Manny news

First topic message reminder :

Same as the Floyd thread any Manny news put on this thread to stop the board being cluttered.

Mayweather must be lying then because he said they agreed on the tests.

Did you miss the interview where Floyd said he wanted to take a year or two out of boxing.

Maybe he was lying there too.

But it seems it could be a rare occasion where he was telling the truth.

Link then?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Link then?

Can't be bother to find it, there is a fight on.

Of course you can't be bothered, silly me believing you weren't lying again

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Of course you can't be bothered, silly me believing you weren't lying again

Rather watch boxing that to prove something I already know for someone who won't apreciate it.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

oxring wrote:Balti - I've lost count of the number of times you've been warned - stop trying to beat the swear filter, stop posting abusive posts.

There are plenty of people who rate Manny very highly indeed. Roy Jones is still seen as an ATG. He actually tested positive! And he came through when the balance between the drugs and the tests were in favour of the drugs.

I love Roy as a fighter - so lets not be so silly as to presume that there is an elephant hanging over Pacquiao's career.

For the record - I think he should take the tests.

Lets not be presumptious about Jones here, he failed a test with one comission, the only comission who deemed it a banned substance at the time so it wasn't a career destroying moment although it will always be hanging over his head, things like that don't just get forgotten.

Pacquiao is rated highly based almost solely on winning 'eight' titles, his level of opposition is a significant drop down from the real all time greats,

??Level of opposition?

It is the level of opposition which places him as an ATG. Barrera, Morales, Marquez, Solis, Ledwaba, Hatton, Cotto, Oscar, Diaz. Its one of the strongest records around - if not the strongest record around. And Barrera, Morales, Marquez, possibly Cotto and Hatton are ATG wins.

For the modern era - where the best don't fight each other - that's an incredible record.

Lets be honest Oxy it's a fairly decent record for todays boxing but simply doesn't compare with the guys at the top

Barrera, Morales and Marquez are his real top level wins but beyond that the rest are world level, the fact you've included Solis, Ledwaba and Diaz just goes to show the lack of real quality on his record, not necessarily his fault but he's a current great but his record does not stand up to that of Robinson, Armstrong, Charles, Tunney or a whole host of others.

Diaz was a nothing win. It was seen as impressive because of the step up in weight, but Diaz is very average, and wasn't the best at lightweight at the time he fought Pacquiao. The best at lightweight at the time were busy fighting JMM instead.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Lets be honest Oxy it's a fairly decent record for todays boxing but simply doesn't compare with the guys at the top

Barrera, Morales and Marquez are his real top level wins but beyond that the rest are world level, the fact you've included Solis, Ledwaba and Diaz just goes to show the lack of real quality on his record, not necessarily his fault but he's a current great but his record does not stand up to that of Robinson, Armstrong, Charles, Tunney or a whole host of others.

But that goes back to the point about eras.

I agree with you - his best wins are Barrera, Morales, Marquez; then Cotto and Hatton. Everything after that is ok - world level but not world beaters. Now for today that is pretty incredible - but it doesn't compare with a 190 fight resume. Nor could it - unless he fought 190 times.

However - it does make him an ATG - an era fighter. He is resplendent in the era he is currently in.

And no, Diaz wasn't a "nothing win". Diaz was a win over a world champion, stepping up in weight. I think you're losing objectivity Balti.

Not really. Diaz was the weakest of the LW champs, selected solely to win a belt which-surprise surprise-wouldn't be defended. In light of Pacquiao's wins at 140, 145, 147 and 150(!) the Diaz win is nothing particularly impressive. It looks good to have picked up a bauble at lightweight, sure, but nothing more.

The Diaz win is no better than a win over Robert Stieglitz for example Oxy, in the grand scheme of things it means very little. Tunney only fought 80 times but his record far surpasses that of Pacquiao in my opinion.

Even in comparison to Chavez he falls short who was far from the norm with the amount of times he fought, there was a lot of filler in their but his record in title fights is incredible.

Great for his era but not great overall, the fact there isn't a single weight where he's a recognized great also goes against him, he hasn't got the advantage of say Fitzsimmons who was THE champion in three weights, beating a belt holder nowadays isn't anything to write home about.

I have Pacquiao at about 23 at the current time and there are only two people he can beat that's going to change that for me

BALTIMORA wrote:Not really. Diaz was the weakest of the LW champs, selected solely to win a belt which-surprise surprise-wouldn't be defended. In light of Pacquiao's wins at 140, 145, 147 and 150(!) the Diaz win is nothing particularly impressive. It looks good to have picked up a bauble at lightweight, sure, but nothing more.

Anyone else - it would be a good win.

Stepping up in weight to beat a recognised champion, albeit 3rd strongest at the weight. Yes, given what Pacquiao did later - it isn't more impressive than Hatton, Cotto, Clottey or Margarito. Never said it was. Doesn't stop it from being a good win.

Pacquiao doesn't just beat, he DESTROYS

Hope you don't think i'm being unbiased here Oxy because I do try and debate straight down the line with you but out of interest would you include Durans win over Mamby as a great one? I personally would not despite feeling that Mamby is for intents and purposes a better Light Welterweight champion than Hatton.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:The Diaz win is no better than a win over Robert Stieglitz for example Oxy, in the grand scheme of things it means very little. Tunney only fought 80 times but his record far surpasses that of Pacquiao in my opinion.

Even in comparison to Chavez he falls short who was far from the norm with the amount of times he fought, there was a lot of filler in their but his record in title fights is incredible.

Great for his era but not great overall, the fact there isn't a single weight where he's a recognized great also goes against him, he hasn't got the advantage of say Fitzsimmons who was THE champion in three weights, beating a belt holder nowadays isn't anything to write home about.

I have Pacquiao at about 23 at the current time and there are only two people he can beat that's going to change that for me

Not sure re: Chavez. I love JCC - but who did he beat who we can say was definitely better than a Barrera or a Morales? He has Taylor? Camacho?

Wouldn't say infinitely better but i'd have Taylor, Camacho, Rosario and Ramirez on a simiar level to them but beyond those top wins his overall record is a lot stronger.

oxring wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Not really. Diaz was the weakest of the LW champs, selected solely to win a belt which-surprise surprise-wouldn't be defended. In light of Pacquiao's wins at 140, 145, 147 and 150(!) the Diaz win is nothing particularly impressive. It looks good to have picked up a bauble at lightweight, sure, but nothing more.

Anyone else - it would be a good win.

Stepping up in weight to beat a recognised champion, albeit 3rd strongest at the weight. Yes, given what Pacquiao did later - it isn't more impressive than Hatton, Cotto, Clottey or Margarito. Never said it was. Doesn't stop it from being a good win.

For a lesser fighter, yes Diaz would be seen as a better win. When we consider that JMM was beating Casamayor and Juan Diaz while also moving up in weight then David Diaz doesn't seem anything more than a paper belt.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Hope you don't think i'm being unbiased here Oxy because I do try and debate straight down the line with you but out of interest would you include Durans win over Mamby as a great one? I personally would not despite feeling that Mamby is for intents and purposes a better Light Welterweight champion than Hatton.

In terms of Diaz - its not a "great win" - but still a good win - its over a world champ.

Duran-Mamby is an interesting question.

Duran beat Mamby when he was up and coming - his LWW reign came after. Good win. Pacquiao beat Hatton after all the great things Hatton had already done at LWW. The manner of victory is important as well IMO. Duran outboxed Mamby and was, by and large, expected to outbox Mamby. Good win. Pacquiao stopped Hatton in 2. Roach said he would - the rest of the world didn't believe it. I picked TKO8 and I remember half the boxing board going for Hatton. Remember Trussman's infamous "Hatton TKO6 too big and too strong" comment?

Its those factors that make me rate the Hatton win higher. As to whether Mamby was a better LWW than Hatton - I'll let others debate that. I've been criticle of ol'Ricky in the past and people tend to get upset.

But could you not see the other way round that Duran beat Mamby when still had a lot to offer and did go on to prove himself albeit for a short period time whereas like you say Pacquiao beat Hatton after he'd achieved what he did and from the looks of it has nothing left to offer. Can your way of thinking but it's things like that, that do cause confusion and fairly big differences of opinion. A fairly nothing win for Duran in my opinion isn't too far removed from one of Pacquiao's best wins in your opinion, an extreme example but think it highlights the issue quite well.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:But could you not see the other way round that Duran beat Mamby when still had a lot to offer and did go on to prove himself albeit for a short period time whereas like you say Pacquiao beat Hatton after he'd achieved what he did and from the looks of it has nothing left to offer. Can your way of thinking but it's things like that, that do cause confusion and fairly big differences of opinion. A fairly nothing win for Duran in my opinion isn't too far removed from one of Pacquiao's best wins in your opinion, an extreme example but think it highlights the issue quite well.

Certainly do see the other side ghosty - an have no issue with people who place Manny at 23 in an ATG list - thats fair and reasonable.

Take issue with hyperbole suggesting he's never had a decent win. I know why the criticism of Manny has become hyperbolous - it is because the praise is normally as hyperbolous. But I would prefer at least an illusion of neutrality and objectivity.

It's abundantly clear that I savour the whole history of boxing and probably to some extent rate the achievements of some possibly too highly but i'm not going to dismiss what someone like Armstrong did which has and probably never will be equalled. To me the top twenty is an elite group and the differences between those between 21-50 aren't that great but to break that one place requires something special.

Revisionist theory is the downfall of these discussions by and large

My take would be that if we are to accept that Manny is a champion at welter and lightmiddle, ( which we must, if we are to credit him with all his weight hopping achievements, ) then we are entitled to ask how he fares against Hearns at lightmiddle or Leonard at welter.

I believe he comes badly unstuck.

Would anybody see Pacquiao beating Hearns ?

HumanWindmill wrote:Would anybody see Pacquiao beating Hearns ?

I can think of 1 person who would...

Seeing what Hearns did to Duran and Cuevas then I give Pacquiao a slim slim chance of winning, would have to rate it 90/10 in the hitmans favour really which isn't a slight on Pacquiao but Hearns was lethal at 147 and 154lbs

HumanWindmill wrote:My take would be that if we are to accept that Manny is a champion at welter and lightmiddle, ( which we must, if we are to credit him with all his weight hopping achievements, ) then we are entitled to ask how he fares against Hearns at lightmiddle or Leonard at welter.

I believe he comes badly unstuck.

Would anybody see Pacquiao beating Hearns ?

Hearns? Not a chance. Same reason Roach wouldn't have put him in with Williams-too tall, only Hearns was better at playing to that advantage. KO for Hearns.

HumanWindmill wrote:My take would be that if we are to accept that Manny is a champion at welter and lightmiddle, ( which we must, if we are to credit him with all his weight hopping achievements, ) then we are entitled to ask how he fares against Hearns at lightmiddle or Leonard at welter.

I believe he comes badly unstuck.

Would anybody see Pacquiao beating Hearns ?

I could see Manny doing OK against Leonard actually. Although I'd probably go with SRL to win - I think the fight would be closer than a great many would think. Manny offers speed and angles, along with punch-power - he'd nick a few rounds I reckon.

He's not knocking welters over with that punch power though is he, oxy ?

I believe Hearns takes him down, McCallum likewise, and I'd make Leonard a clear favourite to beat him.

To be fair, I'd have Leonard beating most welters - probably all of them, with the exception of Robinson - and I'd have McCallum and Hearns beating most lightmiddles. Therefore, we need to take it down a notch. How does Manny do against Emile Griffith at welter or lightmiddle, or Norris at lightmiddle ?

I believe Manny is a terrific fighter, and a true ATG, but I also believe that if we are to be objective he must be measured against other ATGs in the divisions in which he has operated. Armstrong is routinely ranked in the top tens of all three divisions in which he excelled, and rightly so. Pacquiao, surely, isn't a top ten welter or lightmiddle.

Perhaps we should ask D4 - in all sincerity - if he believes Pacquiao has a chance against Hearns.

HumanWindmill wrote:He's not knocking welters over with that punch power though is he, oxy ?

I believe Hearns takes him down, McCallum likewise, and I'd make Leonard a clear favourite to beat him.

To be fair, I'd have Leonard beating most welters - probably all of them, with the eyception of Robinson - and I'd have McCallum and Hearns beating most lightmiddles. Therefore, we need to take it down a notch. How does Manny do against Emile Griffith at welter or lightmiddle, or Norris at lightmiddle ?

I believe Manny is a terrific fighter, and a true ATG, but I also believe that if we are to be objective he must be measured against other ATGs in the divisions in which he has operated. Armstrong is routinely ranked in the top tens of all three divisions in which he excelled, and rightly so. Pacquiao, surely, isn't a top ten welter or lightmiddle.

Perhaps we should ask D4 - in all sincerity - if he believes Pacquiao has a chance against Hearns.

Well he put Cotto over. And he beat 12 shades out of Margarito - fracturing his eye. And carried him for a couple of rounds. So he certainly can carry a dig up at welter. Knocked Mosley over too - although I don't know how much we can count that down to him.

Personally I reckon his best weight is LWW. He's not dehydrating to make weight - he's just fighting at the "fit weight" that he walks around at - ie145. That's not right in today's game. However - the money fights are at WW so he's fighting at 147. What legacy can he have at 140 or 135 when he only spent 1 fight at the weight?

HumanWindmill wrote:He's not knocking welters over with that punch power though is he, oxy ?

I believe Hearns takes him down, McCallum likewise, and I'd make Leonard a clear favourite to beat him.

To be fair, I'd have Leonard beating most welters - probably all of them, with the exception of Robinson - and I'd have McCallum and Hearns beating most lightmiddles. Therefore, we need to take it down a notch. How does Manny do against Emile Griffith at welter or lightmiddle, or Norris at lightmiddle ?

I believe Manny is a terrific fighter, and a true ATG, but I also believe that if we are to be objective he must be measured against other ATGs in the divisions in which he has operated. Armstrong is routinely ranked in the top tens of all three divisions in which he excelled, and rightly so. Pacquiao, surely, isn't a top ten welter or lightmiddle.

Perhaps we should ask D4 - in all sincerity - if he believes Pacquiao has a chance against Hearns.

Griffith? Depends if Pacquiao calls him a mariçon at the weigh in...

I agree, oxy. Lightwelter is his best weight, and the money fights are above. I also agree that he's a great fighter. My point is that we need to temper his achievements at welter and lightmiddle and view them from an objective perspective. In other words, had he stopped at lightwelter he'd be a nailed on ATG anyway, but what he's done at welter and lightmiddle probably doesn't add a great deal, and particularly so since Cotto, his best win at welter, had also moved up.

HumanWindmill wrote:I agree, oxy. Lightwelter is his best weight, and the money fights are above. I also agree that he's a great fighter. My point is that we need to temper his achievements at welter and lightmiddle and view them from an objective perspective. In other words, had he stopped at lightwelter he'd be a nailed on ATG anyway, but what he's done at welter and lightmiddle probably doesn't add a great deal, and particularly so since Cotto, his best win at welter, had also moved up.

Agreed. Personally, I blame the pusbag that is Arum. If he'd stayed at 140 and fought Khan et al - that would have been a great resume. Armstrong isn't just great for the 147 win - but for the defences as well. Arum and team Pacquiao would do well to remember that.

That's exactly how I feel, oxy. Agree with every single word.

Griffith didn't carry much of a dig but had skill in bucket loads, for pure talent and style he's probably 4th behind Robinson, Leonard and Hearns although he ranks slightly lower overall but would make him a comfortable favourite over Pacquiao at Welterweight. Could throw every punch, was defensively very good and had pretty good footwork, could basically do everything but punch, I see him being too cute for someone who wont impose themselves physically on him, so Griffith points win.

We have to consider the fact that Duran (yes i'm mentioning him again) doesn't make the top 15 Welterweights of all time and in so shape or form does Pacquiao rate higher than him at the weight for the simple reason he has no win that compares to either Palomino or Leonard.

I look at the IBRO top 20 and excluding Lewis, Britton, Walcott because I can't be bothered getting into that debate again, make everone barring Rodriquez a favourite against Pacquiao. Light Middleweight he simply doesn't have the size to trouble McCallum, Hearns or Norris.

I touched on this point recently with Jeff that he doesn't match up well against the greats in any division he's fought in, he is unfortunately a weight hopper who has never made an impression in any one division.

Beating the likes of Khan and Bradley would in the long run mean far more than beating the shell of Mosley or never have beens like Clottey or Margarito. I probably sound a tad harsh on him but he's so hard to nail down and say where he was best.

After Oscar tweeted an apology from rehab, apparently, sky sports have confirmed that GBP, naming both Oscar and Schaffer have settled with Pacman and co.

Is the path being cleared for THE fight, or is this hust wishful thinking on my part? I wonder which is more likely!

Part of Oscar's rehabilitation seems to be to apologise (or is that kiss and make up) with everyone he could have future dealings with; normally as loud as possible to ensure maximum publicity

Thanks for the article, Day V Lately, and an interesting one, at that.

However, since this qualifies as ' Manny News ' I'll merge it into that thread. Will give it five or ten minutes, though, so you know where it is.

No probs HM, just saw the headline on sky sports news, they havent given much more info on it, but it does confirm what the poster who reported Oscar's 'tweeting' said.

Day V Lately wrote:No probs HM, just saw the headline on sky sports news, they havent given much more info on it, but it does confirm what the poster who reported Oscar's 'tweeting' said.

Perhaps you'd keep us posted on it, mate. It's an interesting development.

Will merge it now. Thanks for your understanding.

There arent too many particulary detailed articles on the subject at the moment, but Gulfnews mention that Mayweather was also named in the original lawsuit, and nothing has been settled with Floyd. Still we can hope against all evidence that it may still happen.

http://gulfnews.com/in-focus/manny/manny-pacquiao-settles-oscar-de-la-hoya-lawsuit-1.815786?localLinksEnabled=false&utm_source=Feeds&utm_medium=RSS&utm_term=News_RSS_feed&utm_content=1.815786&utm_campaign=Manny_Pacquiao_settles_Oscar_de_la_Hoya_lawsuit

To be fair, I'd have Leonard beating most welters - probably all of them, with the exception of Robinson
______________________________________________________

Are we not forgetting someone Windy. Will let it pass this time but lets not make a habit of it.

Good to see you're still almost single handedly fighting Charley's corner, jeff.

It's a thankless task sometimes Superfly but someone has to do it. Am just waiting till the fantasy match up thread works it way round to welterweight or middle. My nuthuggery can go into D4 levels of ridiculousness. Will not be a case of who at the weight can beat Charley will simply be a case of establishing if anyone can see the final bell against him.

Has no-one found a cure for D4's madness yet? He's not proclaiming the Mosely fight to be a masterclass is he?

Dear god Super you're lucky you missed it. After slating Shane as old, past it and incapable of fighting past three rounds when he fought Mayweather 12 months ago he underwent a Dorian Gray style rebirth, totally reversing the effects of the ageing process simply by signing a contract. Suffice to say he was ridiculed from pillar to post.

I caught some of his nonsense when the fight was first announced and he was already teeing up Shane as the second coming of SRR. Unfortunatey missed the propoganda machine in full flight before and immediately after the fight but can imagine how it went.

At least he wasn't able to bring out the argument about safety enhancing illegal hand wraps.

Sorry Jeff but just to annoy you i'm changing the rules that fighters can only be included if they have won a world title fight

Screw you, you had Driscoll in, not fair.

But he did technically win a world title fight

Ghosty if you don't include Burley you are denying us a potential Manny vs Charley match up. Imagine how much fun that one could be if D4 comes back.

rowley wrote:Ghosty if you don't include Burley you are denying us a potential Manny vs Charley match up. Imagine how much fun that one could be if D4 comes back.

For this reason alone he HAS to he allowed.