Manny vs Mayweather ??

Forgot who wrote the article, I've got to find it, but it was a DAMN good article. It was basically disputing the facts/myths about the fighter of the decade between Floyd and Manny.

The writer took into account the major fights for each fighter, the fights in common and who was more deserving of the title of fighter of the decade. It brought up the point that Manny winning more titles was irrelevant because it shouldn't be the "be all end all". He noted that going 5-1-1 against the trio of Mexican Hall of Fame fighters were more impressive than Floyd's resume highlighted by Corrales, Castillo and Judah.

The writer landed on choosing Manny as the fighter of the decade because he fought more relevant fights with fighters who were at their best natural weight class. He discounted the bouts with Hatton and DLH with each fighter saying those weren't really quality fights at the time of the bouts. Manny was the smaller man moving up to fight bigger fighters where as Money was the guy fighting fighters coming up from lower divisions (Hatton, Marquez)

He pointed out that Mayweather had the opportunity to hands down be the fighter of the decade, but it was the fights that he didn't make (Cotto, Margarito, Mosley, etc.) which prevented him from taking the crown.

Originally posted by phiLthyphiL:
Forgot who wrote the article, I've got to find it, but it was a DAMN good article. It was basically disputing the facts/myths about the fighter of the decade between Floyd and Manny.

The writer took into account the major fights for each fighter, the fights in common and who was more deserving of the title of fighter of the decade. It brought up the point that Manny winning more titles was irrelevant because it shouldn't be the "be all end all". He noted that going 5-1-1 against the trio of Mexican Hall of Fame fighters were more impressive than Floyd's resume highlighted by Corrales, Castillo and Judah.

The writer landed on choosing Manny as the fighter of the decade because he fought more relevant fights with fighters who were at their best natural weight class. He discounted the bouts with Hatton and DLH with each fighter saying those weren't really quality fights at the time of the bouts. Manny was the smaller man moving up to fight bigger fighters where as Money was the guy fighting fighters coming up from lower divisions (Hatton, Marquez)

He pointed out that Mayweather had the opportunity to hands down be the fighter of the decade, but it was the fights that he didn't make (Cotto, Margarito, Mosley, etc.) which prevented him from taking the crown.

If you can find that article, could you please link it? i'd love to read that.



Now, here's an off topic question: If the fight goes through, should the winner (or will the winner) retire ?


Oh, and can we rename Manny's nickname from the "Mexicutioner" to the "Laticutioner"?

Luckily for us fans, it looks like this fighter of the decade business will be settled in the ring!

I still think Marquez beat him both fights though.

FLOYD!!

Hands down

Dude its just technicaly sound.. Ah I can't spell

Originally posted by Crazy49er1313:

Originally posted by phiLthyphiL:
Forgot who wrote the article, I've got to find it, but it was a DAMN good article. It was basically disputing the facts/myths about the fighter of the decade between Floyd and Manny.

The writer took into account the major fights for each fighter, the fights in common and who was more deserving of the title of fighter of the decade. It brought up the point that Manny winning more titles was irrelevant because it shouldn't be the "be all end all". He noted that going 5-1-1 against the trio of Mexican Hall of Fame fighters were more impressive than Floyd's resume highlighted by Corrales, Castillo and Judah.

The writer landed on choosing Manny as the fighter of the decade because he fought more relevant fights with fighters who were at their best natural weight class. He discounted the bouts with Hatton and DLH with each fighter saying those weren't really quality fights at the time of the bouts. Manny was the smaller man moving up to fight bigger fighters where as Money was the guy fighting fighters coming up from lower divisions (Hatton, Marquez)

He pointed out that Mayweather had the opportunity to hands down be the fighter of the decade, but it was the fights that he didn't make (Cotto, Margarito, Mosley, etc.) which prevented him from taking the crown.

If you can find that article, could you please link it? i'd love to read that.



Now, here's an off topic question: If the fight goes through, should the winner (or will the winner) retire ?


Oh, and can we rename Manny's nickname from the "Mexicutioner" to the "Laticutioner"?

Pacquiao seals fighter of the decade with win over Cotto

By Frank Lotierzo



Heading into 2009 the debate as to who was the "Fighter Of The Decade" was still up for grabs between Manny Pacquiao 50-3-2 (38) and Floyd Mayweather Jr. 40-0 (25) as both had a legitimate claim to the honor. Both Pacquiao and Mayweather captured multiple division titles over the last ten years and were considered the best pound for pound fighter in boxing circa 2000-2009.

Mayweather has remained undefeated since making his pro-debut in 1996 and Pacquiao's only defeat in the last 10 years came in 2005 against Erik Morales who he later defeated in two subsequent rematches. Another commonality that Pacquiao and Mayweather shared during the decade is they both defeated Juan Manuel Marquez, Oscar De La Hoya and Ricky Hatton in three of their biggest and most high profile bouts fought between featherweight and junior middleweight.

This past weekend Pacquiao took apart Miguel Cotto, a fighter many boxing aficionados believe Floyd Mayweather had no intention of fighting since Cotto moved up to welterweight. And it's Pacquiao's victory over Cotto to capture the WBO welterweight title that erases any doubt whatsoever as to who has earned the distinction as the fighter of the 2000's.

No matter how you try to twist and spin it, there isn't one case that can be made favoring Mayweather over Pacquiao for the Ring Magazine award that Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard earned for their body of work compiled during the 1970's and 1980's. Roy Jones was voted the fighter of the 1990's, but the case supporting him wasn't as overwhelming as it was for Ali and Leonard. Although Jones did dominate two undisputed all-time greats when he beat Bernard Hopkins and James Toney, who were a combined 66-1-2 when he fought them.

Boxing fans and observers understand that it doesn't matter how many fights a particular fighter has won, it comes down to who did he/they beat? Nobody goes undefeated if they constantly fight the best available opposition they can once they've achieved the championship/superstar level.

Muhammad Ali lost the biggest and most anticipated fight in history to "Smokin" Joe Frazier and was still voted "Fighter Of The Decade." And that's because he came back and beat Frazier twice, fought Ken Norton three times going 2-1, beat George Foreman for the undisputed title, beat Jerry Quarry twice and also beat Ron Lyle and Earnie Shavers in between 1970-77.

Sugar Ray Leonard defeated hall-of-famers and all-time greats Roberto Duran, Thomas Hearns and Marvin Hagler who were a combined 166-3-2 when he fought them. And two of those three losses were Marvin Hagler's and he hadn't lost in 11 years before fighting Leonard.

The same applies to Pacquiao when it comes to beating first tier opposition. Manny is 5-1-1 versus Marco Antonio Barrera, Erik Morales and Juan Manuel Marquez. All three are absolute hall-of-famers along with being great fighters. Add to that Miguel Cotto at 145 and Mayweather's resume simply doesn't compare to Pacquiao's as far as depth. Sure they both defeated Marquez, but Pacquiao fought him at his more natural weight and at a time when he was clearly closer to being at his best.

Mayweather also had his share of big wins during the 2000's beating Jesus Chavez, Diego Corrales, Jose Luis Castillo twice and Zab Judah. That said, Mayweather cannot claim a victory during the last ten years over a certifiable great fighter who wasn't past their prime or fighting out of their natural division when he fought them.

During the years 2007-09 both Pacquiao and Mayweather beat Oscar De La Hoya and Ricky Hatton. However, Oscar was an empty package with a big name when they beat him. And beating Ricky Hatton is a wash and doesn't justify "Fighter Of The Decade" for either Manny or Floyd. In order to make the case for Pacquiao over Mayweather or the opposite, it requires going deep into their body of work over the last ten years to build the case.

When all is said and done and in spite of him not going undefeated the entire decade, Manny Pacquiao's body of work is deeper and more impressive than Floyd Mayweather's. Forget about who is the more technically sound and proficient fighter, or who's the most exciting and more entertaining to watch; none of that comes into play for this honor.

Many will argue that Pacquiao's strongest claim over Mayweather is the fact that he won more titles in different weight divisions than Mayweather did. But titles aren't the be all end all to resolve or settle this debate. They both worked the system in some ways to gain a couple of those titles. What carries the most weight and is the truth detector here is, Pacquiao beat better opposition in big fights than Mayweather did.

And if it were close heading into their last fight of 2009, Pacquiao erased all doubt with his dominant performance against Miguel Cotto - who happens to be superior to any welterweight Floyd Mayweather has ever fought.

It's undeniable - Manny Pacquiao is the "Fighter Of The decade" circa 2000-2009.

Here's a complementary piece by that site's "Reader of the Year"

2009 Reader Of The Year Weighs In On Legacies Of Pacquiao And Mayweather
"Pacquiao has proven....in the ring... time and time again that he is the greatest of this time. He has earned his respect. He begs for nothing. He is a man content with his growth, his family and his achievements. A man the world has now turned it's eyes to behold. Floyd Mayweather is not even close in stature. He may possess the greatest skills but he is not the Face of Boxing today. Google Manny Pacquiao. There are 20 million searches. Google Floyd. There are 6.5 million. Look at the NYTimes, the Wall Street Journal and Time. Count how many words were used these past years to mention Floyd Mayweather. Then count the words still being printed about Manny. And keep counting. As I've said many times, Floyd has been too clever by half. He has short changed his public.....and has out-smarted himself. Manny will fight but a few more times. Enjoy it while you can. He is an all time great pugilist. Floyd, with all of his remarkable skills lack the will to be truly great in the biggest sense of the word. His legacy will look more like Holmes that Ali. He has earned it."

Mayweather fight will be easier for Pacman than Cotto

Interesting article. I've never heard about Floyd's shoulder dislocating, but I have known about his brittle hands.

Solution to Purse Split

Some excerpts from the article:

A 50-50 purse split is not bad at all to assuage Floyd’s big ego.

Pacquiao coach Freddie Roach has offered a US$10 million guaranteed purse each with the winner taking all the windfall in the upside of the pay per view (PPV) sales which could zoom off the charts.

But there is a Solomonic compromise that is even better than Roach’s.

How about a US$12 million guaranteed purse each and a 60-40 split on the upside of PPV buys?

Assuming the Pacquiao-Mayweather fight pushes through and generates 2.5 million buys, which is probable, it could generate a whooping US$150 million gross at US$60 per buy, excluding live gate and close circuit TV receipts.

This compromise figure could net the winner US$42.6 million while the loser takes home US$32.4 million. Not bad, eh?

Malignaggi LOL. He's mad because he lost to fighters that Pacquiao beat.

Malignaggi says "Something Fishy About Pacquiao"

"If the situation is what I think it is, God, Manny Pacquiao will not lose to any of these welterweight. It's unfortunate. The level we have of testing in boxing is not really that deep. I mean, we have urine tests on the day of the fight and we don't have much else...Margarito walked through Cotto, but he had to gut it out. He had to literally gut it out, grit his teeth and gut it out. Manny Pacquiao looked like he was walking in the park taking those punches, like they were pieces of paper bouncing off of him. It looked like Cotto was throwing spit balls at him...This guy came up from 118 to 122 all the way up to 147 and looked like a monster every time and he's hurting guys more as he moves up. Again, it's not a fact, but over the course of history, have you ever seen anybody in boxing history, anybody in boxing history move up in weight and hurt guys more as they move up in weight or is it the opposite," stated former jr. welterweight Paulie Malignaggi as he shared his thoughts on Manny Pacquiao's dominant win over Miguel Cotto. Malignaggi, who before the fight predicted that Cotto would defeat the Filipino icon, was a guest on the OnTheGrind Boxing Radio podcast recently and shared his thoughts on a number of subjects.

Originally posted by phiLthyphiL:
Malignaggi LOL. He's mad because he lost to fighters that Pacquiao beat.

Malignaggi says "Something Fishy About Pacquiao"

"If the situation is what I think it is, God, Manny Pacquiao will not lose to any of these welterweight. It's unfortunate. The level we have of testing in boxing is not really that deep. I mean, we have urine tests on the day of the fight and we don't have much else...Margarito walked through Cotto, but he had to gut it out. He had to literally gut it out, grit his teeth and gut it out. Manny Pacquiao looked like he was walking in the park taking those punches, like they were pieces of paper bouncing off of him. It looked like Cotto was throwing spit balls at him...This guy came up from 118 to 122 all the way up to 147 and looked like a monster every time and he's hurting guys more as he moves up. Again, it's not a fact, but over the course of history, have you ever seen anybody in boxing history, anybody in boxing history move up in weight and hurt guys more as they move up in weight or is it the opposite," stated former jr. welterweight Paulie Malignaggi as he shared his thoughts on Manny Pacquiao's dominant win over Miguel Cotto. Malignaggi, who before the fight predicted that Cotto would defeat the Filipino icon, was a guest on the OnTheGrind Boxing Radio podcast recently and shared his thoughts on a number of subjects.

Pac would knock that guido the f out. Malinaggi would be lucky to even step into the ring with Pac anytime soon.

Actually after the Diaz fight I kinda became a fan of Malignaggi after he knew he got screwed and let everybody know exactly what's wrong with the sport of boxing.



I had him up by 2 rounds... 118 - 110 was recockulous.

Seriously? I saw that clip awhile back, and while there may be some truth to what he said, he came off as as whiny lil biatch to me. lol

Dude I saw the fight, it was in the heat of the moment, looking at the clip now, he does sound like a lil b***h :P

But you had to be watching to feel what he felt... it's all in the context man. That sole clip doesn't do him justice.

Pacquiao, Arum and co. can't be serious!!! Really?

Who's really ducking who?

Quote:
Currently a 70/30 split in Pacquiao's favor is on the table for a Pacquiao/Mayweather bout tenatively scheduled for May 2010

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=21989&more=1

Originally posted by ninersrule4:
FLOYD!!

Hands down

Dude its just technicaly sound.. Ah I can't spell

Meh...just like SilkyJohnson alluded to - another version of Larry Holmes.

Great, technically sound fighter but boring in the ring and more entertaining (in a negative, loudmouth douchebag way) out of the ring.

Here's the difference between Floyd and Manny.

I would pay to see Manny do well and win in the ring.

I would also pay to see Floyd because I want to see him get his azz beat.

If, at the end of the day, it enriches Floyd just the same, so be it.