Tim Bradley Vs Manny Pacquaio

Maravilla33

Am I the only one who thinks there might be an upset on the cards in this one? Don't get me wrong I think Manny is the rightful favourite but just get the feeling Bradley may be catching him at the right time.

While I don't think hes technically brilliant I think he has become increasingly proficient in all aspects of the game. His work ethic in and out of the ring is second to none and he has an unwavering self belief. What I really like is his ability to adapt the right gameplan and stick to it. There aren't many better inside fighters around and his ability to rough up an opponent and nullify their strengths is very impressive.

On the other hand I think Manny has noticeably slowed down. He got hit far too often by a slow Margarito, looked baffled by Mosley at times who simply had to take a quick step back to avoid Pac and was out boxed again by Marquez. I dunno if time has caught up with him or if its his many outside distractions getting in the way but he hasn't looked at his best since the Cotto fight.

In Bradley he's going to meet a hungry, undefeated fighter who will come to win. While he clearly struggles with counter punchers I think a very good inside fighter could also give him problems. A fully motivated at his best Manny wins this quite comfortably but I haven't seen him for a while. Will Bradley be able to take Manny's best punches I really don't know but if he can I make him a very live underdog and one who could cause an upset.

Thoughts on the fight?

walshb

Bradley on points

Just don't go throwing your money to the bookies on an upset. Manny all the way.

Maravilla33

Manny by stoppage

walshb wrote: »

Just don't go throwing your money to the bookies on an upset. Manny all the way.

Not sure I'm confident enough to throw any money at him yet but 9-2 aint a bad price. I assume he'll drift as the money comes in for Pacquaio. I'm wary that if its in anyway close the decisions going to Manny.

walshb

Bradley on points

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Not sure I'm confident enough to throw any money at him yet but 9-2 aint a bad price. I assume he'll drift as the money comes in for Pacquaio. I'm wary that if its in anyway close the decisions going to Manny.

And the decision should go to him too.

Maravilla33

Manny by stoppage

walshb wrote: »

And the decision should go to him too.

I don't mean it in the challenger has to rip the title from the champion way though. If its close then I agree Manny should get the nod. I'm more worried that if Bradley wins by a couple of rounds he'll be still screwed over. Bradley will have to win very convincingly to get the nod imo.

cowzerp

Bradley by stoppage

I hope it is competitive but roach fighters tend to pick fighters that suit them-so i don't see this as been much different, good enough to make it credible but just to beatable for Manny

walshb

Bradley on points

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I don't mean it in the challenger has to rip the title from the champion way though. If its close then I agree Manny should get the nod. I'm more worried that if Bradley wins by a couple of rounds he'll be still screwed over. Bradley will have to win very convincingly to get the nod imo.

Yes, he needs to win his rds convincingly. Many rds in boxing can go to either man. So, he needs to win 7 clear rds, or more. Any close one, and one can go either way; and I hope Manny's way. Bradley just hasn't the offence needed to win this on points or TKO.

RiseToTheTop

Bradley by stoppage

I am going to throw my coin up in the air and say Manny by late KO.

People saying the Marquez fight is a clear indication of Manny aging are very wrong IMO. Marquez was hard for Manny when he was in his prime too.

colly10

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

I am going to throw my coin up in the air and say Manny by late KO.

People saying the Marquez fight is a clear indication of Manny aging are very wrong IMO. Marquez was hard for Manny when he was in his prime too.

Agreed, I do think Manny is on the slide but I wouldn't judge on the Marquez fight at all. Manny always found Marquez awkward and it was Marquez's smartest fight. Likewise with Mosley, Mosley turned up to run for 12 and while he's finished, it's still difficult to force a fight on someone with his speed and skill if he's not interested.
I missed the problems with AM, I can only really remember one effective punch and the entire fight being a beatdown

Bradley will go for it and make Manny look his best in a while

cowzerp

Bradley by stoppage

colly10 wrote: »

Bradley will go for it and make Manny look his best in a while

Agree with this, the way to beat Manny is Counter Punching, he always struggles with that-coming at Manny suits his style big time.

Maravilla33

Manny by stoppage

I'm playing devil's advocate here a bit. I do think Bradley could cause an upset but can equally see Manny stopping him. Has Manny fought anyone as good at coming at him lately though? Bradley wont rush in face first a la Hatton. He's clever at making his way inside and once hes there hes very effective.

RiseToTheTop

Bradley by stoppage

cowzerp wrote: »

Agree with this, the way to beat Manny is Counter Punching, he always struggles with that-coming at Manny suits his style big time.

Plus Manny always gives as good as he gets. If his opponent throws a lot of leather at him, Manny gives the same back.

walshb

Bradley on points

What's the weight limit for the fight, 147?

Bradley on points

Manny all the way.

Maravilla33

Manny by stoppage

walshb wrote: »

What's the weight limit for the fight, 147?

Its at welter and I haven't heard of any stipulations so presume its 147. I thought I might be in the minority on this one alright. Looks a decent card.

walshb

Bradley on points

Anyone else believe this will be a horrible fight stylistically? Manny wins, but damn ugly!

Henno30

Bradley on points

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I'm playing devil's advocate here a bit. I do think Bradley could cause an upset but can equally see Manny stopping him. Has Manny fought anyone as good at coming at him lately though? Bradley wont rush in face first a la Hatton. He's clever at making his way inside and once hes there hes very effective.

I think Cotto fought an excellent fight against him in the early rounds. He was outboxing Manny and if you put the knockdowns to one side, would deservedly have been ahead on the scorecards. When he engaged in prolonged exchanges with Manny he got destroyed however and that is the danger for Bradley.

Now it is of course possible that Pacquiao simply is not the machine he was when he fought Cotto but it will take this fight to know for sure. Certainly you can't make definitive judgements on the basis of the Marquez fight because of the puzzle Marquez has always been for him. Personally, I thought he looked terrible in that fight, but Marquez fought so well that you have to give him a temporary benefit of the doubt. In the entirety of the last decade only two masterful boxers and warriors in Morales and Marquez have gotten the better of Pacquiao and Tim Bradley is a long way off proving he's on their level.

eagle eye

Manny by stoppage

I've been ragging on about Bradley for a couple of years and I think an upset is on the cards in this one. Bradley is a really, really smart boxer and he never really puts himself in harms way unless he thinks he has you.

Manny is on the slide I think based on his last couple of fights. I think he is taking on a guy who is just hitting his peak now and if it goes the distance I think the younger man wins it. And I honestly can't see Bradley leaving himself open against Manny.

Agree with Walshb that this fight stylistically is not very attractive.

Wild_Dogger

I would love to see Bradley beat Manny and Cotto beat Mayweather, just to throw all the current P4P bullsiht into the air.

Unfortunately Bradley dosent have the power to discourage Manny.
He does however, have the speed and skill to frustrate Manny.

The timing of this event is crucial.
Manny, I believe has lost the hunger to stay on top.
He has disposed of his prize-fighting cockrels (which he used to attach blades to thier feet and watch them kill each other).
That in itself signifies his waining interest.

It has always been an issue trying to keep Manny away from the night-clubs and trying to get him to arrive to training camp on schedule (and that was on the way up!)

Bradley on the other hand turns vegan in the run up to his fights, living on the most natural diet intended for a human being.
His intention is to resurrect the top natural and physical assets which genetical to the human body.

The top asset for a human of course is speed and stamina and not strength.

So it will be interesting come the second half of this fight.


Maybe it's because i'm a cynical old batstard , but I don't think theres the slightest chance of Bradley getting the nod on the scorecards.
I expect the judges to be briefed on such an event happening....... far too much money to loose by the promoters and Boxing bodies.

If htis goes the distance, expect another controversy .

cowzerp

Bradley by stoppage

walshb wrote: »

Anyone else believe this will be a horrible fight stylistically? Manny wins, but damn ugly!

Could be a messy fight but could be interesting-i'm starting to get interested in this now!!

cowzerp

Bradley by stoppage

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

Bradley on the other hand turns vegan in the run up to his fights, living on the most natural diet intended for a human being.
His intention is to resurrect the top natural and physical assets which genetical to the human body.

The top asset for a human of course is speed and stamina and not strength.

Protein is the most important nutrient to the human body been in condition-it repairs your body from hard work and on a vegan body while you will get health benefits it is over all not good for an athlete who works very hard and needs to recover fully from sessions.

Humans are made to eat meat and vegetation and our teeth are made that way for a reason.

Wild_Dogger

cowzerp wrote: »

Protein is the most important nutrient ......

Humans are made to eat meat and vegetation and our teeth are made that way for a reason.

Protein dosent have to come from meat. Theres a reason for nuts etc. being 50% protein

Humans are not meant to eat meat by nature.......... eating meat over the course of human existance is a relatively late adaptation.

Without tools (which is another late adaptation in the course of mankind) .....
can you think of any animal which you could catch or out -muscle ?

Humans without tools couldn't take on a rabbit on a one to one encounter.

As for strength, we only got a fraction of the strength of lets say a Chimpanzee (half our size and 5 times our strength)

We were made for endurance and long distance running at a slow pace.

As for the teeth, well herbivores also have canines , and looking at the size of our own and the power of our jaws.......... We dont posess the single killer blow in our bite.

Prob a topic for a different forum, but since its relevant to Tim Bradleys fight I have laid it out .

Agility and endurance are the benifits of adapting a vegan diet.
(btw i'm not vegan !)

kumate_champ07

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

Protein dosent have to come from meat. Theres a reason for nuts etc. being 50% protein

Humans are not meant to eat meat by nature.......... eating meat over the course of human existance is a relatively late adaptation.

Without tools (which is another late adaptation in the course of mankind) .....
can you think of any animal which you could catch or out -muscle ?

Humans without tools couldn't take on a rabbit on a one to one encounter.

As for strength, we only got a fraction of the strength of lets say a Chimpanzee (half our size and 5 times our strength)

We were made for endurance and long distance running at a slow pace.

As for the teeth, well herbivores also have canines , and looking at the size of our own and the power of our jaws.......... We dont posess the single killer blow in our bite.

Prob a topic for a different forum, but since its relevant to Tim Bradleys fight I have laid it out .

Agility and endurance are the benifits of adapting a vegan diet.
(btw i'm not vegan !)

you're comparing humans today to our ancestors from 200,000 years ago, different body type. how do you think we survived against predators?

cowzerp

Bradley by stoppage

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

Protein dosent have to come from meat. Theres a reason for nuts etc. being 50% protein

Humans are not meant to eat meat by nature.......... eating meat over the course of human existance is a relatively late adaptation.

Without tools (which is another late adaptation in the course of mankind) .....
can you think of any animal which you could catch or out -muscle ?

Humans without tools couldn't take on a rabbit on a one to one encounter.

As for strength, we only got a fraction of the strength of lets say a Chimpanzee (half our size and 5 times our strength)

We were made for endurance and long distance running at a slow pace.

As for the teeth, well herbivores also have canines , and looking at the size of our own and the power of our jaws.......... We dont posess the single killer blow in our bite.

Prob a topic for a different forum, but since its relevant to Tim Bradleys fight I have laid it out .

Agility and endurance are the benifits of adapting a vegan diet.
(btw i'm not vegan !)

Grubs, Chickens, would be easy enough!
early humans used tools such as spears etc, it's fire that really changed things not tools,even chimps use tools for catching insects an all!!

Protein from plants is not the same as from animal sources, it's not complete protein (MEANING THEY ARE NOT COMPLETE OF ALL THE AMINO ACIDS NECESSARY TO REPAIR THE BODY in most cases) and is certainly not great for an athlete-not even great for inactive people never mind boxers, And Agility is nothing to do with diet! Endurance is directly related to training and carbohydrate's help endurance and nobody is saying not to eat them.

I've a diploma in advanced sports nutrition and a qualified personal trainer so have a good idea what i am talking about.

Daroxtar

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

Protein dosent have to come from meat. Theres a reason for nuts etc. being 50% protein

Humans are not meant to eat meat by nature.......... eating meat over the course of human existance is a relatively late adaptation.

Without tools (which is another late adaptation in the course of mankind) .....
can you think of any animal which you could catch or out -muscle ?

Humans without tools couldn't take on a rabbit on a one to one encounter.

As for strength, we only got a fraction of the strength of lets say a Chimpanzee (half our size and 5 times our strength)

We were made for endurance and long distance running at a slow pace.

As for the teeth, well herbivores also have canines , and looking at the size of our own and the power of our jaws.......... We dont posess the single killer blow in our bite.

Prob a topic for a different forum, but since its relevant to Tim Bradleys fight I have laid it out .

Agility and endurance are the benifits of adapting a vegan diet.
(btw i'm not vegan !)

The human brain developed into its current size and functionality due to the intake of meat in our diet. Surprisingly enough almost 50% of the human race actually contains genetic markers that indicate a resistance to the absorption of prions into the brain, the cause of BSE, CJD and Kuru. We could only have developed this resistance through being cannibals at some stage in our past.

We developed the use of tools millions of years ago, long before modern Homo Sapiens had evolved at all. We could throw stones or sticks at birds, small game, rodents and the like when we were little removed from chimps
We are not farmers, the eating of large amounts of grain and vegetables only happened in the last few millenia, nowhere near enough in evolutionary terms for it to be considered a natural state. We ate berries, fruit, insects and worms, fungus, roots but more importantly we ate fish, shellfish, eggs and any animals or birds we could catch.

We are designed to run long distances alright. That is so we can sustain a hunt longer than our prey and they collapse from exhaustion, a bit like a wolf pack. Hardly the skill needed for chasing carrots. Veganism is nowhere near a natural state, it is a choice that would have been unsustainable in vast areas of the world purely due to the crops available in the locality not providing enough of a balance of essential minerals and vitamins. We needed meat, nowadays all you need is Tesco.

Wild_Dogger

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

you're comparing humans today to our ancestors from 200,000 years ago, different body type. how do you think we survived against predators?

I believe we are fundamentally the same, right to the core

Tell me how we survived against predators ! (if thats the reason we changed body type)

And then tell me how we survived against predators 200,000 years ago before we changed body type

cowzerp wrote: »

Protein from plants is not the same as from animal sources, it's not complete protein (MEANING THEY ARE NOT COMPLETE OF ALL THE AMINO ACIDS NECESSARY TO REPAIR THE BODY in most cases) and is certainly not great for an athlete-not even great for inactive people never mind boxers,

Have a look at any known herbivores and tell me about the lack of athleticism , then tell me about how their muscle groups have developed to such a level that you think shouldn't have been possible based on that theory

cowzerp wrote: »

Agility is nothing to do with diet!

Diet in combination with training has everything to do with agility. Its about adapting your body structure to a certain form which would enable the body to react positively and speedily to a specific type of training

cowzerp wrote: »

I've a diploma............... so have a good idea what i am talking about.

Unfortunately I'm not so educated, but I have spent many years observing and analyzing nature and how things work in relation to physics and genetics .
I believe that I have a more in-depth understanding than pretty much any of the books that I have read so far.

As for qualifications....... I'm currently doing a masters (purely for the title) and I am happy to state that obtaining such an 'accolade' means sweet fcuk all in the real world.
I have absolutely no respect for degrees or masters or doctorates ....... etc.
All a qualification does is serve as an indication that you are relatively smart. There's no way you can 'master' a subject within 6 years.

Daroxtar wrote: »

The human brain developed into its current size and functionality due to the intake of meat in our diet. .............

The size of the brain has only minor relation to level of intelligence in my opinion and has no relation to meat.
The more meat we eat the smarter we get ? That rule most certainly wouldnt apply to the natural animal world at all.
But our intelligence has developed significantly because we are so lacking in our physical attributes.

Did you ever see a primate throw a stone? how would you describe the accuracy !

cannibalism ? very possibly, in certain regions but certainly not as a rule.
Developing in our meat eating is much more like to have arisen from scavenging carrion and opportunistic encounters with weak or dying animals particularly in times of scarcity.

Primates and pack animals would be my best area of understanding, I'd welcome a debate on these topics in relation to genetic progression and development.

You guys should be emailing Tim Bradley and his nutritionist and let him know he's been doing it all wrong !

Not to forget Carl Lewis

Scanlas The 2nd

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

you're comparing humans today to our ancestors from 200,000 years ago, different body type. how do you think we survived against predators?

I believe we are fundamentally the same, right to the core

Tell me how we survived against predators ! (if thats the reason we changed body type)

And then tell me how we survived against predators 200,000 years ago before we changed body type

cowzerp wrote: »

Protein from plants is not the same as from animal sources, it's not complete protein (MEANING THEY ARE NOT COMPLETE OF ALL THE AMINO ACIDS NECESSARY TO REPAIR THE BODY in most cases) and is certainly not great for an athlete-not even great for inactive people never mind boxers,

Have a look at any known herbivores and tell me about the lack of athleticism , then tell me about how their muscle groups have developed to such a level that you think shouldn't have been possible based on that theory

cowzerp wrote: »

Agility is nothing to do with diet!

Diet in combination with training has everything to do with agility. Its about adapting your body structure to a certain form which would enable the body to react positively and speedily to a specific type of training

cowzerp wrote: »

I've a diploma............... so have a good idea what i am talking about.

Unfortunately I'm not so educated, but I have spent many years observing and analyzing nature and how things work in relation to physics and genetics .
I believe that I have a more in-depth understanding than pretty much any of the books that I have read so far.

As for qualifications....... I'm currently doing a masters (purely for the title) and I am happy to state that obtaining such an 'accolade' means sweet fcuk all in the real world.
I have absolutely no respect for degrees or masters or doctorates ....... etc.
All a qualification does is serve as an indication that you are relatively smart. There's no way you can 'master' a subject within 6 years.

Daroxtar wrote: »

The human brain developed into its current size and functionality due to the intake of meat in our diet. .............

The size of the brain has only minor relation to level of intelligence in my opinion and has no relation to meat.
The more meat we eat the smarter we get ? That rule most certainly wouldnt apply to the natural animal world at all.
But our intelligence has developed significantly because we are so lacking in our physical attributes.

Did you ever see a primate throw a stone? how would you describe the accuracy !

cannibalism ? very possibly, in certain regions but certainly not as a rule.
Developing in our meat eating is much more like to have arisen from scavenging carrion and opportunistic encounters with weak or dying animals particularly in times of scarcity.

Primates and pack animals would be my best area of understanding, I'd welcome a debate on these topics in relation to genetic progression and development.

You guys should be emailing Tim Bradley and his nutritionist and let him know he's been doing it all wrong !

Not to forget Carl Lewis

You have it all wrong. The paleo diet is the optimal one for humans. Meat is hugely important. Try 30 days on a vegan diet and then 30 days on a paleo diet and see which one makes you feel better.

Wild_Dogger

back it up

cowzerp

Bradley by stoppage

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

back it up

I think you need to back it up as you where the 1 claiming vegan diet was natural, 1 fighter is on a vegan diet and most are not-stats would state that the minority are the 1's making the wrong choice or lesser choice.

I don't know a single athlete who uses a vegan diet, but no many on paleo diets.

gene_tunney

Didn't expect to see this debate in here!

Anyway, you need to make a distinction between diets for survival, and diets for optimum athletic performance, as they are very different.

Wild_Dogger

I just wrote about an a4 explaining my thoughts........

I get a reply within a couple of minutes with a '1-liner' saying :

" you got it all wrong" .

And thats it ? !!!!

How would you like me to back it up ? Did you even read the post !

I asked you fellas who dismissed my opinion outright to back it up with yours .......
And until you do so then I'll assume you cant.

I've already said why I believe in my opinions.
I'm sure I could scour the internet picking out dodgy surveys and professors opinions to back both sides of the debate.

But what are they worth ?

You can never learn anything new if you don't step outside the box and look in.
Doctor or professor XXX states in his survey ....... means nothing but an opinion.

The answer to everything is in nature....... you just got to step back and tune in.

Its not so complicated as the text books would have you believe.

If you want me to back my opinions up I can , but I'm not going to invest my own time delving into such topic in comprehensive detail only for some guy to 'dispel' my opinion with a one-line post saying "your all wrong."


Cowzerp , I find your quote :
"I got a diploma so I know what I'm talking about" to be utterly arrogant and obnoxious.
Its a cloaked way of saying 'Dont try to compete with me' type of thing , Im miles above you intellectually"

Thats why I state that even my MA qualifications aren't worth a toss .

If thats upset you then Im sorry.

cowzerp

Bradley by stoppage

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

Cowzerp , I find your quote :
"I got a diploma so I know what I'm talking about" to be utterly arrogant and obnoxious.
Its a cloaked way of saying 'Dont try to compete with me' type of thing , Im miles above you intellectually"

Thats why I state that even my MA qualifications aren't worth a toss .

If thats upset you then Im sorry.

It doesn't upset me at all, but does amuse me that my qualifying my response is seem to be arrogant, I'm basing my opinion on studies and from life experience of years of getting into prime shape for boxing and Mma.

Your opinion is wrong, that's why most athletes don't eat vegan, most vegans are skinny wrecks who basic tasks are tough! Never mind top class competition

Most studies will show me to be right and it does not take qualifications to google the subject

Daroxtar

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

I just wrote about an a4 explaining my thoughts........

I get a reply within a couple of minutes with a '1-liner' saying :

" you got it all wrong" .

And thats it ? !!!!

How would you like me to back it up ? Did you even read the post !

I asked you fellas who dismissed my opinion outright to back it up with yours .......
And until you do so then I'll assume you cant.

I've already said why I believe in my opinions.
I'm sure I could scour the internet picking out dodgy surveys and professors opinions to back both sides of the debate.

But what are they worth ?

You can never learn anything new if you don't step outside the box and look in.
Doctor or professor XXX states in his survey ....... means nothing but an opinion.

The answer to everything is in nature....... you just got to step back and tune in.

Its not so complicated as the text books would have you believe.

If you want me to back my opinions up I can , but I'm not going to invest my own time delving into such topic in comprehensive detail only for some guy to 'dispel' my opinion with a one-line post saying "your all wrong."


Cowzerp , I find your quote :
"I got a diploma so I know what I'm talking about" to be utterly arrogant and obnoxious.
Its a cloaked way of saying 'Dont try to compete with me' type of thing , Im miles above you intellectually"

Thats why I state that even my MA qualifications aren't worth a toss .

If thats upset you then Im sorry.

Personally I'd just assume you were wrong because you were disagreeing with me;)

Wild_Dogger

cowzerp wrote: »

.......and on a vegan body while you will get health benefits .................

What are the health benefits you refer to ?

Wild_Dogger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3x99v9vIn4

Check out his qualifications Cowzerp

cowzerp

Bradley by stoppage

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

What are the health benefits you refer to ?

You should know in fairness!

Odds are you would get a good amount of vitamins and minerals that may be missed on a diet with insufficient fruit nuts and vegetables.

I don't believe in vegan diets though, overall they don't make sense and are a hippy idea that is unnatural

cowzerp

Bradley by stoppage

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3x99v9vIn4

Check out his qualifications Cowzerp

I thought qualifications meant nothing!!

Wild_Dogger

Sorry .........Thats me being a tounge-in-cheek sarcastic bugger.

The qualifications thing always irks me . To be honest its a pet gripe of mine when people whip them out to prove a point.
Its not really aimed at you Cowzerp .

It goes back years for me where I engaged in a debate about animal conservation with a guy who annoyed the hell out of me by claiming his post was based on the fact he was a ranger in a National park and had umpteen educational accolades.

The quality of his argument was poor and I would pick holes in his defence and it was easy to rip holes in his theory and shred him up

But for the most part, people assumed he must be right because he was a 'professional' park ranger, despite his reticulated opinions.

Maybe Im wrong, but the whole point of my original post was to illustrate why I thought Bradley will lack strength but counter it with an enhanced agility speed and stamina (resulting from the effects of diet)