Is Manny Pacquiao the Most Overrated Boxer of All Time?

[Alaskanredman]

To answer your questions:

1. Fighters take them because they feel they might perform better with them.

2. Boxing organizations ban them because they claim they don't want fighters to have unfair advantages over others.

Opinion:

1. Just because fighters feel they might perform better with them doesn't mean it is true. Some fighter drink piss and sperm. (Marquez-piss, Alex Reid-sperm)

Fact: Even though some of the best fighters have been caught on PEDs, they've never been caught after a particularly extraordinary performance.

2. Whether boxing organizations ban PEDs or not really has no bearing on the true performance enhancing potential of PEDs in boxing.

1. If I were going to go down your path of thinking. I would conclude that piss and sperm would be banned by boxing organizations also. How about lucky socks or home town advantages????

2. When a fighter is caught that doesn't mean that is when a fighter started using the PED. Therefore basing your opinion on those particular performances is being hopeful that fighters don't beat the system often..... or that the ones who have admitted to cheating are being honest and would not try to avoid putting a cloud over some of their greatest performances.

 

[Alaskanredman]

Show me where this wasn't my argument. If you can't, you're full of shit as usual.

Zef I'm not wasting my time. Let your boy do the research. I've busted you and buk before with lying about shit and/or presenting contradictory arguments.

Of course, if I'm "full of shit as usual", there would be a record of me talking out my ass. There isn't.

 

[Zeferino]

Zef I'm not wasting my time. Let your boy do the research. I've busted you and buk before with lying about shit and/or presenting contradictory arguments.

Of course, if I'm "full of shit as usual", there would be a record of me talking out my ass. There isn't.

You've busted ME before? When was this? Again, you're full of shit as usual.

 

[Alaskanredman]

You've busted ME before? When was this? Again, you're full of shit as usual.

I see. You don't remember that either... I will be "full of shit" and there is no need to continue with you. I'm breaking my rule anyway...

Have fun

 

[Zeferino]

1. If I were going to go down your path of thinking. I would conclude that piss and sperm would be banned by boxing organizations also. How about lucky socks or home town advantages????

2. When a fighter is caught that doesn't mean that is when a fighter started using the PED. Therefore basing your opinion on those particular performances is being hopeful that fighters don't beat the system often..... or that the ones who have admitted to cheating are being honest and would not try to avoid putting a cloud over some of their greatest performances.

You're silly. What I wrote was very clear and you still didn't get it. Either that or you're just going out of your way to be an asshole.

1. What makes you conclude that what I previously said would somehow advocate piss and sperm being banned by boxing? Obviously, the point I was making was that just because a fighter thinks something will enhance their performance doesn't mean it is true. Piss drinking Marquez and sperm sipping Reid were highlighted as examples. That shit was clear as day and you still found a way to not understand it or to twist it.

2. Of course, when a fighter gets caught doesn't necessarily mean that they had just starting using PEDs at that time. That's not the point. The point was if you want to base things on FACTS rather than rumors, the logical thing would be to measure a guy's performance in the same fight for which he tested positive. Otherwise, people end up believing things based on ASSUMPTIONS and that is a very dangerous thing.

I'm being very direct with you and to the point and I'm writing to you in a very clear manner because I'm trying to see if you are only capable of smiley face emoticons and cute remarks. So far it looks like emoticons are the extent of your arguments or reasoning process. Also, this thing where you say, "according to your line of thought" and then you go on to twist what someone else said is just corny. It's like you have to change what was said so you can argue something that wasn't even said.

 

[Zeferino]

I see. You don't remember that either... I will be "full of shit" and there is no need to continue with you. I'm breaking my rule anyway...

Have fun

You can't continue with me because whenever I sit down with you and really hammer you with facts without all the bullshit, you run. You can't argue with facts. You're basically just one big emoticon.

 

[Alaskanredman]

You're silly. What I wrote was very clear and you still didn't get it. Either that or you're just going out of your way to be an asshole.

I'll respond to this before I go.

1. What makes you conclude that what I previously said would somehow advocate piss and sperm being banned by boxing? Obviously, the point I was making was that just because a fighter thinks something will enhance their performance doesn't mean it is true. Piss drinking Marquez and sperm sipping Reid were highlighted as examples. That shit was clear as day and you still found a way to not understand it or to twist it.

2 questions were presented to you. "Why are some of the best fighters taking them? Why would boxing organizations ban them?" I understood your point about fighters, but that doesn't explain why boxing organization ban the shit. They obviously see an unfair advantage, but if the advantage is all in the fighter's mind then shouldn't the next thing would be to ban all the other bullshit in a boxer's mind. You see I can make leaps in your logic that you don't seem to be able to make and that is why I stopped responding to you in the first place.

2. Of course, when a fighter gets caught doesn't necessarily mean that they had just starting using PEDs at that time. That's not the point. The point was if you want to base things on FACTS rather than rumors, the logical thing would be to measure a guy's performance in the same fight for which he tested positive. Otherwise, people end up believing things based on ASSUMPTIONS and that is a very dangerous thing.

There are no scientific facts in this discussion because no study has been done to know for sure what this shit can do for a boxer... fact. Now we know there are plenty of people who have beat the testing because people have admitted to it... fact. Therefore, the logical thing would be to assume that there is no way of knowing when these fighters used the shit or not and limiting the possibilities of how their performances could have been affected to the fights when they were caught is not a reasonable way to draw a determination. In science, the idea is to limit all the variables that could affect the results because any number of things could make the determination invalid (like not having all the results).

This is common sense stuff though, but you want to play a game like I'm typing into this computer... saying to you that you are flat out wrong because I know the PED's can turn a bum into Sugar Ray Robinson. I'm not doing that.

YES...I'm saying there is a possibility that shit gives people an advantage, but the people who look into this type of shit and know better than you or I have concluded that shit should be banned for a reason. Boxers are risking their careers, legacy and maybe even their own health for a reason. I don't know the answers but I will go on the side of caution and not base my opinion on some fights that could be a fraction of the results.

I'm being very direct with you and to the point and I'm writing to you in a very clear manner because I'm trying to see if you are only capable of smiley face emoticons and cute remarks. So far it looks like emoticons are the extent of your arguments or reasoning process. Also, this thing where you say, "according to your line of thought" and then you go on to twist what someone else said is just corny. It's like you have to change what was said so you can argue something that wasn't even said.

I am very proud of you. This has been your best effort. A few more sessions and you might be able to have a legitimate debate. Maybe next time.

 

[Zeferino]

2 questions were presented to you. "Why are some of the best fighters taking them? Why would boxing organizations ban them?" I understood your point about fighters, but that doesn't explain why boxing organization ban the shit. They obviously see an unfair advantage, but if the advantage is all in the fighter's mind then shouldn't the next thing be to ban all the other bullshit in a boxer's mind. You see I can make leaps in your logic that you don't seem to be able to make and that is why I stopped responding to you in the first place.

My response: Why would you just assume that the next thing would be to ban all the other bullshit in a boxer's mind? That's you're logic not mine. The point was people think certain things can give them advantages. It can be God, sperm, urine, PEds or whatever. Just because they think that these things enhance their performance doesn't mean that it's true. I don't see why this point is so complicated for you to grasp. It's very simple.

There are no scientific facts in this discussion because no study has been done to know for sure what this shit can do for a boxer... fact. Now we know there are plenty of people who have beat the testing because people have admitted to it... fact. Therefore, the logical thing would be to assume that there is no way of knowing when these fighters used the shit or not and limiting the possibilities of how their performances could have been affected to the fights when they were caught is not a reasonable way to draw a determination. In science, the idea is to limit all the variables that could affect the results because any number of things could make the determination invalid.

My response: You said it right in the first sentence. There are no available facts to indicate that PED's can make a boxer break records for performance like it does for baseball players and runners. You basically agreed with what I've been saying.

This is common sense stuff though, but you want to play a game like I'm typing into this computer... saying to you that you are flat out wrong because I know the PED's can turn a bum into Sugar Ray Robinson. I'm not doing that.

YES...I'm saying there is a possibility that shit gives people an advantage, but the people who look into this type of shit and know better than you or I have concluded that shit should be banned for a reason. Boxers are risking their careers, legacy and maybe even their own health for a reason. I don't know the answers but I will go on the side of caution and not base my opinion on some fights that could be a fraction of the results.

My response: You give too much credit to the people that do the banning. You just admitted a few lines ago that there are no scientific FACTS available to support that PEDs do anything for boxers to make them extraordinary. Actually, I agree that PEDs should not be used by boxers but for different reasons. I don't think PEDs make them extraordinary, I think most PEDs actually can harm a fighter. Old school boxing trainers never liked weight lifting for a reason.

I am very proud of you. This has been your best effort. A few more sessions and you might be able to have a legitimate debate. Maybe next time.


My response: Congratulations on your first post free of smiley faces, cosigns, and other random stupidity.

 

[Alaskanredman]

My response: Why would you just assume that the next thing would be to ban all the other bullshit in a boxer's mind? That's you're logic not mine. The point was people think certain things can give them advantages. It can be God, sperm, urine, PEds or whatever. Just because they think that these things enhance their performance doesn't mean that it's true. I don't see why this point is so complicated for you to grasp. It's very simple.

Are you this slow for real?

If they are banning PED because of the benefits and the only benefit is in the boxer's mind then... you tell me what I'm suppose understand from this premise.

You still have yet to explain why boxing organization's ban the shit. If the benefits is all in a boxer's mind then their is no need to ban it is there?

My response: You said it right in the first sentence. There are no available facts to indicate that PED's can make a boxer break records for performance like it does for baseball players and runners. You basically agreed with what I've been saying.

My response: You give too much credit to the people that do the banning. You just admitted a few lines ago that there are no scientific FACTS available to support that PEDs do anything for boxers to make them extraordinary. Actually, I agree that PEDs should not be used by boxers but for different reasons. I don't think PEDs make them extraordinary, I think most PEDs actually can harm a fighter. Old school boxing trainers never liked weight lifting for a reason.

Reading comprehension is a motherfucker, but you did the best you could. There are no available facts either way, thus no one could make a definitive claim either way without talking out their ass. You have nothing to back up what you are saying besides a few fights and you don't know the full extent of the PED usage to make an accurate claim or create a decent opinion. It is like seeing a fighter fight once and then basing the fighter's full career and abilities on that one fight... Therefore you are talking out your ass even further because you don't know everything involved.

Please reread my last response cause you seem to be lost.

 

[Zeferino]

Are you this slow for real?

If they are banning PED because of the benefits and the only benefit is in the boxer's mind then... you tell me what I'm suppose understand from this premise.

You still have yet to explain why boxing organization's ban the shit. If the benefits is all in a boxer's mind then their is no need to ban it is there?



Reading comprehension is a motherfucker, but you did the best you could. There are no available facts either way, thus no one could make a definitive claim either way without talking out their ass. You have nothing to back up what you are saying besides a few fights and you don't know the full extent of the PED usage to make an accurate claim or create a decent opinion. It is like seeing a fighter fight once and then basing the fighter's full career and abilities on that one fight... Therefore you are talking out your ass even further because you don't know everything involved.

Please reread my last response cause you seem to be lost.

I have yet to explain why boxing organizations ban PEDs? I already answered that and even put a number 2 next to it so everything would be broken up and easy to look at for your little mind. Talk about reading comprehension.

You're just getting stupid now. This is a stupid question: If the benefits is all in a boxer's mind then their is no need to ban it is there?

You are hanging your hat on this theory that just because a substance is banned, it must be a bonafide performance enhancer. Yet, at the same time you contradict yourself when you admit that science does not even back up that these substances even do anything positive for boxers. So the answer to why organizations continue to ban is the same one I gave you before.

They ban the substances because they think they might give fighters an unfair edge.

Do they KNOW this to be true? NO.

Can they illustrate how PEDs have helped any given fighter in any given performance? NO.
Why not? Because boxing and baseball are two different things even though you think they're the same.

Also, you're right about no one knowing the extent of PED usage and no available facts for anyone to make a definitive claim either way. That includes you by the way. Everything you said in your last paragraph applies to you too for the same exact reasons you say they applied to me. You don't have hard evidence of anything yet you want to say other people don't know what they're talking about. You're like a crazy person disagreeing with your own self.

 

[Alaskanredman]

You're just getting stupid now. This is a stupid question: If the benefits is all in a boxer's mind then their is no need to ban it is there?

You are hanging your hat on this theory that just because a substance is banned, it must be a bonafide performance enhancer. Yet, at the same time you contradict yourself when you admit that science does not even back up that these substances even do anything positive for boxers. So the answer to why organizations continue to ban is the same one I gave you before.



They ban the substances because they think they might give fighters an unfair edge.

Do they KNOW this to be true? NO.

Do you understand what a contradiction is? When did I say that I know one way or the other on make a definitive claim either way? In fact I stated that I don't know. I simply stated to your slow ass that there has to be a reason for it to be banned (in every sport by the way) and the reason is the possibility of an unfair advantage. What these drugs have been known to do is to provide an added ability to heal, add muscle mass, increase endurance and so on. The fact that they haven't been tested in a scientific study to determine the benefits for a boxer don't contradict what I just stated, but is it hard to understand why boxing organizations made the decision to ban the shit? If the endurance alone can be provided then I can see the possible benefits.

Can they illustrate how PEDs have helped any given fighter in any given performance? NO.
Why not? Because boxing and baseball are two different things even though you think they're the same.

Who is talking about baseball? Maybe my signature has you fucked up in the head but do you even remember what that argument was about?

By the way, you do realize that the same kind of arguments that you are presenting are made in baseball about the benefits of PED. Regardless, once the cheaters come out and honestly state which fights were the PED fights then we all might be able to make a more accurate determination on the abilities of PEDs. Until then I will leave up to you and all the sideline "experts" to make your "anti-global warming" like arguments.

Also, you're right about no one knowing the extent of PED usage and no available facts for anyone to make a definitive claim either way. That includes you by the way. Everything you said in your last paragraph applies to you too for the same exact reasons you say they applied to me. You don't have hard evidence of anything yet you want to say other people don't know what they're talking about. You're like a crazy person disagreeing with your own self.

You are showing the extent of your brain power here. I'm not making a definitive claim... you are.

 

[Zeferino]

Do you understand what a contradiction is? When did I say that I know one way or the other on make a definitive claim either way? In fact I stated that I don't know. I simply stated to your slow ass that there has to be a reason for it to be banned (in every sport by the way) and the reason is the possibility of an unfair advantage. What these drugs have been known to do is to provide an added ability to heal, add muscle mass, increase endurance and so on. The fact that they haven't been tested in a scientific study to determine the benefits for a boxer don't contradict what I just stated, but is it hard to understand why boxing organizations made the decision to ban the shit? If the endurance alone can be provided then I can see the possible benefits.



Who is talking about baseball? Maybe my signature has you fucked up in the head but do you even remember what that argument was about?

By the way, you do realize that the same kind of arguments that you are presenting are made in baseball about the benefits of PED. Regardless, once the cheaters come out and honestly state which fights were the PED fights then we all might be able to make a more accurate determination on the abilities of PEDs. Until then I will leave up to you and all the sideline "experts" to make your "anti-global warming" like arguments.



You are showing the extent of your brain power here. I'm not making a definitive claim... you are.

You're basically repeating all of the same things I've been telling you and trying to spin it like it's different or like you said it first. You're going in circles with yourself.

 

[Alaskanredman]

You're basically repeating all of the same things I've been telling you and trying to spin it like it's different or like you said it first. You're going in circles with yourself.

Will_Right read this thread and look at this debate. You don't get this far but this is how you look.

 

[Zeferino]

Will_Right read this thread and look at this debate. You don't get this far but this is how you look.

You'll learn someday. In about 10 years you'll be thinking differently. Right now you're just lost in the matrix of your own mental incapacity and lack of independence as a real man.

 

[will_right]

Will_Right read this thread and look at this debate. You don't get this far but this is how you look.

Keep my name out of your argument/debate ok. Whats the matter? is Zeferino's foot too big for your annus you wanna try my foot again?? A foot in yo ass by any means is still a foot in yo ass..mine was just lubbed better. OR maybe you just prefer double penetration like most fags and nasty bitches

 

[Zeferino]

Keep my name out of your argument/debate ok. Whats the matter? is Zeferino's foot too big for your annus you wanna try my foot again?? A foot in yo ass by any means is still a foot in yo ass..mine was just lubbed better. OR maybe you just prefer double penetration like most fags and nasty bitches

Damn! I think Alaskan likes it without the lube.

 

[Alaskanredman]

Keep my name out of your argument/debate ok. Whats the matter? is Zeferino's foot too big for your annus you wanna try my foot again?? A foot in yo ass by any means is still a foot in yo ass..mine was just lubbed better. OR maybe you just prefer double penetration like most fags and nasty bitches

That was funny.

I enjoyed sonning you both. My hope is that you can learn where Zef has failed. He used to be were you are at now, but he is too stubborn to grow beyond a certain point. Maybe next time you will come better than this time around.

 

[Zeferino]

That was funny.

I enjoyed sonning you both. My hope is that you can learn where Zef has failed. He used to be were you are at now, but he is too stubborn to grow beyond a certain point. Maybe next time you will come better than this time around.

poor child

 

[Alaskanredman]

http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=34546


Holyfield: Mayweather-Pacquiao, Neither is Number One

By Chris LaBate

Former undisputed heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield recently gave his opinion on the growing debate as to which fighter should be ranked as the best, Manny Pacquiao or Floyd Mayweather Jr. Speaking with Suge Green of OnTheGrind Boxing Radio, Holyfield refused to rank either fighter as the best. He said neither boxer deserves the title of being "the best" until they agree to face each other in the ring and settle the matter with their fists.

"Until they get in the ring and face each other there's no reason to even give either one the credibility they would like to see, because it's just about opinion. If we just went on opinion and what it look like you would never have nobody have to face nobody," Holyfield said.

"'Ah, I think he can beat you.' Well yeah, but you found out it's not the guy who's always as skillful. It's not the one that is always the quickest, not the one who is always the strongest. The one who has that good game plan that night is the one who's the champion."

 

[will_right]

poor child

Basically

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Boxing's intangibilities set it apart from other sports. This can be seen in the whole PED debate. In baseball, we see direct proof of the benefit in PED use by simply analyzing the statistical data of the player. When a baseball player uses PEDs, the results are clear as day. You can't do this with boxing.

In boxing, people assume that PEDs provide an edge but the actual available information indicates otherwise. In boxing, PED's won't make you hit harder or give you a harder chin. Paulie Malignaggi could take PEDs and he would never become a puncher. Richard Hall had literally 10 times as much steroids in him than Roy Jones did yet he didn't win 5 seconds of a single round with Jones in like 10 rounds and got beaten from pillar to post. Powerpunching and speed are innate gifts. Some guys have it and some guys don't. It's not about how many muscles you have, it's about having the natural ability to make the most with what you have. This is why proving a fighter actually benefitted from some PED use is a very difficult task.

Therefore, to compare boxing to baseball and then think they must be the same because they are both sports is just ridiculous and very shortsighted. Apples and oranges are the same because they're both fruit?

I see where you're going with this but that completely misunderstands what PEDs are supposed to do. They're not some kind of magical elixir that makes the ordinary extraordinary. They enable an athlete to train harder hence a talented baseball player doesn't suddenly become a .700 hitter but when he hits the ball he gets more distance out of it than before. For a boxer the benefit would be the ability to manage his weight better and possibly punch harder and be stronger in the later stages of a fight. He could get all those and still get his ass beat by a superior fighter. Richard Hall was juiced to the gills but he never had the ability to beat Roy Jones Jr so he got nothing for his trouble. Same with Fernando Vargas when fighting Oscar, Trinidad, or Shane.

http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=34546


Holyfield: Mayweather-Pacquiao, Neither is Number One

By Chris LaBate

Former undisputed heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield recently gave his opinion on the growing debate as to which fighter should be ranked as the best, Manny Pacquiao or Floyd Mayweather Jr. Speaking with Suge Green of OnTheGrind Boxing Radio, Holyfield refused to rank either fighter as the best. He said neither boxer deserves the title of being "the best" until they agree to face each other in the ring and settle the matter with their fists.

"Until they get in the ring and face each other there's no reason to even give either one the credibility they would like to see, because it's just about opinion. If we just went on opinion and what it look like you would never have nobody have to face nobody," Holyfield said.

"'Ah, I think he can beat you.' Well yeah, but you found out it's not the guy who's always as skillful. It's not the one that is always the quickest, not the one who is always the strongest. The one who has that good game plan that night is the one who's the champion."

So Evander's voting with me on Sergio Martinez being the p4p number one guy? Then he's not completely addled.

 

[Alaskanredman]

I see where you're going with this but that completely misunderstands what PEDs are supposed to do. They're not some kind of magical elixir that makes the ordinary extraordinary. They enable an athlete to train harder hence a talented baseball player doesn't suddenly become a .700 hitter but when he hits the ball he gets more distance out of it than before. For a boxer the benefit would be the ability to manage his weight better and possibly punch harder and be stronger in the later stages of a fight. He could get all those and still get his ass beat by a superior fighter. Richard Hall was juiced to the gills but he never had the ability to beat Roy Jones Jr so he got nothing for his trouble. Same with Fernando Vargas when fighting Oscar, Trinidad, or Shane.

Dave don't waste your time cause this cat is lacking the brain power to put simple things together....

This lame agreed with me that he has been talking out of his ass this whole time and thinks he has found a contradiction in my argument, but instead of pointing it out he says I'm stole his argument.... even if I was that would mean that he doesn't even understand his own original argument cause he is now presenting argument that contradicts the argument that he said I took from him.



Either way I know my sig pisses him off cause he wants to argue that shit again... Its sad that he doesn't even remember what that argument was about.

 

[Zeferino]

I see where you're going with this but that completely misunderstands what PEDs are supposed to do. They're not some kind of magical elixir that makes the ordinary extraordinary. They enable an athlete to train harder hence a talented baseball player doesn't suddenly become a .700 hitter but when he hits the ball he gets more distance out of it than before. For a boxer the benefit would be the ability to manage his weight better and possibly punch harder and be stronger in the later stages of a fight. He could get all those and still get his ass beat by a superior fighter. Richard Hall was juiced to the gills but he never had the ability to beat Roy Jones Jr so he got nothing for his trouble. Same with Fernando Vargas when fighting Oscar, Trinidad, or Shane.

Good points and I understand what you're saying. I don't think I've said anything the opposite of this. My point is, there is no evidence that taking PEDs will make you anything extraordinary. Do we know if they will really help a fighter punch harder or have more stamina in the later stages of a fight? Maybe, but what does punch harder mean? If Paulie Malignaggi gets on PEDs, will he become a knockout artist? I don't think so. I think punching power is something you are born with. This is why some of the hardest punchers in the world were rail thin skinny dudes. As you mentioned in your last sentence, the most important factor in this topic is skill and ability. I agree with that 100%.

 

[Zeferino]

Dave don't waste your time cause this cat is lacking the brain power to put simple things together....

This lame agreed with me that he has been talking out of his ass this whole time and thinks he has found a contradiction in my argument, but instead of pointing it out he says I'm stole his argument.... even if I was that would mean that he doesn't even understand his own original argument cause he is now presenting argument that contradicts the argument that he said I took from him.



Either way I know my sig pisses him off cause he wants to argue that shit again... Its sad that he doesn't even remember what that argument was about.

You're just a stupid little kid and a very ignorant person with a very ghetto mentality. When Floyd Mayweather Sr talks, it's probably like music to your ears.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Good points and I understand what you're saying. I don't think I've said anything the opposite of this. My point is, there is no evidence that taking PEDs will make you anything extraordinary. Do we know if they will really help a fighter punch harder or have more stamina in the later stages of a fight? Maybe, but what does punch harder mean? If Paulie Malignaggi gets on PEDs, will he become a knockout artist? I don't think so. I think punching power is something you are born with. This is why some of the hardest punchers in the world were rail thin skinny dudes. As you mentioned in your last sentence, the most important factor in this topic is skill and ability. I agree with that 100%.

We don't differ that much on this.

PEDs do help make athletes bigger and stronger. If you can get stronger while maintaining the artificial weight you fight at then you gain an advantage.
Paulie on HGH isn't going to become Roberto Duran but if he adds several pounds of muscle, he may be able to take a punch better and deliver his with more impact and that takes effect in a long fight. That still might not be enough to beat a top flight opponent but it may be the difference against a B level guy who isn't cheating.

 

[Alaskanredman]

You're just a stupid little kid and a very ignorant person with a very ghetto mentality. When Floyd Mayweather Sr talks, it's probably like music to your ears.

Another great argument... Zef. Here's a new word for you: REDUNDANT

You might have to look it up.

I really starting to enjoy your stupidity.

 

[Jordan Diddy Buk]

Damn, it is like grade school.

 

[Alaskanredman]

http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=34623


Pacquiao's Adviser Fires Back at Mosley Fight Critics

By Lem Satterfield

Since the day the fight was announced, WBO welterweight champion Manny Pacquiao has been attacked by critics who don't agree with his decision to face "Sugar" Shane Mosley on May 7 at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. Pacquiao (52-3-2, 38 KOs) is considered a heavy favorite over Mosley (46-6-1, 39 KOs), who observers consider Mosley to be over the hill.

Mosley did not look good in his past two fights, May's lopsided decision loss to Floyd Mayweather (41-0, 25 KOs), and, September's split-decision draw with ex-champion, Sergio Mora (21-1-1, six KOs) that was contested at 154 pounds. Regardless, he was selected over the other two considerations, Andre Berto and Juan Manuel Marquez.

"Again, who cares? I'm not too concerned, and nor is Manny, because, we want to do two things -- and when I say, 'we,' I'm speaking for Manny. "No. 1, we want to entertain the fans, because that's of the utmost importance to Manny. No. 2, we want to generate a paycheck, because that's his living," said Koncz.

"Out of the three names that we were giving, this was the best, overall opponent that we could get. Bob Arum never forces anything on us. He gives us options, and then, it's our decision on what we do."

Koncz lashed out at those whom he believes are denigrating Mosley's credentials and, by extension, Pacquiao's accomplishments. Like Roach, Koncz sees Mosley as a very dangerous opponent in the early rounds.

"I mean, what's wrong with Mosley? Mosley is a very talented fighter who has got power in both hands. I mean, when you look at it, Manny has done nothing but taken on larger opponents ever since he fought Oscar De La Hoya, and it has taken the toll at times," said Koncz. "Shane Mosley damn near knocked out Floyd Mayweather. I think that during rounds one through round five, Mosley is a very, very dangerous opponent."

 

[Upgrade Dave]

http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=34623


Pacquiao's Adviser Fires Back at Mosley Fight Critics

By Lem Satterfield

Since the day the fight was announced, WBO welterweight champion Manny Pacquiao has been attacked by critics who don't agree with his decision to face "Sugar" Shane Mosley on May 7 at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. Pacquiao (52-3-2, 38 KOs) is considered a heavy favorite over Mosley (46-6-1, 39 KOs), who observers consider Mosley to be over the hill.

Mosley did not look good in his past two fights, May's lopsided decision loss to Floyd Mayweather (41-0, 25 KOs), and, September's split-decision draw with ex-champion, Sergio Mora (21-1-1, six KOs) that was contested at 154 pounds. Regardless, he was selected over the other two considerations, Andre Berto and Juan Manuel Marquez.

"Again, who cares? I'm not too concerned, and nor is Manny, because, we want to do two things -- and when I say, 'we,' I'm speaking for Manny. "No. 1, we want to entertain the fans, because that's of the utmost importance to Manny. No. 2, we want to generate a paycheck, because that's his living," said Koncz.

"Out of the three names that we were giving, this was the best, overall opponent that we could get. Bob Arum never forces anything on us. He gives us options, and then, it's our decision on what we do."

Koncz lashed out at those whom he believes are denigrating Mosley's credentials and, by extension, Pacquiao's accomplishments. Like Roach, Koncz sees Mosley as a very dangerous opponent in the early rounds.

"I mean, what's wrong with Mosley? Mosley is a very talented fighter who has got power in both hands. I mean, when you look at it, Manny has done nothing but taken on larger opponents ever since he fought Oscar De La Hoya, and it has taken the toll at times," said Koncz. "Shane Mosley damn near knocked out Floyd Mayweather. I think that during rounds one through round five, Mosley is a very, very dangerous opponent."

The longer he talked, the more truth was slipping out. Too bad it's going to be a 12 rd fight instead of a 5 round one.


Again someone making shit up. He almost knocked Floyd Mayweather down, not out. There is a difference.

 

[merce77]

http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=34623


Pacquiao's Adviser Fires Back at Mosley Fight Critics

By Lem Satterfield

Since the day the fight was announced, WBO welterweight champion Manny Pacquiao has been attacked by critics who don't agree with his decision to face "Sugar" Shane Mosley on May 7 at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. Pacquiao (52-3-2, 38 KOs) is considered a heavy favorite over Mosley (46-6-1, 39 KOs), who observers consider Mosley to be over the hill.

Mosley did not look good in his past two fights, May's lopsided decision loss to Floyd Mayweather (41-0, 25 KOs), and, September's split-decision draw with ex-champion, Sergio Mora (21-1-1, six KOs) that was contested at 154 pounds. Regardless, he was selected over the other two considerations, Andre Berto and Juan Manuel Marquez.

"Again, who cares? I'm not too concerned, and nor is Manny, because, we want to do two things -- and when I say, 'we,' I'm speaking for Manny. "No. 1, we want to entertain the fans, because that's of the utmost importance to Manny. No. 2, we want to generate a paycheck, because that's his living," said Koncz.

"Out of the three names that we were giving, this was the best, overall opponent that we could get. Bob Arum never forces anything on us. He gives us options, and then, it's our decision on what we do."

Koncz lashed out at those whom he believes are denigrating Mosley's credentials and, by extension, Pacquiao's accomplishments. Like Roach, Koncz sees Mosley as a very dangerous opponent in the early rounds.

"I mean, what's wrong with Mosley? Mosley is a very talented fighter who has got power in both hands. I mean, when you look at it, Manny has done nothing but taken on larger opponents ever since he fought Oscar De La Hoya, and it has taken the toll at times," said Koncz. "Shane Mosley damn near knocked out Floyd Mayweather. I think that during rounds one through round five, Mosley is a very, very dangerous opponent."

Then they ovioulsy know what they have to do, don't they?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Then they ovioulsy know what they have to do, don't they?

And what the fuck was so entertaining about fighting Josh Clottey or Margarito? Neither of these promised to be entertaining. Just making up shit randomly sometimes, I swear.

 

[merce77]

And what the fuck was so entertaining about fighting Josh Clottey or Margarito? Neither of these promised to be entertaining. Just making up shit randomly sometimes, I swear.

Clottey I agree. But Margarito? Are you gonna tell me it wasn't fun watching that cheater get his ass whupped. After making fun of Freddie's Parkinson's, after not admitting that he ever cheated? Shit, Manny was my dawg for that night. You best believe I was Manny's biggest fan for those 12 rounds.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Clottey I agree. But Margarito? Are you gonna tell me it wasn't fun watching that cheater get his ass whupped. After making fun of Freddie's Parkinson's, after not admitting that he ever cheated? Shit, Manny was my dawg for that night. You best believe I was Manny's biggest fan for those 12 rounds.

You know what I mean, dammit!

 

[Spectrum]

http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=34623


Pacquiao's Adviser Fires Back at Mosley Fight Critics
I think that during rounds one through round five, Mosley is a very, very dangerous opponent."

wow

 

[Alaskanredman]

http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=34662


Arum: Pacquiao Never Faced Someone With Mosley's Skill

By Lem Satterfield

On May 7 at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, Manny Pacquiao (52-3-2, 38 knockouts) will defend his WBO welterweight belt in an HBO pay per view televised against Shane Mosley (46-6-1, 39 KOs), even as his WBC junior middleweight belt will not be on the line. Pacquiao's selection of the aging Mosley has drawn criticism from the boxing community, but during a recent interview with FanHouse, Top Rank Promotions' CEO, Bob Arum.

"Manny Pacquiao, with all due respect, never has fought a fighter of the ability and the skill set of Mosley. Mosley is the epitome of an African American fighter with a style," said Arum.

"And even though he is a little on in age, he still has that style and he still has that punching power. "And I, for one, am curious as to how Pacquiao deals with that type of style, which he hasn't faced before. That's the interesting part of this fight."

Bernard Hopkins got the ball rolling a few months ago when making critical comments about the lack of African American opponents on Pacquiao's record.

"Bernard Hopkins took some criticism for saying what he said, but Hopkins is a good student of the game," said Arum. "It's not any racist kind of thing that he's saying. It's just that the African American style that we all know -- and, even though not every African American fights that style -- but the African American style is a distinct style."