Poll: Who is interested in a Pac v Bradley rematch?

Honestly, the fight wasn't that interesting. I would rather see Pac retire or fight JMM for a fourth time.

Who actually wants this rematch?

I can only assume that the reason people want this rematch to happen is so Pac can right the L on his record. But, if this is the case, Marquez should get two more v Pac until he levels it as he likely won two of the three bouts they had.

Manny might actually want to take this out of the judges hands and try to finish him off this time.

So, for a KO. Hmmmm, maybe. But then that implies that a) he held back in the first fight and b) Bradley, who came on later in fight is going to be more suceptible to a KO loss after a second look at Pac. Just don't see it myself. This was not a great PPV fight for Pac, and won't do tremendous numbers. The action was scrappy at times and I recall few exchanges of intrigue. Give me Pac v Ortiz or anyone with power at the weight and I would prefer it.

Also, Bradley fought with one foot. Is Pac likely to KO him when he has them both?

Just playing Devils advocate

i dont think manny will fight again.

and i only see improvement from a young bradley in the next fight. if anything i see manny going downwards.

and the foot thing looked legitimate to me, he did go over on it.

There was a rematch clause according to Aru and he said that it will be on 10tg november after an investigation is done, and given he promotes both it looks as id it will go through

I didn't watch it live on Saturday and I won't watch it again untill it comes up on YouTube.

Bradley won't win as he has no power and pacquiao will know that. Likewise I don't think pacquiao will KO Bradley if he couldn't first time around. I was pretty surprised that pacquiao weighed heavier than Bradley also as Bradley looked bigge run all the press conferences despite being a LWW

i enjoyed the fight, thought there was some good action in there all be it slighty one sided to manny so yeah i would be intrested in a rematch. two of the best around the weight fighting each other is never a bad thing. and at the minute i will take any big action on offer

id rather khan bradley and manny jmm

Im not interested in any Pac fight, he's finished. Since JMM 2 he's been carefully matched, to make him look good, against either Over the Hill Boxers or Come Forward Fighters (some of them plodders and some them just plain slow).

With extremely clever matchmaking a very good fighter has become a legend.

TheMackemMawler wrote:Im not interested in any Pac fight, he's finished. Since JMM 2 he's been carefully matched, to make him look good, against either Over the Hill Boxers or Come Forward Fighters (some of them plodders and some them just plain slow).

With extremely clever matchmaking a very good fighter has become a legend.

Other than Mayweather, who would you have had him fight in his career?

There arent many boxers in the last twenty years that can boast better opposition to Pacquiao or match the kind of success he has had across multiple weights.

manos de piedra wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:Im not interested in any Pac fight, he's finished. Since JMM 2 he's been carefully matched, to make him look good, against either Over the Hill Boxers or Come Forward Fighters (some of them plodders and some them just plain slow).

With extremely clever matchmaking a very good fighter has become a legend.

Other than Mayweather, who would you have had him fight in his career?

There arent many boxers in the last twenty years that can boast better opposition to Pacquiao or match the kind of success he has had across multiple weights.

I take the "multiple weights" with a pinch of salt from LWW upwards if im honest.

He become a LMW champ at a catchweight so thats bull

He took Cottos Welterweight crown on a catchweight aswell.

Its amazing that he was willing to fight Margarito for the WBC title when Antonio had been busted for hand wraps against Mosley and fought only once in 18 months.

Also, when Cotto offered a fight at a catchweight of 151lbs Pacquiao declined. Why would he do that if he fought Margarito at the same catchweight?


I agree with Mackem. Since beating Diaz, Pacquiao has had opponents made to order over the hill or plodding:

Oscar De La Hoya at a stupid weight
Ricky "face first" Hatton was past it as shown in the Lazcano fight.
Joshua Clottey - Defence only
Miguel Cotto - catchweight fight
Margarito - Why?
Mosley - Hammered by Mayweather and drew with Mora?
JMM - Thought he lost

Finally he fights his 2nd decent fighter at a proper weight and he loses.


Pacquiao is a destructive tornado. But i will only really remember it being shadowed by his later opposition.


Mayweather for example:

Hatton - when undefeated and in prime
Ortiz - Young prime fighter (not the greatest, but a big test)
Mosley - Thought of as the most dangerous fight for Mayweather
JMM - Catchweight fight so dont like it
Miguel Cotto - Fought him at his proper weight and looked good in doing so

I'm talking after JMM 2, the last 4 year not the the last 20 year.

I wouldn't have had him against mosley (old), oscar (old), clottey (average), margarito (old and slow) or Cotto (dead at the weight), Hatton was finished (punch resistance had left him, the bald hairdresser almost done him late)

Pacman moved up still with unfinished business with JMM into divisions that were devoid of talent. Props to manny for fighting bradley a young hungry guy in his prime. He should should have fought young guys like Berto, Ortiz or Maidaina all would have been quality matchups that manny would have won.

And fighting margarito for the light middleweight title was a joke (a means to make history only).

mobilemaster8 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:Im not interested in any Pac fight, he's finished. Since JMM 2 he's been carefully matched, to make him look good, against either Over the Hill Boxers or Come Forward Fighters (some of them plodders and some them just plain slow).

With extremely clever matchmaking a very good fighter has become a legend.

Other than Mayweather, who would you have had him fight in his career?

There arent many boxers in the last twenty years that can boast better opposition to Pacquiao or match the kind of success he has had across multiple weights.

I take the "multiple weights" with a pinch of salt from LWW upwards if im honest.

He become a LMW champ at a catchweight so thats bull

He took Cottos Welterweight crown on a catchweight aswell.

Its amazing that he was willing to fight Margarito for the WBC title when Antonio had been busted for hand wraps against Mosley and fought only once in 18 months.

Also, when Cotto offered a fight at a catchweight of 151lbs Pacquiao declined. Why would he do that if he fought Margarito at the same catchweight?


I agree with Mackem. Since beating Diaz, Pacquiao has had opponents made to order over the hill or plodding:

Oscar De La Hoya at a stupid weight
Ricky "face first" Hatton was past it as shown in the Lazcano fight.
Joshua Clottey - Defence only
Miguel Cotto - catchweight fight
Margarito - Why?
Mosley - Hammered by Mayweather and drew with Mora?
JMM - Thought he lost

Finally he fights his 2nd decent fighter at a proper weight and he loses.


Pacquiao is a destructive tornado. But i will only really remember it being shadowed by his later opposition.


Mayweather for example:

Hatton - when undefeated and in prime
Ortiz - Young prime fighter (not the greatest, but a big test)
Mosley - Thought of as the most dangerous fight for Mayweather
JMM - Catchweight fight so dont like it
Miguel Cotto - Fought him at his proper weight and looked good in doing so

No sorry I completely disagree and I think thats an awfully biased and misrepresentative contrast between Pacquiao and Mayweather which also conveniently ignores an entire chapter of Pacquiaos career where he took on stellar competition.

1. De la Hoya - was Oscars choice to fight Pacquiao, hes the one wanted it. Pacquiao was not to blame at all for the condition de la Hoya came in. Pacquiao was a handy underdog in a fight that was seen as a size mismatch between a super featherweight and light middleweight meeting at a middle ground.

2. Hatton - ridiculously mismatched comparison with Mayweather. Hatton was coming off one of the best wins of his career and was considered the premier lww. Fought him at his "proper" weight too.

3. Clottey - average opponent

4. Cotto - catchweight scarcely relevant in my opinion. Cotto is as much a 145 lb guy than he is at light middle so I reject this comparison with Mayweather. Excellent win for Pacquiao against a tough opponent.

5. Margarito - average enough, but naturally far bigger opponent.

6. Mosley - this is really the only fight I would consider poor from Pacquiao, although his options were limited at the time.

7. JMM - why was this an easy opponent? People wrote him off, he proved them wrong. A fighter that had given Pacquiao problems in the past and had probably never been rated higher.

8. Bradley - undefeated and dangerous opponent.

Again, looking at the period he fought over, Mayweather apart - who should Pacquiao have been fighting instead?

mobile puts it better than i could...

I'm actually despairing a little at some of these comments regarding Pacquiao's opposition.

I'm no fan of catchweights, but can we please be realistic here? Beating someone like Cotto at a 145 lb catchweight is still a superb achievement for a man who began his world title career at 112 lb, regardless of what the official Welterweight limit is. In my eyes, his claims of being a Light-Middleweight champion are incredibly flimsy to say the least, but beating someone in Margarito who was 17 lb heavier on fight night in such a fashion is still a feat which deserves commendation.

I find it even more disturbing that his win over Hatton gets so readily dismissed these days. I'd really question if anyone who can play down Pacquiao absolutely blitzing the undisputed top man in the division, having never even fought at that weight himself previously, can be taken seriously as a true fan of the sport. That may sound harsh, but to call Pacquiao's win over Hatton anything other than a superb one does him a great disservice. People can point to the Lazcano fight all they like, but the truth is that Hatton had also turned in some disappointing performances in the eighteen months up to fighting Floyd, too. Colazzo was a fight which could have gone either way, and he didn't exactly set the world alight against Urango, either.

Yes, everyone acknowledged that Pacquiao could well beat Hatton. But absolutely nobody, from my recollection, thought he'd do it in anything like that fashion.

Pacquiao's opposition, for the most part of his career, has been top drawer. I'm beginning to realise how fickle some boxing fans can be when I compare the effusive praise Pacquaio was (rightly) receiving two or three years back to the comments aimed towards him now.

I'd watch it but only if I don't have to pay £15 for it

I think in future I might just say every fighter is rubbish irrespective of what they achieve or what the evidence of my own eyes tells me, obviously there will be occasions I will have to suffer treading a slightly different path to the rest of the board but when the inevitable backlash comes I can look almost visionary in my ability to be ahead of the curve.

Couldn't care less Paa will win again. Arum screwed him to keep it all in house and more importantly keep Pac away from Floyd and Marquez.

manos de piedra wrote:

mobilemaster8 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:Im not interested in any Pac fight, he's finished. Since JMM 2 he's been carefully matched, to make him look good, against either Over the Hill Boxers or Come Forward Fighters (some of them plodders and some them just plain slow).

With extremely clever matchmaking a very good fighter has become a legend.

Other than Mayweather, who would you have had him fight in his career?

There arent many boxers in the last twenty years that can boast better opposition to Pacquiao or match the kind of success he has had across multiple weights.

I take the "multiple weights" with a pinch of salt from LWW upwards if im honest.

He become a LMW champ at a catchweight so thats bull

He took Cottos Welterweight crown on a catchweight aswell.

Its amazing that he was willing to fight Margarito for the WBC title when Antonio had been busted for hand wraps against Mosley and fought only once in 18 months.

Also, when Cotto offered a fight at a catchweight of 151lbs Pacquiao declined. Why would he do that if he fought Margarito at the same catchweight?


I agree with Mackem. Since beating Diaz, Pacquiao has had opponents made to order over the hill or plodding:

Oscar De La Hoya at a stupid weight
Ricky "face first" Hatton was past it as shown in the Lazcano fight.
Joshua Clottey - Defence only
Miguel Cotto - catchweight fight
Margarito - Why?
Mosley - Hammered by Mayweather and drew with Mora?
JMM - Thought he lost

Finally he fights his 2nd decent fighter at a proper weight and he loses.


Pacquiao is a destructive tornado. But i will only really remember it being shadowed by his later opposition.


Mayweather for example:

Hatton - when undefeated and in prime
Ortiz - Young prime fighter (not the greatest, but a big test)
Mosley - Thought of as the most dangerous fight for Mayweather
JMM - Catchweight fight so dont like it
Miguel Cotto - Fought him at his proper weight and looked good in doing so

No sorry I completely disagree and I think thats an awfully biased and misrepresentative contrast between Pacquiao and Mayweather which also conveniently ignores an entire chapter of Pacquiaos career where he took on stellar competition.

1. De la Hoya - was Oscars choice to fight Pacquiao, hes the one wanted it. Pacquiao was not to blame at all for the condition de la Hoya came in. Pacquiao was a handy underdog in a fight that was seen as a size mismatch between a super featherweight and light middleweight meeting at a middle ground.

2. Hatton - ridiculously mismatched comparison with Mayweather. Hatton was coming off one of the best wins of his career and was considered the premier lww. Fought him at his "proper" weight too.

3. Clottey - average opponent

4. Cotto - catchweight scarcely relevant in my opinion. Cotto is as much a 145 lb guy than he is at light middle so I reject this comparison with Mayweather. Excellent win for Pacquiao against a tough opponent.

5. Margarito - average enough, but naturally far bigger opponent.
6. Mosley - this is really the only fight I would consider poor from Pacquiao, although his options were limited at the time.

7. JMM - why was this an easy opponent? People wrote him off, he proved them wrong. A fighter that had given Pacquiao problems in the past and had probably never been rated higher.

8. Bradley - undefeated and dangerous opponent.

Again, looking at the period he fought over, Mayweather apart - who should Pacquiao have been fighting instead?

Hatton was not coming off his career best win. Against Malignaggi? Thats the same as saying Mosley was coming off his career best draw against Mora?

JMM - Never said it was easy, i stated that i thought he lost.

Margarito? Dont agree.



In my eyes, Pacquiao AND Mayweather have been subject to fighting opponents who make them look good.


Id say that Pacquiao should have fought the following instead of:


De La Hoya change to Junior Witter or Andrea Kotelnik. Decent test against live fighters who were champions at LWW at the time. Then there would have been no excuses.

Miguel Cotto at 147lbs

JMM Agree with

Margarito change to Mayweather


Bradley agree with


Mosley to Ortiz/Berto/Khan


Clottey to Someone who throws a punch. Could be anyone. Even Salita.

rowley wrote:I think in future I might just say every fighter is rubbish irrespective of what they achieve or what the evidence of my own eyes tells me, obviously there will be occasions I will have to suffer treading a slightly different path to the rest of the board but when the inevitable backlash comes I can look almost visionary in my ability to be ahead of the curve.

Don't usurp my role

mobilemaster8 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

mobilemaster8 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:Im not interested in any Pac fight, he's finished. Since JMM 2 he's been carefully matched, to make him look good, against either Over the Hill Boxers or Come Forward Fighters (some of them plodders and some them just plain slow).

With extremely clever matchmaking a very good fighter has become a legend.

Other than Mayweather, who would you have had him fight in his career?

There arent many boxers in the last twenty years that can boast better opposition to Pacquiao or match the kind of success he has had across multiple weights.

I take the "multiple weights" with a pinch of salt from LWW upwards if im honest.

He become a LMW champ at a catchweight so thats bull

He took Cottos Welterweight crown on a catchweight aswell.

Its amazing that he was willing to fight Margarito for the WBC title when Antonio had been busted for hand wraps against Mosley and fought only once in 18 months.

Also, when Cotto offered a fight at a catchweight of 151lbs Pacquiao declined. Why would he do that if he fought Margarito at the same catchweight?


I agree with Mackem. Since beating Diaz, Pacquiao has had opponents made to order over the hill or plodding:

Oscar De La Hoya at a stupid weight
Ricky "face first" Hatton was past it as shown in the Lazcano fight.
Joshua Clottey - Defence only
Miguel Cotto - catchweight fight
Margarito - Why?
Mosley - Hammered by Mayweather and drew with Mora?
JMM - Thought he lost

Finally he fights his 2nd decent fighter at a proper weight and he loses.


Pacquiao is a destructive tornado. But i will only really remember it being shadowed by his later opposition.


Mayweather for example:

Hatton - when undefeated and in prime
Ortiz - Young prime fighter (not the greatest, but a big test)
Mosley - Thought of as the most dangerous fight for Mayweather
JMM - Catchweight fight so dont like it
Miguel Cotto - Fought him at his proper weight and looked good in doing so

No sorry I completely disagree and I think thats an awfully biased and misrepresentative contrast between Pacquiao and Mayweather which also conveniently ignores an entire chapter of Pacquiaos career where he took on stellar competition.

1. De la Hoya - was Oscars choice to fight Pacquiao, hes the one wanted it. Pacquiao was not to blame at all for the condition de la Hoya came in. Pacquiao was a handy underdog in a fight that was seen as a size mismatch between a super featherweight and light middleweight meeting at a middle ground.

2. Hatton - ridiculously mismatched comparison with Mayweather. Hatton was coming off one of the best wins of his career and was considered the premier lww. Fought him at his "proper" weight too.

3. Clottey - average opponent

4. Cotto - catchweight scarcely relevant in my opinion. Cotto is as much a 145 lb guy than he is at light middle so I reject this comparison with Mayweather. Excellent win for Pacquiao against a tough opponent.

5. Margarito - average enough, but naturally far bigger opponent.
6. Mosley - this is really the only fight I would consider poor from Pacquiao, although his options were limited at the time.

7. JMM - why was this an easy opponent? People wrote him off, he proved them wrong. A fighter that had given Pacquiao problems in the past and had probably never been rated higher.

8. Bradley - undefeated and dangerous opponent.

Again, looking at the period he fought over, Mayweather apart - who should Pacquiao have been fighting instead?

Hatton was not coming off his career best win. Against Malignaggi? Thats the same as saying Mosley was coming off his career best draw against Mora?

JMM - Never said it was easy, i stated that i thought he lost.

Margarito? Dont agree.



In my eyes, Pacquiao AND Mayweather have been subject to fighting opponents who make them look good.


Id say that Pacquiao should have fought the following instead of:


De La Hoya change to Junior Witter or Andrea Kotelnik. Decent test against live fighters who were champions at LWW at the time. Then there would have been no excuses.

Miguel Cotto at 147lbs

JMM Agree with

Margarito change to Mayweather


Bradley agree with


Mosley to Ortiz/Berto/Khan


Clottey to Someone who throws a punch. Could be anyone. Even Salita.

Hattons win over Malignaggi was one of the best of his career. In what way was it not? Dominated a genuine divisional rival from start to finish. Other than Tszyu, I actually dont think Hatton has a better win.

JMM - I thought he lost also, but the argument was initiated by saying he had been matched well or easily. I dont see how JMM fits that description. He was rated as one of the top 5 pound for pound fighters in the world at the time (still is) so I dispute it as evidence of Pacquaio being matched well. It was a fighter he had struggled to beat in two previous attempts.

De la Hoya - this fight more than any seems to have lost all context. Pacquiao had 1 fight above super feather weight prior to this fight. De la Hoya was a light middleweight. This was an incredibly risky fight to take on paper and one which most thought was just a size mismatch. The only reason I think Pacquiao even considered this fight was because the money Oscar generated was just too good to refuse. Oscar was considered past his best but still massive compared to a then scarcely lightweight Pacquiao. Theres no way Junior Witter (a financial horror) or Andreas Kotelnik (same) would make sense or be considered a better fight than this. The only reason this win gets flak is because Oscar botched making weight. That wasnt Pacquaios fault. Oscar was favourite to win.

Khan/Berto/Ortiz are no better than the likes of Cotto/Margarito/Bradley/JMM that Pacquiao faced by and large. Guys like Kotelnik and Witter are immediately pointless because they are such financial pits and they are definately not fights the public wanted.

There are various criticism of Pacquiao and his opposition which I accept but too often now it goes into the realms of just savaging apart his record with a level of scrutiny that just isnt applied anywhere else. To contrast, I beleve Pacquiaos opposition in the last 5 years hasactually been superior to Froch for example, who rightly gets nothing but praise for his choice of opponent.

Dont care, IMO I have already seen him beat Bradley but I won't say no as by the time it comes round again I will probably want to watch it to see how Bradley does with no injurys and if PAC has slipped more or has his determination back to KO him

manos de piedra wrote:

mobilemaster8 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

mobilemaster8 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:Im not interested in any Pac fight, he's finished. Since JMM 2 he's been carefully matched, to make him look good, against either Over the Hill Boxers or Come Forward Fighters (some of them plodders and some them just plain slow).

With extremely clever matchmaking a very good fighter has become a legend.

Other than Mayweather, who would you have had him fight in his career?

There arent many boxers in the last twenty years that can boast better opposition to Pacquiao or match the kind of success he has had across multiple weights.

I take the "multiple weights" with a pinch of salt from LWW upwards if im honest.

He become a LMW champ at a catchweight so thats bull

He took Cottos Welterweight crown on a catchweight aswell.

Its amazing that he was willing to fight Margarito for the WBC title when Antonio had been busted for hand wraps against Mosley and fought only once in 18 months.

Also, when Cotto offered a fight at a catchweight of 151lbs Pacquiao declined. Why would he do that if he fought Margarito at the same catchweight?


I agree with Mackem. Since beating Diaz, Pacquiao has had opponents made to order over the hill or plodding:

Oscar De La Hoya at a stupid weight
Ricky "face first" Hatton was past it as shown in the Lazcano fight.
Joshua Clottey - Defence only
Miguel Cotto - catchweight fight
Margarito - Why?
Mosley - Hammered by Mayweather and drew with Mora?
JMM - Thought he lost

Finally he fights his 2nd decent fighter at a proper weight and he loses.


Pacquiao is a destructive tornado. But i will only really remember it being shadowed by his later opposition.


Mayweather for example:

Hatton - when undefeated and in prime
Ortiz - Young prime fighter (not the greatest, but a big test)
Mosley - Thought of as the most dangerous fight for Mayweather
JMM - Catchweight fight so dont like it
Miguel Cotto - Fought him at his proper weight and looked good in doing so

No sorry I completely disagree and I think thats an awfully biased and misrepresentative contrast between Pacquiao and Mayweather which also conveniently ignores an entire chapter of Pacquiaos career where he took on stellar competition.

1. De la Hoya - was Oscars choice to fight Pacquiao, hes the one wanted it. Pacquiao was not to blame at all for the condition de la Hoya came in. Pacquiao was a handy underdog in a fight that was seen as a size mismatch between a super featherweight and light middleweight meeting at a middle ground.

2. Hatton - ridiculously mismatched comparison with Mayweather. Hatton was coming off one of the best wins of his career and was considered the premier lww. Fought him at his "proper" weight too.

3. Clottey - average opponent

4. Cotto - catchweight scarcely relevant in my opinion. Cotto is as much a 145 lb guy than he is at light middle so I reject this comparison with Mayweather. Excellent win for Pacquiao against a tough opponent.

5. Margarito - average enough, but naturally far bigger opponent.
6. Mosley - this is really the only fight I would consider poor from Pacquiao, although his options were limited at the time.

7. JMM - why was this an easy opponent? People wrote him off, he proved them wrong. A fighter that had given Pacquiao problems in the past and had probably never been rated higher.

8. Bradley - undefeated and dangerous opponent.

Again, looking at the period he fought over, Mayweather apart - who should Pacquiao have been fighting instead?

Hatton was not coming off his career best win. Against Malignaggi? Thats the same as saying Mosley was coming off his career best draw against Mora?

JMM - Never said it was easy, i stated that i thought he lost.

Margarito? Dont agree.



In my eyes, Pacquiao AND Mayweather have been subject to fighting opponents who make them look good.


Id say that Pacquiao should have fought the following instead of:


De La Hoya change to Junior Witter or Andrea Kotelnik. Decent test against live fighters who were champions at LWW at the time. Then there would have been no excuses.

Miguel Cotto at 147lbs

JMM Agree with

Margarito change to Mayweather


Bradley agree with


Mosley to Ortiz/Berto/Khan


Clottey to Someone who throws a punch. Could be anyone. Even Salita.

Hattons win over Malignaggi was one of the best of his career. In what way was it not? Dominated a genuine divisional rival from start to finish. Other than Tszyu, I actually dont think Hatton has a better win.

JMM - I thought he lost also, but the argument was initiated by saying he had been matched well or easily. I dont see how JMM fits that description. He was rated as one of the top 5 pound for pound fighters in the world at the time (still is) so I dispute it as evidence of Pacquaio being matched well. It was a fighter he had struggled to beat in two previous attempts.

De la Hoya - this fight more than any seems to have lost all context. Pacquiao had 1 fight above super feather weight prior to this fight. De la Hoya was a light middleweight. This was an incredibly risky fight to take on paper and one which most thought was just a size mismatch. The only reason I think Pacquiao even considered this fight was because the money Oscar generated was just too good to refuse. Oscar was considered past his best but still massive compared to a then scarcely lightweight Pacquiao. Theres no way Junior Witter (a financial horror) or Andreas Kotelnik (same) would make sense or be considered a better fight than this. The only reason this win gets flak is because Oscar botched making weight. That wasnt Pacquaios fault. Oscar was favourite to win.

Khan/Berto/Ortiz are no better than the likes of Cotto/Margarito/Bradley/JMM that Pacquiao faced by and large. Guys like Kotelnik and Witter are immediately pointless because they are such financial pits and they are definately not fights the public wanted.

There are various criticism of Pacquiao and his opposition which I accept but too often now it goes into the realms of just savaging apart his record with a level of scrutiny that just isnt applied anywhere else. To contrast, I beleve Pacquiaos opposition in the last 5 years hasactually been superior to Froch for example, who rightly gets nothing but praise for his choice of opponent.

Frochs last fights have been:


Jermaine Taylor
Mikkel Kessler
Arthur Abraham
Lucian Bute
Andre Dirrell
Andre Ward
Glen Johnson


Apart from Glen Johnson, how can you say Pacquiao has faced better??

All of those fighters were in their prime.

Kessler had 2 defeats. One against Calzaghe and one against a P4P Ward.
Abraham had only suffered a defeat and was a favourite
Bute was undefeated IBF Champ - Again Froch was underdog
Dirrell was undefeated
Ward was just simply too good but Froch took him to the cards.

Compare those to:

Margarito?
De La Hoya?!
Clottey?

Throw in some catchweights and BAM, Pacquiao has fought better fighters?


Dont agree unfortunately mate.

Jermain Taylor in his prime? Virtually no form at the weight and been smacked around twice by Pavlik already, likewise what had Abrahams done to suggest he was a better supermiddle than middle, and I say that as one of the biggest Froch fans on here, got to say the way all but one of Froch's opponents are billed as in their primes with nigh on zero analysis but Manny's opponents and weights are analysed and disected with forensic analysis does suggest you may not be coming at this from the most objective of perspectives.

Im think de la Hoya, Hatton, Cotto, Clottey, Margarito, Mosley, JMM and Bradley is better than Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Kessler, Abraham, Johnson, Ward and Bute.

This is what Im talking about. Apply the same kind of scrutiny to Frochs opponent as you have done to Pacquiao. Abraham because exposed, blown up, Taylor becomes shot, Dirrell becomes unproven, Johnson becomes rubbish.

Comparing, I think Abraham and Margarito are similar, Clottey and Johnson are similar, JMM and Ward are similar, Taylor and Mosey are similar and I would have de la Hoya/Hatton/Cotto/Bradley as better than Bute/Dirrell/Pascal/Kessler.

88Chris05 wrote:I'm actually despairing a little at some of these comments regarding Pacquiao's opposition.

I'm no fan of catchweights, but can we please be realistic here? Beating someone like Cotto at a 145 lb catchweight is still a superb achievement for a man who began his world title career at 112 lb, regardless of what the official Welterweight limit is. In my eyes, his claims of being a Light-Middleweight champion are incredibly flimsy to say the least, but beating someone in Margarito who was 17 lb heavier on fight night in such a fashion is still a feat which deserves commendation.

I find it even more disturbing that his win over Hatton gets so readily dismissed these days. I'd really question if anyone who can play down Pacquiao absolutely blitzing the undisputed top man in the division, having never even fought at that weight himself previously, can be taken seriously as a true fan of the sport. That may sound harsh, but to call Pacquiao's win over Hatton anything other than a superb one does him a great disservice. People can point to the Lazcano fight all they like, but the truth is that Hatton had also turned in some disappointing performances in the eighteen months up to fighting Floyd, too. Colazzo was a fight which could have gone either way, and he didn't exactly set the world alight against Urango, either.

Yes, everyone acknowledged that Pacquiao could well beat Hatton. But absolutely nobody, from my recollection, thought he'd do it in anything like that fashion.

Pacquiao's opposition, for the most part of his career, has been top drawer. I'm beginning to realise how fickle some boxing fans can be when I compare the effusive praise Pacquaio was (rightly) receiving two or three years back to the comments aimed towards him now.

Mayweathers destruction of Hatton was by far more impressive. Manny hit Hatton with a wild swing thrown from the ground that would have knocked out a horse. Impressive punch yes. Impressive performance?.. to a degree.

Manny cemented his greatness years ago, upto and including his bouts with barerra and morales. The rest has been careful matchmaking in an attempt to break records thus create media attention to fleece the general sports fan out of money. For the record, Manny is undoubtedly one of the top boxers of my lifetime. He is certainly one of my favourite sportsmen of all time. Hard and Humble like an orangutan or elephant.

TheMackemMawler wrote:Mayweathers destruction of Hatton was by far more impressive. Manny hit Hatton with a wild swing thrown from the ground that would have knocked out a horse. Impressive punch yes. Impressive performance?.. to a degree.

Whether or not Mayweather's win over Hatton was superior to Manny's is irrelevant. I'm not arguing whose win was better, I'm simply highlighting that Pacquiao's win over Hatton, from any angle you look at it from, is was a truly excellent one, and one which he deserves full credit for. Pacquiao's demolition of Cotto was a better performance and achievement, for me, than Mayweather's victory over the same man, but that doesn't change the fact that it was still an excellent win for Floyd, and one for which he deserves a great deal of credit and acclaim.

Only an impressive performance "to a degree", you say? What does it take to please you? How many other divisional number ones, who have been regarded as such for as long as Hatton was, have been obliterated in such a manner over the past couple of decades? And of those, how many of them were obliterated by a man who'd previously never even fought in that weight class?

It's nothing new in boxing, and so I shouldn't be surprised, but I can't help but be taken aback by the sway in judgement on Pacquiao over the past year or so - the backlash from his fortunate decision against Marquez and his workmanlike performances against Mosley and Bradley has been ridiculous. How anyone can be so dismissive of his win over Hatton is beyond me, to be honest.

Quick question for the Pacman detractors, why is it ok for Cotto to impose a catch weight but not Pacquiao?

Another one, how does a welter fighting a guy whod been a super feather the previous year at 145 not benefit the welter?

manos de piedra wrote:Im think de la Hoya, Hatton, Cotto, Clottey, Margarito, Mosley, JMM and Bradley is better than Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Kessler, Abraham, Johnson, Ward and Bute.

This is what Im talking about. Apply the same kind of scrutiny to Frochs opponent as you have done to Pacquiao. Abraham because exposed, blown up, Taylor becomes shot, Dirrell becomes unproven, Johnson becomes rubbish.

Comparing, I think Abraham and Margarito are similar, Clottey and Johnson are similar, JMM and Ward are similar, Taylor and Mosey are similar and I would have de la Hoya/Hatton/Cotto/Bradley as better than Bute/Dirrell/Pascal/Kessler.

Actually I disagree. Froch's level of opponents and Pac's are of equal footing and the results are similar..

Oscar - shell at 147 (not Pac's fault but an undeniable fact)
Hatton - great win no matter how its spun
Cotto - drained
Clottey - useless Bokum fisherman
Marg - joke of a fight
SSM - Shell of a once very good fighter who would have destroyed Pac when near prime or at LW
JMM - loss
Tim - good win.

Froch
Taylor - past it and not good at the higher weight
Kessler - Better P4P that anyone Pac beat named above
Abraham - Good win regardless. He had decimated Taylor and looked good doing it. Yes he was coming off a loss but so what? So was SSM, Marg and JMM and Hatton had already been beaten.
Dirrell - great win
Pascal - Fantastic win
Bute - Great win
Ward - good fight and put up a good fight against (imo) #2 P4P boxer.

The standout there is Ward. For him see Floyd and what would have happened against Pac. But Pac win over Hatton is equal to the Bute fight for Froch. The difference is that Froch has not fought corpses or walking punchbags or had gimme fights.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Quick question for the Pacman detractors, why is it ok for Cotto to impose a catch weight but not Pacquiao?

Another one, how does a welter fighting a guy whod been a super feather the previous year at 145 not benefit the welter?

Who says its ok for one boxer to impose a CW on another?

Weight stips my man, weight stips. Cotto came in a ig LMW against Floyd and had a good engine. Against Pac he gassed. Weight loss made him gas.

azania wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Quick question for the Pacman detractors, why is it ok for Cotto to impose a catch weight but not Pacquiao?

Another one, how does a welter fighting a guy whod been a super feather the previous year at 145 not benefit the welter?

Who says its ok for one boxer to impose a CW on another?

Weight stips my man, weight stips. Cotto came in a ig LMW against Floyd and had a good engine. Against Pac he gassed. Weight loss made him gas.

The whole Cott being drained at the weight is a bit of a myth tbh. Cotto weighed 1lb less for the Pac fight than he did for Clottey 5 months earlier and he won that fight. Cotto also wanted a 150lbs catchweight for the second Margarito fight so he isn't a big LMW.

I voted Don't Care, hate to say it but I truly don't anymore. This fight really epitomises the running joke boxing has become and the politics that have established a firm chokehold upon it. Had Pacman and Mayweather put all controversy aside and shared a ring years ago I might not be saying this. Nor am I saying I'm giving up on boxing as I believe there are still exceptional sportsmen and athletes to be found and clean, entertaining fights to be had, even if they have become much more of a rarity than before.

But instead of getting that fight, both camps' utter BS denied us potentially one of the bouts of the century. It has dragged on ever since without either man so much as touching the other and has reached this rotten conclusion where it'll never be clear who would have won. The questions of corruption and prime have arisen when both men could have sacrificed some personal glamour and profit just to fight each other, both fresh off great wins. Spare a thought for the sport and the fans you might say. Now we're unlikely to ever know.

It truly puts the name of boxing to shame imo and morally makes past greats, who poured their heart and soul into beating their man, turn in their graves. The last few months have seen a shocking amount of controversy and the meeting of two men in this business has become overshadowed by their constant b!tching before and after the fight rather than it being a simple physical contest. What goes on outside the ring has come to mean almost as much, if not more, than what goes on in the ring. It sickens me tbh.

Sorry for the rant and, as some might feel, over-elaboration in response to a simple question. I'm not sure I've worded some of that correctly but that's why I don't care about whether there's a rematch.

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:

azania wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Quick question for the Pacman detractors, why is it ok for Cotto to impose a catch weight but not Pacquiao?

Another one, how does a welter fighting a guy whod been a super feather the previous year at 145 not benefit the welter?

Who says its ok for one boxer to impose a CW on another?

Weight stips my man, weight stips. Cotto came in a ig LMW against Floyd and had a good engine. Against Pac he gassed. Weight loss made him gas.

The whole Cott being drained at the weight is a bit of a myth tbh. Cotto weighed 1lb less for the Pac fight than he did for Clottey 5 months earlier and he won that fight. Cotto also wanted a 150lbs catchweight for the second Margarito fight so he isn't a big LMW.

It doesn't matter is he weighed half an ounce less. He was made to come in at a lower weight. Do you know how hard it was? That extra pound probably hurt him. It didn;t benefit him did it? hy make the stip if only to get an advantage. And I dont buy this excuse in that it was to equalise things because Pac was a SFW before. Roach is on record in saying that stips are there to give his guy an advantage.

Cotto knows he can make 150 easier than Marg and wanted every advantage. Good thing it wasn't done.

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Im think de la Hoya, Hatton, Cotto, Clottey, Margarito, Mosley, JMM and Bradley is better than Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Kessler, Abraham, Johnson, Ward and Bute.

This is what Im talking about. Apply the same kind of scrutiny to Frochs opponent as you have done to Pacquiao. Abraham because exposed, blown up, Taylor becomes shot, Dirrell becomes unproven, Johnson becomes rubbish.

Comparing, I think Abraham and Margarito are similar, Clottey and Johnson are similar, JMM and Ward are similar, Taylor and Mosey are similar and I would have de la Hoya/Hatton/Cotto/Bradley as better than Bute/Dirrell/Pascal/Kessler.

Actually I disagree. Froch's level of opponents and Pac's are of equal footing and the results are similar..

Oscar - shell at 147 (not Pac's fault but an undeniable fact)
Hatton - great win no matter how its spun
Cotto - drained
Clottey - useless Bokum fisherman
Marg - joke of a fight
SSM - Shell of a once very good fighter who would have destroyed Pac when near prime or at LW
JMM - loss
Tim - good win.

Froch
Taylor - past it and not good at the higher weight
Kessler - Better P4P that anyone Pac beat named above
Abraham - Good win regardless. He had decimated Taylor and looked good doing it. Yes he was coming off a loss but so what? So was SSM, Marg and JMM and Hatton had already been beaten.
Dirrell - great win
Pascal - Fantastic win
Bute - Great win
Ward - good fight and put up a good fight against (imo) #2 P4P boxer.

The standout there is Ward. For him see Floyd and what would have happened against Pac. But Pac win over Hatton is equal to the Bute fight for Froch. The difference is that Froch has not fought corpses or walking punchbags or had gimme fights.

Firstly, Im not talking about actual wins, Im talking about level of opposition which ignores win/loss. With that inmind I believe Pacquiaos is better. I dont rate the win over Oscar for instance, due to the weight. But its completely unfair to either blame Pacquiao for this or insinuate he knew it would happen. It was Pacquaio taking the big risk in this fight, not Oscar. So in terms of opposition its actually a good opponent. Unfortuantely Oscars condition on the night meant as a win its largely irrelevant. But the two issues are not the same.

Secondly, I dont see the consistency here. Kessler is apparently better pound for pound? JMM, Bradley, Cotto and Hatton would all have been rated better pound for pound than Kessler. And probably all better fighters too for my money. If you are going to sum up JMM as "loss" then the same should be for Kessler and Ward. I dont think Pac performed any worse against JMM than Froch did against Ward.

Johnson you leave out entirely, but is more or less the same as Clottey. Margarito is described as a joke fight, but I think is a better fighter than Abraham overall.

Dirrell is described as a great win. If a win at all it was over a guy that had never had a top level fight before. The far more proven and experienced Bradley gets only a "good" win.

Mosley was a shell. So was Taylor.

I would actually agree with you overall that there is probably not alot sperating the respective opposition (I would still go for Pacquiao). So I dont want to get into an argument over that. But my point was in relation to the relative inconsistency in how they are viewed. Froch gets unadulteratd praise, Pacquiao, on this thread, has been practically shredded. This cant be right?

For instance Margarito/Clottey/Mosley are fairly similar to Abraham/Johnson/Taylor, and when you consider the respective performances to boot - Pacquiao barely dropped a round, Froch needed a last gasp KO over Taylor and gave up several rounds to Johnson - it looks better for Pacquiao. But Pacquiao gets savaged by the critics for these fights whereas Froch gets praised.

Im happy to accept various criticisms of Pacquiaos opponent - some such as the Cotto one I completely reject, but others I agree with to a large extent. I just think its pushed well beyond the realms of balanced at times and firmly disagree that hes been well matched. Outside of Mayweather I dont think theres many guys he should have fought that he didnt, and those that he didnt are not any better than the ones he did face for the most part.

I'm referring to level of opposition and where they were at the time of the fight.

I forgot Johnson and will put him on par with Clottey and Marg.

The manner in which Pac won and performed is better than Froch, but I cant seperate their opponents. The only remaining issue is the weight stips imposed. That takes a lot away from Pac.

Well if you cant seperate the opponents, then maybe you can see where Im coming from when I say I dont understand why Pacquiao gets so much additional scrutiny and negativity for his opposition but somebody like Froch gets nothing but praise.

There is not alot of fighters out there, probably none, that I think have fought a significantly better standard of opposition.

Mayweather would rival him of course. Froch and Dawson in the last 3/4 years could also. But after that there isnt anyone really. Guys like Froch, JMM, Martinez get praise, Pacquaio attracts negativity more often than not. Doesnt make sense to me.

Yes I'm interested but I pray the decision is accurate.... wouldn't surprise me if it's the other way round this time with Bradley winning yet not getting the decision, so it can be a trilogy.

I just dont see how you have Abraham the same as Margarito when Margarito had been battered by Mosley and then fought some bum within an 18 month period before Pacquiao agreed to fight.

Clottey and Johnson dont really compare when you look at who Johnsons has fought:

Hopkins, Bute, Froch, Jones Jr, Tarver, Ottke etc etc. May be old, but been around the block and only really lost to top quality fighters


Id only agree with Mosley - Taylor comparison. Both looked on the decline and it proved correct in their respective fights.


I also think that the Dirrell comment is irrelavant as Pacquiao lost against Bradley and did not win.


You could do your own thread and have this:


Who has fought the better opposition over the past 4 years and why?

Pacquiao vs Froch



I bet 80% say Froch has faced better.


I accept your opinion and im not disputing the fact that Pacquiao is a legendary fighter, i just believe he has been hyped up over the years with this 8 weight world champ crap, when 2 of them were catch weight fights. One against a drained Cotto and one against a bum who didnt even deserve a shot at the WBC vacant title!

Abraham had lost to Dirrell prior to Froch. He had limited credentials at SMW. Margarito is a better fighter for me and was a much bigger guy than Pacquiao, whereas Abraham was smaller than Froch. I dont think there is a massive amount in it, which is why I think they are comparable.

Johnson has fought alot of top guys, but mainly lost to them. similar to Clottey. He was also ancient. I dont see the wins as being disimilar.

If Pacquiao lost to Bradley, then he beat JMM.

manos de piedra wrote:Well if you cant seperate the opponents, then maybe you can see where Im coming from when I say I dont understand why Pacquiao gets so much additional scrutiny and negativity for his opposition but somebody like Froch gets nothing but praise.

There is not alot of fighters out there, probably none, that I think have fought a significantly better standard of opposition.

Mayweather would rival him of course. Froch and Dawson in the last 3/4 years could also. But after that there isnt anyone really. Guys like Froch, JMM, Martinez get praise, Pacquaio attracts negativity more often than not. Doesnt make sense to me.

Of course I do. I hope you can also understand why I have been critical of Pac when I see all the hype surrounding him and some ridiculously making him a top 30 ATG.

mobilemaster8 wrote:I just dont see how you have Abraham the same as Margarito when Margarito had been battered by Mosley and then fought some bum within an 18 month period before Pacquiao agreed to fight.

Clottey and Johnson dont really compare when you look at who Johnsons has fought:

Hopkins, Bute, Froch, Jones Jr, Tarver, Ottke etc etc. May be old, but been around the block and only really lost to top quality fighters


Id only agree with Mosley - Taylor comparison. Both looked on the decline and it proved correct in their respective fights.


I also think that the Dirrell comment is irrelavant as Pacquiao lost against Bradley and did not win.


You could do your own thread and have this:


Who has fought the better opposition over the past 4 years and why?

Pacquiao vs Froch



I bet 80% say Froch has faced better.


I accept your opinion and im not disputing the fact that Pacquiao is a legendary fighter, i just believe he has been hyped up over the years with this 8 weight world champ crap, when 2 of them were catch weight fights. One against a drained Cotto and one against a bum who didnt even deserve a shot at the WBC vacant title!

Sounds like Canelo there.

azania wrote:

mobilemaster8 wrote:I just dont see how you have Abraham the same as Margarito when Margarito had been battered by Mosley and then fought some bum within an 18 month period before Pacquiao agreed to fight.

Clottey and Johnson dont really compare when you look at who Johnsons has fought:

Hopkins, Bute, Froch, Jones Jr, Tarver, Ottke etc etc. May be old, but been around the block and only really lost to top quality fighters


Id only agree with Mosley - Taylor comparison. Both looked on the decline and it proved correct in their respective fights.


I also think that the Dirrell comment is irrelavant as Pacquiao lost against Bradley and did not win.


You could do your own thread and have this:


Who has fought the better opposition over the past 4 years and why?

Pacquiao vs Froch



I bet 80% say Froch has faced better.


I accept your opinion and im not disputing the fact that Pacquiao is a legendary fighter, i just believe he has been hyped up over the years with this 8 weight world champ crap, when 2 of them were catch weight fights. One against a drained Cotto and one against a bum who didnt even deserve a shot at the WBC vacant title!

Sounds like Canelo there.

Or Chavez Jr

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Well if you cant seperate the opponents, then maybe you can see where Im coming from when I say I dont understand why Pacquiao gets so much additional scrutiny and negativity for his opposition but somebody like Froch gets nothing but praise.

There is not alot of fighters out there, probably none, that I think have fought a significantly better standard of opposition.

Mayweather would rival him of course. Froch and Dawson in the last 3/4 years could also. But after that there isnt anyone really. Guys like Froch, JMM, Martinez get praise, Pacquaio attracts negativity more often than not. Doesnt make sense to me.

Of course I do. I hope you can also understand why I have been critical of Pac when I see all the hype surrounding him and some ridiculously making him a top 30 ATG.

Im not sure if Id have him top 30, but I think hes got a record that gives him a shout.

Im surprised you of all people are dismissing his top 30 claim though seeing as there is presumably a good 50 or 60 years worth of fighters that are automatically ruled out!

manos de piedra wrote:Abraham had lost to Dirrell prior to Froch. He had limited credentials at SMW. Margarito is a better fighter for me and was a much bigger guy than Pacquiao, whereas Abraham was smaller than Froch. I dont think there is a massive amount in it, which is why I think they are comparable.

Johnson has fought alot of top guys, but mainly lost to them. similar to Clottey. He was also ancient. I dont see the wins as being disimilar.

If Pacquiao lost to Bradley, then he beat JMM.

This is very correct. I thought JMM beat Pacquiao, but he actually lost.

As a footnote, I have not compared oponents between Pac and Froch as I don't see how this is possible. Second, Froch mostly didn't have a choice in who he fought, it was part of a tornament. Third, alot of Pacs opponents(post 2008) were carefully picked because of their age + name or style.

Funny after one loss a fighters record gets scrutinised.

Where were all these Pacquiao were was never that good articles before he lost a close split decision to Bradley.

Just a few members trying to make a name for themselves here and not looking very good doing it. You know its bad when Az agrees with you.

Feel slightly bad for Bradley as few respect him for his 'win' and he'll almost certainly get screwed in a rematch irrespective of what performance he puts in. That said, I'v voted yes as I still believe the first result was a disgrace and needs to be undone.

Pac should then retire as I genuinely don't think his heart is in it anymore and I can't bear the thought of Floyd taking that moment to pounce, box a shut-out and then he (and the millions of Flomo's) pronounce him as the greatest ever and that this proves he always had the beating of Manny.

Wow, some utter drivel has been spouted in this thread (mobilemaster, azania, mackemmauler I'm looking at you).

Fists of Fury wrote:Wow, some utter drivel has been spouted in this thread (mobilemaster, azania, mackemmauler I'm looking at you).

Why me? I have never once stated that Pacquiao isnt a legendary fighter. Ive stated that his opponents over the past 4 years have been pretty much handpicked or have had stipulations added!

Ive also defended the fact that Froch has fough better opposition, but thats it.

I wouldnt say its drivel if im honest.

Fists of Fury wrote:Wow, some utter drivel has been spouted in this thread (mobilemaster, azania, mackemmauler I'm looking at you).

Keep on looking mate. But you look kind of silly making a statement like that without qualifying it. My position is clear. Pac's level of opposition is no better or worse than Froch's over the last 4 years. If you think its better or worse, explain why.