Floyd v Manny. Those two again.

Alreet chaps.

I have noticed over the last few weeks that a few comments have cropped up regarding Floyd, Manny and the fight that never was. I have to say that the comments surprised me somewhat in that the consensus appears to be that people are not at all bothered about the prospect of the best two fighters of this generation meeting. There seems to be sense of ‘who cares’ now and I find that disappointing and odd in equal measures. Does the old dictum of ‘better late than never’ not hold any sway in this instance? Particularly in the context of boxing’s long and great history.

There are a multitude of great fights that have never happened, from Dempsey v Wills to Lewis v Bowe and everything in between. I would hate to put Mayweather v Pacquiao in the same bracket as these ‘what could have been’ fights. That would be a crying shame, and to my mind worse than them not facing off at all. Yes, it would be a few years too late but would it not still be a highly competitive fight and one in which the sport could draw a line in the sand and “yes, we can put the big fights on”?

I get the argument that Manny has shown some signs of decline, but at least he has been active enough for us to see these signs, and let’s face it, he was terribly unlucky not to get the verdict against Bradley last time out. He is far from a shot fighter. Marquez gives him fits, let’s not hide that fact, but perhaps he just has Manny’s number, just like Norton gave Ali problems. No-one else has given Pacquiao that much trouble since 2005. Mayweather has hardly been active, and who knows when that inactivity could catch up with him?

I also get the argument that most people favour Mayweather heavily if they had squared off in 2009 or now. Most people seem to think ‘Money’ would win at any point in their respective careers. Indeed, so do I, but I would still like to see it and would never rule Manny out. He has two arms and two legs, just like Floyd and can punch hard. Mosley showed us that Floyd can be hurt if you can catch him, and although I appreciate the style differences between Manny and Shane, it doesn’t mean Manny couldn’t put some heat on the ‘Pretty Boy’. Who would have thought Duran could roll back the years and beat Davey Moore in the style he did. Again, I appreciate that Davey Moore is no Floyd Mayweather, but the point remains. Sugar Ray Robinson was outhustled by Gene Fullmer in their first fight but rolled back the years 4 months later to produce that left hook and seal the deal on his legend. Even The Greatest was expected to lose by everyone other than Colin Hart to the formidable figure of George Foreman in Kinshasa, 1974. Great fighters, and make no mistake, Manny is a great fighter, can go to the well and produce big performances. If I researched it deeply enough, I could produce a long list of occasions when great fighters who were perceived to be past their best came back and produced a stunning victory but this thread isn’t really about different examples from different era’s, it is more about the possibility that this could happen. Let’s face it, there is enough evidence out there to support the theory. Why would we ignore the evidence in front of our eyes and write the fight off as a foregone conclusion.

It is a damning indictment on the sport that the fight didn’t happen in ’09 or ’10, but wouldn’t it be even worse if it didn’t ever materialise? If they got it together in the next 12 months then wouldn’t that be the lesser of two evils? We could put an end the tedious ‘who’s fault was it’ argument once and for all if nothing else. I firmly believe that even though it is a couple of years late, the interest would be huge and would generate better publicity for a sport that could do with some positivity right now. Look at the interest Holyfield v Tyson generated. I know the heavyweights, and Tyson especially, get the casuals involved more, but the point is still valid. Holyfield was considered past his best and unless you are Ron Borges of the Boston Globe, everybody expected Tyson to crush Evander. Look what happened there. At the time, that fight was considered to be a few years too late, but turned out to be the zenith of Evander’s career.

This isn’t really a who beats who thread and I am not doing my best impression of Azania and attempting to be a full-time contrarian, I am genuinely interested in what the board think about this fight and whether peoples apparent disinterest is genuine or just a reaction to the situation as it stands at the moment.

Over to you.

Sell out

Just getting the confidence up before I unleash the Eugene Bullard story, Jeff.

I think that it will be a massive anti climax to what has been 4 years in the making and will leave everyone thinking, was that it? Also seeing those two get their pockets lined even further after really letting the sport down would be annoying. But still it is a fight I would like to see as right now they're both top 5 P4P fighters operating in or around the same weight class.

I'd watch the fight if it were on but I'm bored of wondering if it will happen, and to be honest I've stopped caring. The fight will still hold some significance of course but it means a hell of a lot less now than it did.

Rather see Floyd fight Alvarez or Martinez as I think he beats Manny comfortably at this stage but not the other 2.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:This isn’t really a who beats who thread and I am not doing my best impression of Azania and attempting to be a full-time contrarian,

That thought never crossed my mind mate. No worries there.

I did however think "606 Boxing Awards coming up... Tino needs a populist behemoth to rival rowley's Lennox Lewis - Convince Me for thread of the year... clever."

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:This isn’t really a who beats who thread and I am not doing my best impression of Azania and attempting to be a full-time contrarian,

That thought never crossed my mind mate. No worries there.

I did however think "606 Boxing Awards coming up... Tino needs a populist behemoth to rival rowley's Lennox Lewis - Convince Me for thread of the year... clever."

There is no pulling the wool over your eyes, IG. Busted.

It does stick in the craw a little bit that Jeff has the nerve to call me a sell out. He got about 80,000 replies for that Lennox Lewis piece of rubbish.

bellchees wrote:I think that it will be a massive anti climax to what has been 4 years in the making and will leave everyone thinking, was that it?

Manny v Floyd or Tino's Eugene Bullard article?

I'm sorry Tina but I know from bitter experience how you will live to rue this shameless attempt at popularism, no amount of responses fill the hole left by the piece of your soul this will cost you.

Would still be half decent depending on how pac gets on but we'll never know when both were at there peak who the best was. Damages both fighters.

I'm more or less along your line of thinking, Tino.

Lesser of two evils is a good way of putting it. There seems to be an idea growing that, because a fight between them now wouldn't necessarily smash all purse and PPV figures like it would have done in 2010, that it'd just be a waste of time now. To those who think that, I'd genuinely be interested to know what other potential fight could generate as much money, interest and as many shockwaves as this one.

As you say, it would still be damn good for the sport. The millions of partizan idiots who literally have no interest in the sport aside from being a 'Pactard' or a 'Flomo' blaming the other party for the fight not happening would be hushed at long last, people with normally little more than a passing interest in the sport would be drawn in and talking about it wherever you look, and it would go some way to assuring the hardcore fans that the promoters can, every now and then, still give us the fights we crave.

Sadly, I think we'll never see it, and the aforementioned prats will continue to argue back and forth in a flurry of made up swear words and racist rants (take a look at YouTube to see what I mean), discontent will remain amongst fans who still want to see it even now, and a great opporunity to help restore the image of the sport will have been missed.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Alreet chaps.

I have noticed over the last few weeks that a few comments have cropped up regarding Floyd, Manny and the fight that never was. I have to say that the comments surprised me somewhat in that the consensus appears to be that people are not at all bothered about the prospect of the best two fighters of this generation meeting. There seems to be sense of ‘who cares’ now and I find that disappointing and odd in equal measures. Does the old dictum of ‘better late than never’ not hold any sway in this instance? Particularly in the context of boxing’s long and great history.

There are a multitude of great fights that have never happened, from Dempsey v Wills to Lewis v Bowe and everything in between. I would hate to put Mayweather v Pacquiao in the same bracket as these ‘what could have been’ fights. That would be a crying shame, and to my mind worse than them not facing off at all. Yes, it would be a few years too late but would it not still be a highly competitive fight and one in which the sport could draw a line in the sand and “yes, we can put the big fights on”?

I get the argument that Manny has shown some signs of decline, but at least he has been active enough for us to see these signs, and let’s face it, he was terribly unlucky not to get the verdict against Bradley last time out. He is far from a shot fighter. Marquez gives him fits, let’s not hide that fact, but perhaps he just has Manny’s number, just like Norton gave Ali problems. No-one else has given Pacquiao that much trouble since 2005. Mayweather has hardly been active, and who knows when that inactivity could catch up with him?

I also get the argument that most people favour Mayweather heavily if they had squared off in 2009 or now. Most people seem to think ‘Money’ would win at any point in their respective careers. Indeed, so do I, but I would still like to see it and would never rule Manny out. He has two arms and two legs, just like Floyd and can punch hard. Mosley showed us that Floyd can be hurt if you can catch him, and although I appreciate the style differences between Manny and Shane, it doesn’t mean Manny couldn’t put some heat on the ‘Pretty Boy’. Who would have thought Duran could roll back the years and beat Davey Moore in the style he did. Again, I appreciate that Davey Moore is no Floyd Mayweather, but the point remains. Sugar Ray Robinson was outhustled by Gene Fullmer in their first fight but rolled back the years 4 months later to produce that left hook and seal the deal on his legend. Even The Greatest was expected to lose by everyone other than Colin Hart to the formidable figure of George Foreman in Kinshasa, 1974. Great fighters, and make no mistake, Manny is a great fighter, can go to the well and produce big performances. If I researched it deeply enough, I could produce a long list of occasions when great fighters who were perceived to be past their best came back and produced a stunning victory but this thread isn’t really about different examples from different era’s, it is more about the possibility that this could happen. Let’s face it, there is enough evidence out there to support the theory. Why would we ignore the evidence in front of our eyes and write the fight off as a foregone conclusion.

It is a damning indictment on the sport that the fight didn’t happen in ’09 or ’10, but wouldn’t it be even worse if it didn’t ever materialise? If they got it together in the next 12 months then wouldn’t that be the lesser of two evils? We could put an end the tedious ‘who’s fault was it’ argument once and for all if nothing else. I firmly believe that even though it is a couple of years late, the interest would be huge and would generate better publicity for a sport that could do with some positivity right now. Look at the interest Holyfield v Tyson generated. I know the heavyweights, and Tyson especially, get the casuals involved more, but the point is still valid. Holyfield was considered past his best and unless you are Ron Borges of the Boston Globe, everybody expected Tyson to crush Evander. Look what happened there. At the time, that fight was considered to be a few years too late, but turned out to be the zenith of Evander’s career.

This isn’t really a who beats who thread and I am not doing my best impression of Azania and attempting to be a full-time contrarian, I am genuinely interested in what the board think about this fight and whether peoples apparent disinterest is genuine or just a reaction to the situation as it stands at the moment.

Over to you.

It NEVER would have been a competative fight if im honest.

Do you really think so, mobilemaster? Can't say I agree with that myself.

If the fight had happened in 2010, when the anticipation for it really was at fever pitch and both men looked at their best, then there's no way Mayweather has the field day with Pacquiao that some (understandably, I suppose) think he'd have now.

When Pacquiao peaked with that thrashing of Cotto, I'd have made Floyd a 60:40 favourite, no more. In that fight, Pacquiao did plenty to remove the myth that he was basically just a supremely fit, all-action whirlwind; he outboxed Cotto for sustained periods too, proved he could cover up and roll with shots on the ropes and also answered questions about his chin as a Welter, as well as his ability to withstand a body attack.

Mayweather would have had his hands full - the fullest they would ever have been, I imagine. I'd have backed him to take a decision, but he'd have needed to be in the same form as he was against Mosley, Corrales and Hatton. If he'd turned up in the same mood and form he showed against Judah, Baldomir and De la Hoya, I don't think it would have been good enough, and he may well have suffered the verdict going against him.

88Chris05 wrote:Do you really think so, mobilemaster? Can't say I agree with that myself.

If the fight had happened in 2010, when the anticipation for it really was at fever pitch and both men looked at their best, then there's no way Mayweather has the field day with Pacquiao that some (understandably, I suppose) think he'd have now.

When Pacquiao peaked with that thrashing of Cotto, I'd have made Floyd a 60:40 favourite, no more. In that fight, Pacquiao did plenty to remove the myth that he was basically just a supremely fit, all-action whirlwind; he outboxed Cotto for sustained periods too, proved he could cover up and roll with shots on the ropes and also answered questions about his chin as a Welter, as well as his ability to withstand a body attack.

Mayweather would have had his hands full - the fullest they would ever have been, I imagine. I'd have backed him to take a decision, but he'd have needed to be in the same form as he was against Mosley, Corrales and Hatton. If he'd turned up in the same mood and form he showed against Judah, Baldomir and De la Hoya, I don't think it would have been good enough, and he may well have suffered the verdict going against him.

+1.

Got to say I agree with the idea that in 2010 the idea Floyd blows Manny away is fanciful, I have always been of the opinion that Floyd beats him but remember watching one of Manny’s fights, may have been Clottey and Jim Watt made a perceptive point that Manny at the time was a hard guy to outpoint because he threw so damned much and it looked so impressive, due to the speed and variety.

Now the obvious counter argument to that is Floyd would be blocking and avoiding much of this and landing counters but he was doing this against Oscar but the volume from Oscar was enough to fool the judges and a 2010 Manny is going to throw more and not fade down the stretch. Floyd is always my pick but had this fight happened when it should have cannot have it any more than a borderline call either way.

I thought this wasn't going to turn into a 'who wins thread'?

Manny by stoppage at some point.

Thanks for being honest mobilemaster

Should it happen in 2013 I would watch it but without caring too much as its an easy floyd win

I never thought pacquiao could beat Mayweather now or ever. Every time I think of a potential fight I can only see a points win whether its close or wide

Pacquiao has a weakness for boxers and mayweather is as good a boxer as they come. He has the footwork, handspeed and jab to keep manny at arms length and if manny isn't throwing 80 punches a round he looks ordinary. Pacquiao may start quick landing good shots but mayweather will adapt and whe he changes pacquiao won't and will get broken down

I think the whole talk just bores everyone now so many including myself have lost interest.

At some point I believe both have been petty over the potential fight and helped to prevent it happening and because of all this I don't think either deserves the attention which the fight involves.

A once in a generation opportunity has been taking from true boxing fans to see the top 2 consensus P4P stars face each other. At a time when critics say boxing is dying it is criminal that the fight can't be made.

Personally I've always heavily favoured Floyd but if it happened now it would be tarnished by people saying they are both (Manny more so) not at their peak.

Post Manny vs Cotto this fight would have been GIGANTIC!

I just feel Mayweather would have handled every version of Pacquiao very easily.

Styles make Fights at the end of the day and i feel that whilst Pacquiao has superior power, he lacks in defence a lot which Mayweather will exploit all night over 12.

10 times out of 10 Mayweather wins via UD (117-111 or 118-110)

I would have him winning everytime, just how i see it.

Quick jabs, check left hooks, PERFECT counter punching.

Lets not forget how easily Marquez copes with Pacquiao by simply using counter style boxing.

Mayweather is pretty much the top of the tree in counter punching.

I honestly think Pacquiao would be well out of his depth in every aspect.

But, we will never know thanks to Bob Arum!

Much as I always wanted someone to shut mayweather up, and pac seemed the most likely candidate, I too, could only ever see this fight going to floyd at anytime. Two great fighters, but 1 whose style is the perfect foil to the others. Mayweather is basically a better version of Marquez, it's why he shut Marquez out, and why in my view, he'd handle any version of manny...unfortunately.

Like most others, I've lost interest in it... But I 've no doubt I'd find some of that interest nearer the time, if it finally did happen.

As much as Manny struggles with counter punchers, and Floyd is as good as anyone at this, I think Floyd has stayed clear of volume punchers whenever possible and Manny is as good a volume puncher as you are likely to see. I've Always thought people focused on Manny's weaknesses but never Floyds when considering this fight, his low output and average power. I'd still make Floyd a narrow favourite because of his adaptability but if he surrenders a few rounds by being inactive and going into his shell when Manny is throwing 80+ punches each round he'll struggle to win. Anything short of his best Manny could nick a messy points win Calzaghe vs Hopkins style, he still could if Floyd chooses to stand in front of him like he has been doing lately.

Great article, I for one still very much want this fight to happen.

bellchees wrote:As much as Manny struggles with counter punchers, and Floyd is as good as anyone at this, I think Floyd has stayed clear of volume punchers whenever possible and Manny is as good a volume puncher as you are likely to see. I've Always thought people focused on Manny's weaknesses but never Floyds when considering this fight, his low output and average power. I'd still make Floyd a narrow favourite because of his adaptability but if he surrenders a few rounds by being inactive and going into his shell when Manny is throwing 80+ punches each round he'll struggle to win. Anything short of his best Manny could nick a messy points win Calzaghe vs Hopkins style, he still could if Floyd chooses to stand in front of him like he has been doing lately.

Im with you bellchees. Although I would make Floyd favourite, I dont see him ever knocking Manny out or putting him down, and Manny's work rate would make it difficult to get a UD. Judges in America seem to be heavily biased towards aggression, even if it is not effective aggression. At their respective peaks Mayweather would do just enough in my opinion. Now Manny's output has dropped I think Floyd would win by a significantly larger margin, although we do not really know how much Floyd has left these days, and whether his short prison stint has affected him.

Like almost everyone else on here I've always, to varying degrees, had Floyd as favourite. However, after the Cotto fight I only gave him the slightest edge. Manny completely outclassed Cotto that night and was at the absolute peak of his powers and it was difficult to see how Floyd could out point him when he was throwing so many hard and accurate punches. Yes, Floyd would have made him miss more, but if the judges had applied the 'effective aggression' standard, Floyd would have had to adapt and come out of his shell to be sure of doing enough to impress the judges. It wouldn't necessarily be enough to make Manny miss - people mention Marquez and although its right to say he makes Manny look bad, he (albeit wrongly) has a losing record against him.

Another factor is Manny's southpaw stance. D4 may have been a complete nutjob but I always thought he had a convincing point that manny would have negated Floyds biggest punch - the overhand counter right in response to a left hand jab. It's a big scoring punch for Floyd and also stops his opponents throwing their jab as often as they would like to.

Floyd would have had to adapt and that's why the fight would have been fun and damn close

I very much agree with Jeff above, and could perhaps even see a Manny points win had this fight taken place shortly after he demolished Cotto.

Outpointing him would have been a hell of a task, and he was simply electric around that time. It would have been mighty close in my view, with it going either way by a small margin.

Now it is a different story though, I think. Manny's activity, speed and work rate were his great equaliser to Floyd's defence and accuracy (but relatively low work rate). Without that I think Floyd would have a far more comfortable time of it, and likely take a fairly wide points win.

No, I'd probably rather not see it now, it has lost its lustre and would have no bearing on what the outcome might have been three years back.

Meant to add that I don't care if they fight now as its a ll but a foregone conclusion.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Why would we ignore the evidence in front of our eyes and write the fight off as a foregone conclusion.

superflyweight wrote: Meant to add that I don't care if they fight now as its a ll but a foregone conclusion.

Manny may throw a lot of punches but looking at the people who boxed him like floyd would do his output isn't anything special. Miguel Cotto was a great performance but the Cotto who fought pacquiao was perhaps stylistically as far from floyd as possible. High peekaboo guard, come forward, aggressive and fights small.

Mayweather may have less success with the straight right but looking at Marquez (I,II & III) and Morales I they had a lot of success with the straight right as manny frequently over stretches making him eay to counte rid you can time his attacks

There hasn't been a fighter who has been able to evade mayweathers right hand for any longevity. Judah started as well as he could yet mayweather adapted and broke him down.

Mayweather may not be able to punch but if pacquiao doesn't fight smart and goes too gung ho he could be hurt or suffer flash knockdowns as mayweather has that in his arsenal

Theres also the fact that Manny only throws a high amount of punches in rounds he's winning and landing - again marquez his punches thrown are about 600 per fight whereas with Cotto it was 800. Mayweather makes him miss too often and hits him clean more often than not. Couple of hairy moments maybe but I've never really entertained the idea of Manny winning a series or even a single unless by KO once in a blue moon.

I can understand that arguments that Floyd could have soundly contained even the 2009 / 2010 version of Pacquiao on the basis of Manny's showings against Marquez, but I do still think there are a couple of wee differences between Mayweather and Marquez which may have helped Pacquiao's chances.

Obviously, they are both classy counter-punchers, but much of Mayweather's game is based around getting hit as little as possible, whereas Marquez takes more chances; he'll either make you miss and make you pay, or get hit and still make you pay. Basically, he stays in the pocket a lot longer than Floyd does, throwing combinations of three and four in comparison to the single shots Floyd has favoured in recent years.

You could argue that two ways, of course; it would have kept Mayweather out of the pocket for longer, and from the outset increase his chances, but at the same time you could say that it increases the risk of Floyd being outworked by Pacquiao.

There are other slight differences between Marquez and Mayweather, too. Marquez may be older, but I'd say he's kept his legs in better nick than Floyd has. Once he's thrown his shots, he's getting out of there with nifty footwork and using the whole ring, whereas Floyd, in recent times, has been escaping punishment after dishing out his own by using his upper body movement and reflexes. If Pacquiao was on the forward march all night, then I reckon he'd catch up with Mayweather a little easier than he did Marquez, although with Floyd's superb ability to slip and roll with punches up close that's no guarantee that Manny would be able to do damage.

A fighter can be a damn good one ofr many years on the spin but, in the middle, hit a peak in which they're a damn great one, and I truly think Pacquiao experienced this for a couple of years between 2008 and 2010. I don't think it was a mirage engineered by careful matchmaking as some others have suggested, either. As I said, don't get me wrong - it's perfectly valid to draw comparisons between Pacquiao's woes with Marquez in relation to how he'd get on against Mayweather. But I don't think it's a theory which is beyond questioning.

Just can't see anyone of Mayweather's size having it easy against the Pacquiao who tore through Hatton and Cotto. Mayweather, Whitaker, Locche etc - I truly believe that they'd all have had their hands full with that version of Manny.

agree with much of your sentiment chris, certainly agree that the revisionist nature of manny as a cherry picker, is laughable when you consider how he has gone through the weights and who he has fought on the way. Certainly at the time of the oscar/hatton/cotto fights he looked something else.

It's just a styles make fights thing, and i feel that if a very good fighter like marquez can nullify him, then a great one who does everything marquez does just a little bit better, would do so too. I do accept though, that's its rarely as simple as that, and that marquez isnt exactly a poor man's carbon copy floyd!

Chris, that's a fantastic analysis. Hats off.

Cheers, Milky and Fists. Like you two, I'd always back Mayweather in this one, I just think it does Manny a bit of a disservice to suggest that he'd make it in to a glorified sparring session.

Anyway, to keep any hopes of this match up alive Pacquiao needs to win and win well against Marquez next month.

Fair points chris - but I think even that little bit about being in the pocket for shorter periods is a point in his favour over Marquez. Marquez has no great speed and relies entirely on his brain. With Floyd he has a superior brain to Marquez, superior speed and the ability to change his plans if things go awry. Marquez simply corrects his mistakes and sticks to one plan unfailingly - and it works. Mayweather has so much more in his arsenal and he already has a blueprint on how to beat him - I can't see him allowing manny to even take the early rounds as he usually does to work out what's going on.

Everything conspires against Manny in this fight. His style, his footwork all tell Mayweather what he's going to do before he does it and crucially give him enough time to stop Manny in his tracks. Marquez is particular adept at banging in a right to stop a flurry and its one of the things floyd does best.
Then theres floyds own defensive prowess especially while in the pocket his conservative use of punches - leaves no openings and allow him to score with emphatic 1-2's again disrupting his opponent. Manny is easy to hit and in a fight against one of the most accurate punchers in the game thats a serious handicap.

I think Manny troubles him here and there - With someone like his speed and power - i'm not entirely against his winning but can he do it often enough to make it count? I really can't see that happening.

Marquez may be more willing to take risks and throw combo's but I would say Mayweathers footwork is better than Marquez now or in 2007 and is evident imo in there match. Mayweather counters and gets out of danger as good as anyone in boxing and has down so to fighters with height and reach advantages which Marquez hasn't had to deal with as much or at least as good as floyd does

Mayweather fights very well in the pocket and as he went up in weight he elected to win rounds by controlling the fight with single shots as he was the smaller man. Against pacquiao he would be the bigger man and wouldn't be as reluctant to stand in the pocket should he need to. He has shown in his recent fights that he is happy to walk forwards countering and using his shoulder roll to cut his opponents up on the inside.

Mayweather also has the added benefit of being able to match pacquiao for hand speed which is a first for manny and you could say he will be the fastest floy has fought. Mayweather may not have the better CV but I think that looking at both careers I would say Judah had the fastest hands out of everyone and was a southpaw to boot and mayweather adapted from a slow start to dominate Judah over the distance

No-one has said pacquaio will be like a sparring partner, there no shame in losing a points decision to mayweather. He has struggled with a counterpuncher in Marquez so it doesn't take an expert to think mayweather, being the best counterpuncher of this generation, would do better than Marquez would

Excellent post, Shah, with plenty of fair points likewise.

As I said, there is more than one way to argue the things I pointed out. Just a bloody shame we never got to see all of these theories put to the test two or three years ago!

I remember back in late 2009, not long after Pacquiao had looked incredible against Cotto and two months after Mayweather had dominated Marquez in his comeback fight, when BoxRec were briefly 'confirming' that the fight was set for March 13, 2010 - the old 606 board just about went in to meltdown! Suddenly, everyone seemed to be a boxing fan.

Would have been a truly fantastic moment for the sport had it been made at that time.

Yeah I know - I've been trying to get a proper documentary of Chavez vs Taylor - just to get a sense of wehat the atmosphere was like, the buzz and the general prefight hype. The HBO series is good but an hour isn't enough to convey it fully plus they spent nearly all the time on the controversy rather than building up a picture.. I imagine this would have been something like that.

For me its not a formality that Mayweather would win this at any stage, Pacquiao of 2010 as most agree was at his peak. It is not only the fact off the amount of shots he throws,the speed in which he throws them and that he could do that without gassing, the thing which i think wins it for him is the angles which he could hit people.

To me its Manny's angles that win the fight, he wouldn't of let Mayweather settle and it would be a real test for Mayweathers defence to not get hit flush from all sorts of angles.

Alas the fight didn't happen in 2010 and I feel Mayweathers style allows him to fight on at the same level for longer, he doesn't waste energy and hardly gets hit. Pac has shown signs of decline and can no longer be active for 3 minutes a round for the full 12.

2010- Pacquiao late stoppage
2013- Mayweather wide points decision.

I kind of agree, Double D22, but I don't think Pacquiao stops Mayweather. If he wins, it is on points after outworking him. Floyd doesn't leave himself open enough to be stopped in my book.

Excellent to read such erudite analysis.

I suspect that Manny against Floyd would be interesting even if both were in their 50s, but it wouldn't be significant. A fight between the two of them in the spring of 2010 would have been one of the most significant boxing events of the last 50 years. Ali-Frazier I and Leonard-Hearns I are the only two fights of my lifetime that would definitely have eclipsed Pac-Floyd in importance to the sport.

If they meet next year, it will be important, but not era-defining, and there is no escaping that. If I were to miss the fight, I'd be sorry, but life would go on. I simply wouldn't have missed a March 2010 date.

As to what would happen, I can't vary what I've always thought. Floyd takes his opponent's greatest strength, nullifies it and turns it into a weakness. I believe that he would win by sitting in the pocket, practically glued to Pacquiao's left hip, taking away Manny's best punch in the process. I think Floyd's physical strength, often underestimated, would play a part in the process as well - I think he's more than capable of beating Manny from the inside. Deny Manny leverage and you negate his speed and the room for that booming cross of his.

For me, it's Floyd by comfortable decision or late stoppage every time, and I think that I'd have said the same three years ago. I just wish that we'd been given the chance to be right or wrong.

For once, Captain, I disagree with one of your excellent analyses. For me, Floyd spends this fight (in 2010, at least) very cautiously on the outside and relying on his accuracy to catch Pacquiao on the way in.

It'd be effective, no doubt, but I also think that the Pacquiao of 2010, which was undoubtedly his absolute prime there or thereabouts, catches Floyd with a couple of those lightning flurries each time. He may ship some punishment on the way in, but Floyd isn't a monstrous puncher and Manny is a tough cookie. It is for this reason that I think there's a possibility of Manny outworking Floyd to a tight decision.

Floyd does lay on the ropes at times, relying on that watertight defence and upper body movement, but can he truly evade every one of a rapid five or six punch combination thrown from unconventional angles? I'm not convinced.

Food for thought, at least, and it really is a crying shame that we will never now find out what may have happened, even if they were to fight tomorrow.

The reason that I'm at odds with you here, fists, is that Floyd is such an intelligent, adaptable fighter. I just don't see him sticking to the outside, where Manny's speed could possibly hunt him down and where Pac can also gain leverage for those combinations.

I reckon Floyd's inside, firing straight punches that get home before Manny's wider ones can have their effect and wearing Pac down. As the fight goes on, and Manny becomes more tired, I could see Floyd increasing the distance between them, but only on his terms. Essentially, I feel that it is Floyd who dictates the style and pace of this fight.

To be fair, i think Floyd dictates the style and pace of EVERY fight he is in.

Whilst I have to choose my words carefully here lest I get accused of comparing Hatton with Manny the captain does raise a valid point about both how underrated Manny’s inside game is and how he is adept at taking away fighters best assets. If you consider the Hatton fight most everyone prior to the fight expected Floyd to utilize movement and avoid the ropes like the plague, when fight night came nothing could be further from the truth, he was happy to stay in close and fight Ricky at his own game and for large parts of that fight looked much the stronger fighter. Whilst obviously Ricky is not the fighter Manny is and stylistically is different the fight does give a decent indication of both Floyd’s inside game, adaptability and physical strength.

Just so, mobilemaster, and good as Pacquiao is, particularly during the 2008-10 period that we're talking about, I don't think that it would be different here. Manny imposed his game and will on Oscar, Hatton and Cotto; to my mind, he can't do so against Mayweather and increasingly finds himself preoccupied with defence, rather than his own attacks, as the fight wears on.

Rotherham Joe Gans wrote:Sell out

Being kind there.

coxy0001 wrote:

Rotherham Joe Gans wrote:Sell out

Being kind there.

Perhaps you could offer some 'erudite analysis' (© captain carrantuohil 2012) yourself Coxy rather than taking cheap shots at me? I know I intimidate you and make you feel insecure but please feel free to contribute in the polite and detailed manner of everyone else.

Actually, scrub that, why would you change the habit of your 606v2 lifetime.

shah, don't think there was the pre-fight hype for chavez taylor, that the post fight furore might suggest, there was some certainly, and maybe more stateside, but it was no hagler leonard for example. Great talent that taylor was, he wasn't really a long established big name.

re pac mayweather, we're all concentrating on manny's apparent slide, but does anyone think that the relatively poor showing (i.e. close nature of the fight) by mayweather against cotto, suggest that floyd too is slipping from his peak? Is he standing his ground more through choice or legs? I'm aware many on here rate cotto higher than i do, and predicted a close fight, but to me, a prime floyd plays with cotto.

milkyboy wrote:shah, don't think there was the pre-fight hype for chavez taylor, that the post fight furore might suggest, there was some certainly, and maybe more stateside, but it was no hagler leonard for example. Great talent that taylor was, he wasn't really a long established big name.

re pac mayweather, we're all concentrating on manny's apparent slide, but does anyone think that the relatively poor showing (i.e. close nature of the fight) by mayweather against cotto, suggest that floyd too is slipping from his peak? Is he standing his ground more through choice or legs? I'm aware many on here rate cotto higher than i do, and predicted a close fight, but to me, a prime floyd plays with cotto.

I think its a little of both. Despite the crap outside of the ring he is a consumate professional and I suspect he has realised that age is catching up to him and he's switching into a more aggressive and static style where he doesnt need to use them as much. Often theres a fighter who suddenly loses his exceptional speed, punc, reflexes and they are left bereft because they need to adopt a new style. Mayweather seems to be pre empting his decline and settling into a style that allow him to remain top even as his physical gifts leave him. Foresight in the ring is one of the FMJ many talents and I don't see this being an exception.