Why Floyd shouldn't fight Manny in the future !!

First topic message reminder :

Fact is Floyd vs Manny is an 80-20 fight...........Floyd should win but Manny's freak-once-in-a-lifetime power does mean that should he get lucky Floyd's legacy goes out of the window!!

Manny is the only one who can HURT Floyd's legacy.............Should Bradley or Khan beat Floyd well the believable excuse is Fathertime has caught up to Money.......He stays top 10 in most lists !!.....and rightly so.

However should Manny beat Floyd........Then the critics will say that's why he avoided Manny. that's why he's not Top 10 and Manny would always have beaten him........

Also Floyd doesn't get any credit for beating Manny..............He left it till Manny was past it blah bah blah..........

Why give the Filipino and is a**hole promoter a ticket back in the game too ??........

Floyd should fight his fights and get out with legacy assured..............

No point in giving a guy a shot at the lottery and a top 10 place himself..he doesn't deserve !!......He doesn't need the "outed" by JMM, Manny anymore..

Lets drop the crap here Truss, in the here and now everyone knows Pacquiao beat Bradley while in years to come the P4p garbage will be forgotten.

But he subsequently got battered off JMM in a huge knockout.......

Holy was a better win for Bowe than for Lewis.....

As for Floyd being top 5......All i've said is I want him in the top 10... I have him 5........ 30/35 had him in a top 10..

Apparently people who have Johnson top 7 count more because they are experts!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:30/35 on my top 10 thread............

But we aren't experts because we haven't got Jack johnson in our top 7.......

Yep. And JJ never ducked anyone. A great boxer with subtle moves the naked eye couldn't see.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:30/35 on my top 10 thread............

But we aren't experts because we haven't got Jack johnson in our top 7.......

Yep. And JJ never ducked anyone. A great boxer with subtle moves the naked eye couldn't see.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:30/35 on my top 10 thread............

But we aren't experts because we haven't got Jack johnson in our top 7.......

With the greatest respect Truss there are very few posters on here who's opinion I'd consider to be relevant on the subject. Too many with agendas and too many who justifiably are only concerned with the present.

Anyway guys it's been a pleasure debating with you.......Have to go and get my ears burned.......

Cheers...

Hammer you are right to say some opinions may struggle with the history.........Though they are valid opinions.

But there are some shall we say hugely knowledgaeable types like Chris and the Captain who do have him top ten........

So It evens itself out.......

I'm sure you disagree with Bernstein's placing of Johnson top 7...........

Experts are biased too............You'd agree ??

Bernstein is the sports greatest commentator but like everyone he has his favourites. I could quite easily find numerous experts who back up my views on Duran which you would dismiss.

Every boxing fan have their own pfp top 10, we can all argue till the cows comes home, its about opinion, hence why we have threads about best Light heavy of all time etc, its what 606v2 is about,the personal bitching and slagging off by individuals I find tedious and childish Its not even funny.

If Truss has Mayweather alltime top 10 then that's fair enough.

azania wrote:Truss has a very valid point.  Were manny to land the hail Mary punch all will claim Floyd was never that good.

Any boxer could land a Hail Mary punch on Floyd. Any boxer can land a Hail Mary punch on any other boxer. That risk is one of the main points of boxing and of competition in general - it's a challenge and someone has to lose. Under the logic you use here Floyd should never fight anyone because there's a risk that he'll lose and have his record tarnished. To my mind, it's crazy that any self-respecting boxing fan would emphasise protection of a particular fighter over seeing them challenged. There is nothing valid about this view as far as I can see.

I agree that current fighters are judged more harshly than old-timers. I'm also happy to accept an argument of Floyd being an ATG top ten. But, supporting him in minimising risk and avoiding harder fights? Wow. That attitude is a blight on the sport, and it's ludicrous that any boxing fan would try to undermine the spirit of challenge that defines all great champions.

There are some seriously warped opinions coming from the louder-mouthed members of this board. If I could be confident that they were actual opinions it would maybe be better, but it all seems like some crazy agenda-driven bait designed to try and 'win' old arguments......and for what? Honestly, you could write a psychology PhD on some of the weird social and discursive tactics that get employed on here.

I want the fight to happen. Floyd will remain top 5 regardless of how easily he slaps manny.

I agree boxtthis, I can see the pros and cons of having Mayweather in the top ten, he's in the 8-12 bracket for me. Seeing fans try and legitimise him not fighting is something I don't understand, everyone is entitled to an easy fight but I still want to the best fights available.

Boxing is going down the pan because of people like Truss. They are not real fans of boxing and just support single fighters.

Why anyone would not want to see the best fights is beyond me.

Truss is killing boxin. Brilliant

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Boxing is going down the pan because of people like Truss. They are not real fans of boxing and just support single fighters.

Why anyone would not want to see the best fights is beyond me.

I am sure TRUSS is a real fan more then yourself and Az. He has been a fan of boxing before you even knew of the sport. His argument is based on the reality of boxing today. At the end of the day Manny was offered $50 million to fight but turned it down because he does not like needles??????

When the fight WAS offered to Manny everyone including TRUSS wanted to see it but it never happened. yOU SAY truss killing boxing what a silly statement to make he has forgotten more then you know. You openly slate James Toney on the other thread a man will more skill and guts in his little toe then you will ever have and your comments regarding certain fighters has been over the top in my view. TRUSS has always had a balanced view on all fighters but it is natural to follow particular fighters as a fan.

azania wrote:Truss is killing boxin. Brilliant

He didn't say that though did he

Onetwo whatever you're smoking I want some of it. Way off tangent mate.

Freddie Roach has just said this about a potential Pacquiao v Mayweather fight :


“Every big fight that was supposed to happen in boxing happens somewhere along the way, I just hope this one isn’t going to happen too late when they’re both washed up and not the same. I still have hope. Mayweather is in the same position (Pacquiao) is. You’ve only got eight fighters in the world that can sell pay-per-view and make money. That’s why I give it a shot.”

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Boxing is going down the pan because of people like Truss. They are not real fans of boxing and just support single fighters.

Why anyone would not want to see the best fights is beyond me.

I am sure TRUSS is a real fan more then yourself and Az. He has been a fan of boxing before you even knew of the sport. His argument is based on the reality of boxing today. At the end of the day Manny was offered $50 million to fight but turned it down because he does not like needles??????

When the fight WAS offered to Manny everyone including TRUSS wanted to see it but it never happened. yOU SAY truss killing boxing what a silly statement to make he has forgotten more then you know. You openly slate James Toney on the other thread a man will more skill and guts in his little toe then you will ever have and your comments regarding certain fighters has been over the top in my view. TRUSS has always had a balanced view on all fighters but it is natural to follow particular fighters as a fan.

Truss is twice my age so I suspect he did start to follow the sport before I knew of it...

However that doesn't change the fact that he is basically telling the so best fighter of the generation that he shouldn't be taking hard fights in case he loses. It frankly is a nonsensical argument and one that if fans were to continue to accept would lead to the sport worsening, possibly irrevocably.

Did onetwo really get the words 'truss' and 'balanced view' in the same sentence? That's good work fella!

milkyboy wrote:Did onetwo really get the words 'truss' and 'balanced view' in the same sentence? That's good work fella!

it was probably a reference to the buttocks resting against either side of his face. I don't think they should fight now because it will be a one sided battering and will give either man too much credit here none is due. Always felt that Floyd had his number but too much play it safe rather than play from Mayweather/Pacquiao. Businessmen first and boxers second.

Not sure anyone who has read my threads over the years can really say I don't love the sport or have a decent knowledge which comes from loving the sport....

Only a wally would say that........

Regards Mayweather.......Hate to see a great career destroyed by a lucky punch..........

Anyone else lands one it's fathertime......If Manny lands one "He was the best all a long"..........

There's no such thing as a lucky punch Truss and a past it Pacquiao landing a knockout punch would give a good indication he does so years ago.

Iran Barkley's against Hearns......He wasn't even looking at him..

In essence though I think you're right..

but we do see fights where the lesser Man wins don't we ??

If Pacquaio won I don't think there would be anything lucky about it. No matter how much people say it will be easy for Floyd, you don't know until the fights over.

Because of that I'd be happy to see it even now as there still isn't a fight at welter that comes close to it. I know Bradley has been mentioned as more deserving but there is more chance of Pacquaio getting 'lucky' than Bradley due to his power.
I much prefer Floyd but its that chance of the supposed lucky punch that still makes it intriguing.

I still think its a very close fight.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Iran Barkley's against Hearns......He wasn't even looking at him..

In essence though I think you're right..

but we do see fights where the lesser Man wins don't we ??

We do but if Pacquiao beat Mayweather I think that would prove to me he's the better fighter whether it's by KO or by points.

Your opinion is welcome Ranjo...........

It's a can't lose fight for Manny..........JMM left him a shell If he loses........As you point out If he beats Floydy he's the best fighter all a long...

If he beats Floyd he would of course be labelled the better fighter.

People need to get with the program.  Lucky punches exist in boxing.


Louis (lottery punch) KO  Conn

McCallum (lottery punch) KO Curry

Barkley (lottery punch) KO Hearns

Pacquiao (potential lottery punch) KO Mayweather



There's all the evidence you need. Lucky punches exist.

Hard to tell if you are being ironic there Strongy- McCallum's shot on Curry was a beautifully timed peach of a shot, no lottery about it at all, whereas Barkley's shot against Hearns was more than a tad fortunate, as Truss pointed out, he wasn't even looking at Tommy when he threw it. But, that said it was Tommy's job not to get careless and caught by such a punch- you can't complain about lucky punches when you don't have your hands / chin in the right place. In the case of Pacman, fighters of his calibre don't usually throw lucky punches- if he were to KO Floyd ( as unlikely as it may be to many, me included) I very much doubt it would down to a lucky punch, much more a beautifully timed bomb.

not read the entire thread so not sure if this is said already, but this is a moot point as rios will beat manny anyways, and send him either into retirement or fighting tin cans for huge money after that

I have to say Truss, I disagree when you say that the KO of Pacquiao by Marquez "proved what we all knew" - that Marquez was better all along. Maybe he is the better fighter, but that KO didn't prove that. Apart from that 3rd round knockdown (And can't we give Manny the benefit of the doubt for going down for the first time in 4 fights? Especially seeing as he floored JMM 4 times previously and we tend to overlook that), Marquez was getting hit with flush punches, with far more regularity than in their previous 3 fights.

Not disputing that it was a piece of genius from JMM, setting the trap with that counter right hand. It was. But Pacquiao blew it as much as JMM won it and you know that. The KO happened as the bell was sounding, had the timekeeper rung the bell a second earlier, Pacquiao would have been up by 2 rounds on all the scorecards, and deservedly so. Had he gone on to keep landing the punches he was landing in rounds 5 and 6, let's not kid ourselves, JMM would either have been pulled out by Nacho, or gone on to lose clearly on points. There would have been no robbery.

To be honest, I think JMM is a bit of an arse with the lack of humility and grace he's shown towards Pacquiao, the guy has made him the most money in his career after all. Even after the guy was KO'd cold, JMM showed no concern, Pacquiao even had to go up to him to congratulate him! Alas, I digress. But why do you think Nacho keeps saying (when asked about a 5th fight) , that he is concerned about JMM's health? He says himself that he was worried at the amount of punishment JMM took in the 4 fights, particularly the 5th round of fight 4. Why would he express that or even be remotely concerned (especially given the payday for a 5th fight??) if he genuinely felt that Marquez was head and shoulders above Manny? Surely, if truth be told, fights between them will always be highly competitive, no? And that just does not correlate with one being significantly better than the other. I honestly believe that Pacquiao had just started to find his rhythm and was on his way to a genuinely convincing victory. Marquez scored a pinpoint KO, but he was also handed a get out of jail card. And yes, it was Manny's fault and lack of defense, not disputing that.

Every fighter has a bogey man, in fact it happens in most sports.

JMM looks better against Manny than he actually. Pacquiao has a blind spot to JMM.

Every fighter has a bogey man.

-----------

Floyd doesn't.....

There was that single fight against Castillo though Toppy when he was injured Toppy but let's ignore that but make an excuse for Pacquiao saying he had a cold.

Marlonz wrote:I have to say Truss, I disagree when you say that the KO of Pacquiao by Marquez "proved what we all knew" - that Marquez was better all along. Maybe he is the better fighter, but that KO didn't prove that. Apart from that 3rd round knockdown (And can't we give Manny the benefit of the doubt for going down for the first time in 4 fights? Especially seeing as he floored JMM 4 times previously and we tend to overlook that), Marquez was getting hit with flush punches, with far more regularity than in their previous 3 fights.

Not disputing that it was a piece of genius from JMM, setting the trap with that counter right hand. It was. But Pacquiao blew it as much as JMM won it and you know that. The KO happened as the bell was sounding, had the timekeeper rung the bell a second earlier, Pacquiao would have been up by 2 rounds on all the scorecards, and deservedly so. Had he gone on to keep landing the punches he was landing in rounds 5 and 6, let's not kid ourselves, JMM would either have been pulled out by Nacho, or gone on to lose clearly on points. There would have been no robbery.

To be honest, I think JMM is a bit of an arse with the lack of humility and grace he's shown towards Pacquiao, the guy has made him the most money in his career after all. Even after the guy was KO'd cold, JMM showed no concern, Pacquiao even had to go up to him to congratulate him! Alas, I digress. But why do you think Nacho keeps saying (when asked about a 5th fight) , that he is concerned about JMM's health? He says himself that he was worried at the amount of punishment JMM took in the 4 fights, particularly the 5th round of fight 4. Why would he express that or even be remotely concerned (especially given the payday for a 5th fight??) if he genuinely felt that Marquez was head and shoulders above Manny? Surely, if truth be told, fights between them will always be highly competitive, no? And that just does not correlate with one being significantly better than the other. I honestly believe that Pacquiao had just started to find his rhythm and was on his way to a genuinely convincing victory. Marquez scored a pinpoint KO, but he was also handed a get out of jail card. And yes, it was Manny's fault and lack of defense, not disputing that.

Well thought out piece Mate...........will say very often fighters are caught up in the moment when they win to be concerned...

They've been training so long, under so much pressure and when they get a historic win....It's not always easy to control the emotions and do the right thing......

When kaymer won the ryder cup he didn't shake Stricker's hand......He was caught up in the moment and fair play..It happens.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Every fighter has a bogey man.

-----------

Floyd doesn't.....

He didn't look great in the two Castillo fights and he has somewhat of a reputation as a cherry picker.

Never gets higher than SRL in the lists.

Shut up.....

... And jmm redeemed himself with the good grace he accepted defeat against Bradley  

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Shut up.....

Point out to me where Floyd has better wins than SRL?


It's an unwinnable argument if you attempt to say Floyd is more skilled than Ray Leonard.

Stick to Eddie Hearn bashing............

Mayweather has fought plenty of tough fighters..........Hagler beat one Alvarez in 7 years as champ in Tommy Hearns.......

Remember that..........

You don't slag him off.

I didn't think it was an unfair question?

Mayweather has the longevity, the numerous title defences and multiple weight champs on his side. But I can't see how SRL doesn't have the bigger individual wins?

He has...........I have Leonard top 5.........

Strongback wrote:Every fighter has a bogey man, in fact it happens in most sports.

JMM looks better against Manny than he actually. Pacquiao has a blind spot to JMM.

Oh I agree Strongy. Just that it seemed to me that Pacquiao was finally turning the page vs Marquez before getting careless. It could have been a very different ending. But at the same time, I commend JMM for keeping it together and pulling out the KO. But that's my point with that fight, he pulled it out rather than beat Manny down systematically as one who has never seen the fight, but has heard about it, might believe.

Sorry to digress from the original thrust of your post Truss.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Marlonz wrote:I have to say Truss, I disagree when you say that the KO of Pacquiao by Marquez "proved what we all knew" - that Marquez was better all along. Maybe he is the better fighter, but that KO didn't prove that. Apart from that 3rd round knockdown (And can't we give Manny the benefit of the doubt for going down for the first time in 4 fights? Especially seeing as he floored JMM 4 times previously and we tend to overlook that), Marquez was getting hit with flush punches, with far more regularity than in their previous 3 fights.

Not disputing that it was a piece of genius from JMM, setting the trap with that counter right hand. It was. But Pacquiao blew it as much as JMM won it and you know that. The KO happened as the bell was sounding, had the timekeeper rung the bell a second earlier, Pacquiao would have been up by 2 rounds on all the scorecards, and deservedly so. Had he gone on to keep landing the punches he was landing in rounds 5 and 6, let's not kid ourselves, JMM would either have been pulled out by Nacho, or gone on to lose clearly on points. There would have been no robbery.

To be honest, I think JMM is a bit of an arse with the lack of humility and grace he's shown towards Pacquiao, the guy has made him the most money in his career after all. Even after the guy was KO'd cold, JMM showed no concern, Pacquiao even had to go up to him to congratulate him! Alas, I digress. But why do you think Nacho keeps saying (when asked about a 5th fight) , that he is concerned about JMM's health? He says himself that he was worried at the amount of punishment JMM took in the 4 fights, particularly the 5th round of fight 4. Why would he express that or even be remotely concerned (especially given the payday for a 5th fight??) if he genuinely felt that Marquez was head and shoulders above Manny? Surely, if truth be told, fights between them will always be highly competitive, no? And that just does not correlate with one being significantly better than the other. I honestly believe that Pacquiao had just started to find his rhythm and was on his way to a genuinely convincing victory. Marquez scored a pinpoint KO, but he was also handed a get out of jail card. And yes, it was Manny's fault and lack of defense, not disputing that.

Well thought out piece Mate...........will say very often fighters are caught up in the moment when they win to be concerned...

They've been training so long, under so much pressure and when they get a historic win....It's not always easy to control the emotions and do the right thing......

When kaymer won the ryder cup he didn't shake Stricker's hand......He was caught up in the moment and fair play..It happens.

I get that Truss. But in the case of Marquez, I do feel he is a belligerent sod. As someone else pointed out, he was also far from congratulatory or a gentleman to Bradley either.

I think you're right Marlon Mate.......

He has traits that aren't admirable.......However we can forgive him the exuberance a huge win brings...