PM EST up reply actions
I do, I see Shane getting beat up pretty bad. I don’t like to A>B>C=A>C (Cotto being the common opponent, B), and I know a lot of people really rate Mosley still, but I’ll be surprised if he even gets past Berto (and Berto is no Pac). Take away his speed (overrated these days, IMHO) with a good jab, or with your own superior speed, and you’ve gone a long way to beating him. I also think that Shane’s best recent perfomance, vs Margarito, is an irrelevance when considering a match-up with Manny.
Shane @ Lightweight was an All-Time-Great. Mosley 2010 is a teak-tough, smallish welter with good speed and skills, good power, so-so defense and decent stamina for his age; and none of that makes me think Manny wouldn’t totally overwhelm him.
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
by FCF on Jan 1, 2010 8:16 PM EST up reply actions
That would be a great fight.
Manny might beat Shane, but it would be a close decision. Remember that Cotto beat Mosley by completely changing his style in the fight. He won the last rounds while going backwards, something we had never seen Cotto do. By far Cotto’s best performance.
I'd order it
I was very much in the Xmas/New Year “spirit” when I wrote a couple of these replies (if you get my drift), hence the absolute certainty of my opinions. On reflection, at 147, I still think Manny would win handily; at 135, a pre-PEDed Mosley would have been a very different proposition.
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
by FCF on Jan 3, 2010 3:55 PM EST up reply actions
if his physical appearance, rather than the 145 figure, was such a big deal, then why didn’t anybody comment on it at the time i.e. at the weigh in?
Quote from myself during the weigh-in: “He looks a little thin in the biceps, but whatever.”
My ‘whatever’ is my reluctance to make a mountain out of a mole-hill. I was very surprised that he came in at 145 pounds, and was then surprised that nobody said much.
And: “Is Oscar coming in two pounds light a bad thing? I don’t know.”
Again, I don’t like going crazy about things like this, because most times they turn out to be nothing. This time it turned out to be something indeed.
Kieran Mulvaney offered this: “Some people have commented that they have heard he really isn’t eating anything at this point, and that he’s struggling to stay on 147. That wouldn’t surprise me; it’s normally the case with fighters and Oscar had a hard time making 150 for Forbes. I think he’ll weigh in bang on 147 (I think the talk of him weighing 143 at times during camp is bogus) and he’ll be somewhere around 155 or more on fight night.”
He really wasn’t eating anything, really had gotten down to about 143 at times during his awful training camp, and did not get anywhere close to 155 or more on fight night. He was a mess. I think he was so concerned about making weight that he overdid it during camp (he’s basically admitted as much), hit target weights WAY too early, and then there he was trying to train and maintain his weight for far too long. He looked like he’d been starving himself, and it all showed.
I think Pacquiao would have beaten him even if he was in shape, and I’m not blaming weight, just saying it was certainly a factor in HOW bad he looked.
Bad Left Hook
"If bulls**t was poetry, Ray 'Boom Boom' Mancini's name would be Shakespeare." -- Dennis Rappaport
by Scott Christ on Dec 31, 2009 2:43 PM EST up reply actions
Oscar’s never exactly been Arnie when it comes to biceps, and losing 9lb will make him look slightly thinner than he was at 154. I couldn’t really say from the videos and pics, but fair play for at least making a point of that during the weigh in.
Btw, nice of Oscar to “admit” that he was weight drained and weak for the fight. I bet he would have loved to have kept that one quiet, and let Manny take deserved credit for the win.
I’ve enjoyed defending my (obviously unpopular) position on this, and thanks for taking time to discuss it with me; I understand you may have some other commitments on this site….. As such, I think at this point I’m willing to respect your opinion, agree to disagree, and vow never to mention it again for the rest of the year.
All the best for 2010!
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
I understand we are talking about the legacy of both fighters, but your argument for it dismisses most of Mayweather's victories while celebrating most of Pacquiao's.
This is what I am not agreeing with. And if they don’t fight, it will probably be Pacquiao’s legacy that gets damaged more than Mayweather’s because of the drug testing feud, which is what the casual fan will remember (who is more important to a fighter’s legacy than hardcore fans like you and I are because of pure numbers).
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
