Poll on who you want to win, not who you think wins:

walshb

This is a poll to see what the view is as regards who fans want to see win May 2nd, Manny or Floyd.

I'll start. Would love to see Manny win.

Pighead

I'd be surprised if Manny doesn't get at least 75% of the vote. Much more likeable character than Floyd.

Talib Fiasco

Don't see how anyone would actually want Floyd to win.

FTA69

Mayweather. It'll complete one of the greatest boxing legacies ever.

HigginsJ

Mayweather for the exact same reason as FTA69.

Liminz

I want Mayweather to win as I want him to remain undefeated for his legacy.

Henno30

Mayweather hasn't beaten one prime hall of famer in his entire career. How that could be considered one of the greatest legacies ever is beyond me.

efb

Mayweather, he is an unbelievably talented boxer

Dick phelan

I'm sorry but how can anyone want that woman beating scumbag to win? As for legacy Pac currently has the better legacy so him winning would surely add yet another amazing chapter, Floyd Mayweather is a great fighter but a horrible person, Pacquiao is a great fighter but also a great human, one of the most admirable athletes in all of sports.

Henno30

Between November 1979 and September 1981, Ray Leonard fought Wilfred Benitez, Roberto Duran (twice), and Thomas Hearns, winning three of those four fights, and beating three other opponents along the way.

That's a great legacy.

Dick phelan

Henno30 wrote: »

Between November 1979 and September 1981, Ray Leonard fought Wilfred Benitez, Roberto Duran (twice), and Thomas Hearns, winning three of those four fights, and beating three other opponents along the way.

That's a great legacy.

yep big ****ing deal Floyd is undefeated, undefeated doesn't mean much when you haven't fought several of your best potential opponents. Leonard's legacy is miles and miles better then Mayweather and will be regardless of the result on May 2nd.

FTA69

Y'all're just haters yo.

stagolee

Pac, both for him and Roach.

Not a fan of Mayweather, yes he is talented but his only interest in boxing is money. His crazy old crackhead uncle is funny though :rolleyes:.

walshb

FTA69 wrote: »

Mayweather. It'll complete one of the greatest boxing legacies ever.

I don't see this win as anything huge. It's a WW against a LW at best.

Henno30

walshb wrote: »

I don't see this win as anything huge. It's a WW against a LW at best.

Any victory over Pacquiao after the Marquez knock-out is greatly diminished in any case. That might seem harsh on Floyd but he should have fought Manny 5 years ago. There are consequences for waiting on your rival to deteriorate.

menoscemo

I am not really emotionally invested in the fight, so i don't really mind. Voted floyd by an inch but my opinion may change during the fight!!

walshb

Henno30 wrote: »

Any victory over Pacquiao after the Marquez knock-out is greatly diminished in any case. That might seem harsh on Floyd but he should have fought Manny 5 years ago. There are consequences for waiting on your rival to deteriorate.

And his loss to Bradley as well. Close loss, and I had Manny winning, but it showed that a good boxer with real movement and skills cause him issues. This is not some giant slayer fight for Floyd. Manny is the smaller man who has been beaten before by others. I don't see this as a career defining legacy fight for Floyd. It would much more enhance Manny's status should he win than Floyd's should Floyd win.

Halloween Jack

Dick phelan wrote: »

I'm sorry but how can anyone want that woman beating scumbag to win? As for legacy Pac currently has the better legacy so him winning would surely add yet another amazing chapter, Floyd Mayweather is a great fighter but a horrible person, Pacquiao is a great fighter but also a great human, one of the most admirable athletes in all of sports.

Isn't manny known to have serially cheated on his wife? Not sure I'd find somebody capable of that too admirable myself.

Not trying to defend or condone floyd's despicable actions in any way shape or form, and not interested comparison of which is worse etc.

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Isn't manny known to have serially cheated on his wife? Not sure I'd find somebody capable of that too admirable myself.

Not trying to defend or condone floyd's despicable actions in any way shape or form, and not interested comparison of which is worse etc.

Well, I'll say it anyway. Assaulting (serial assaulting) your partners is worse than cheating on them.

Henno30

The worst thing about Floyd's domestic violence is that he continues to steadfastly deny that he did anything wrong. Despite the multiple instances, and despite the words of his own children when they were asked to describe the incidents to the police.

He even defended Ray Rice for this infamous act and claimed that the NFL overreacted in suspending him.

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

efb

Henno30 wrote: »

Any victory over Pacquiao after the Marquez knock-out is greatly diminished in any case. That might seem harsh on Floyd but he should have fought Manny 5 years ago. There are consequences for waiting on your rival to deteriorate.

By that logic would Floyd not have diminished by 5 years also ???

cowzerp

efb wrote: »

By that logic would Floyd not have diminished by 5 years also ???

Floyd is older too, i think Floyd would have found it even easier back then than now, he's easier to hit now so gives Pac the chance i don't think he had 5-6 years ago

Henno30

efb wrote: »

By that logic would Floyd not have diminished by 5 years also ???

Defensive fighters don't deteriorate in the same was as offensive fighters, not least because they take less punishment. Look how long Hopkins has stayed relevant at the top.

megadodge

If they fought 99 times and Manny won all 99, I'd still want him to win the 100th.

Floyd is a very hard person to like.

walshb

For me Floyd's offensive prowess is waning a bit. He doesn't let the shots go as fluidly and easily as he used to. It showed vs. Maidana in both fights. Now, maybe that was because he was not able to cope with the full on pressure of Maidana, and was knocked out of a comfortable rhythm, but he just didn't establish any consistent and decisive offense in either of those fights. Very disjointed. vs. Manny he won't have to deal with that bull like approach, as Manny is methodical and steady in his attacks. Maybe Floyd can shoot sharper and harder and with more conviction in this fight?

FTA69

Henno30 wrote: »

Defensive fighters don't deteriorate in the same was as offensive fighters, not least because they take less punishment. Look how long Hopkins has stayed relevant at the top.

I never bought into this argument about "waiting for Manny to deteriorate" etc, at the end of the day; Floyd is two years older than Pacquiao and has also showed substantial signs of deterioration in his offensive capabilities and his legs. The fact that he has taken less punishment than Manny is hardly his fault and isn't a stick you can beat him with to be honest.

Is Floyd a prick in real life? Probably. Is Manny a prick in real life? Maybe. At the end of the day it's boxing and we are judging them on that basis alone; I don't believe in supporting boxers like a football team etc and I respect both men tremendously for their achievements in the ring; it doesn't mean they aren't complete bastards outside of it though.

Halloween Jack

FTA69 wrote: »

I never bought into this argument about "waiting for Manny to deteriorate" etc, at the end of the day; Floyd is two years older than Pacquiao and has also showed substantial signs of deterioration in his offensive capabilities and his legs. The fact that he has taken less punishment than Manny is hardly his fault and isn't a stick you can beat him with to be honest.

Is Floyd a prick in real life? Probably. Is Manny a prick in real life? Maybe. At the end of the day it's boxing and we are judging them on that basis alone; I don't believe in supporting boxers like a football team etc and I respect both men tremendously for their achievements in the ring; it doesn't mean they aren't complete bastards outside of it though.

Aye, I voted for floyd because i prefer him as a fighter. I don't have much respect for either in terms of their private lives.

walshb

FTA69 wrote: »

I never bought into this argument about "waiting for Manny to deteriorate" etc, at the end of the day; Floyd is two years older than Pacquiao and has also showed substantial signs of deterioration in his offensive capabilities and his legs. The fact that he has taken less punishment than Manny is hardly his fault and isn't a stick you can beat him with to be honest.

h.

But it makes you wonder why Floyd wasn't all that keen to meet Manny in 2009/2010/2011. The drugs testing issues he brought up are also indicative of deliberate avoidance; particularly when the likes of JMM and Bradley jumped in no bother and got wins. What was Floyd's reasoning for stalling as regards the drugs testing? Did Manny's win over a pathetic Oscar, and win over Cotto bother him that much? Was it his beating up the two stationary punch bags, Clottely and Margarito that bothered him?

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

But it makes you wonder why Floyd wasn't all that keen to meet Manny in 2009/2010/2011. The drugs testing issues he brought up are also indicative of deliberate avoidance; particularly when the likes of JMM and Bradley jumped in no bother and got wins. What was Floyd's reasoning for stalling as regards the drugs testing? Did Manny's win over a pathetic Oscar, and win over Cotto bother him that much? Was it his beating up the two stationary punch bags, Clottely and Margarito that bothered him?

Floyd wasn't all that keen because it was the riskiest thing to do. He probably realised he could pick up several handy €40m pay days and that the fight with manny wasn't going to go away. Makes perfect business sense really. Even if he thinks he takes manny out in 2010 he realises that's the biggest risk to his 0 and future income stream. How many buys does mayweather maidana do if floyd's been ko'd by manny?

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Floyd wasn't all that keen because it was the riskiest thing to do. He probably realised he could pick up several handy €40m pay days and that the fight with manny wasn't going to go away. Makes perfect business sense really. Even if he thinks he takes manny out in 2010 he realises that's the biggest risk to his 0 and future income stream. How many buys does mayweather maidana do if floyd's been ko'd by manny?

Good points.

But, I wonder would Manny-Floyd back in early 2011 or late 2010 (pre Bradley loss) have been a bigger hyped fight? I kind of think it would have been. At that stage the want for it was phenomenal. Now, I think real fight fans are very happy it's happening, but they aren't as happy or intense with their need for it. I know I feel that way. Now I am happy and looking forward, but not near the way I felt 4-5 years ago.

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

Good points.

But, I wonder would Manny-Floyd back in early 2011 or late 2010 (pre Bradley loss) have been a bigger hyped fight? I kind of think it would have been. At that stage the want for it was phenomenal. Now, I think real fight fans are very happy it's happening, but they aren't as happy or intense with their need for it. I know I feel that way. Now I am happy and looking forward, but not near the way I felt 4-5 years ago.

Yeah ultimately floyd has played us all like a fiddle, constantly dangling the prospect of the big fight but eventually signing to fight much lesser guys. It does his legacy no favours either really, even if he soundly beats manny now people will be able to cite the Marquez ko, the bradley loss and other less than stellar performances as signs of manny being less than he was.

I often find myself thinking the best thing for fight fans would have been floyd to get beat earlyish in his career. We might have seen quite how good he could have been if he was forced to attract a following by having exciting fights, instead of counting on 75% of the audience tuning in to see if he might lose.

walshb

I'm rooting more for Manny now after this idiotic Floyd comment regarding the Rumble in the Jungle

"“Take punishment and let a man tire yourself out from beating you? You hit him with a few punches and go down and quit and you want to be glorified for that?”

Go watch the fight Floyd, and then compare it to your last two run and duck and dive wins and eek past a brawler like Maidana. Foreman 1974 was a monster. You have never fought anything comparable.

walshb

BTW, anyone watch Ringside from Thursday. Seriously, quit interviewing Mosley. He's useless. Says absolutely nothing.

Emmo-m-

walshb wrote: »

I'm rooting more for Manny now after this idiotic Floyd comment regarding the Rumble in the Jungle

"“Take punishment and let a man tire yourself out from beating you? You hit him with a few punches and go down and quit and you want to be glorified for that?”

Go watch the fight Floyd, and then compare it to your last two run and duck and dive wins and eek past a brawler like Maidana. Foreman 1974 was a monster. You have never fought anything comparable.

Duck and dive? It's called DEFENCE. He fought the first fight on the ropes and fought on the inside and still won. Then in the second fight he boxed and moved and won AGAIN only more convincingly. It's called boxing , hit and not get hit.

Maidana is a solid fighter and much improved from the brawler he once was since he started being trained by Robert Garcia. I'm sure people will see this once he makes his comeback later this year.

Why is that people take offence so much when anybody says anything about Ali? As if they owe him something personally. Ali was hardly an angel himself. Ask Joe Fraizer.

Emmo-m-

walshb wrote: »

BTW, anyone watch Ringside from Thursday. Seriously, quit interviewing Mosley. He's useless. Says absolutely nothing.

Poor ole Mosley is a bit punch drunk these days I think. Slurring his words a lot. I hope for his own sake he doesn't start fighting again.

walshb

Emmo-m- wrote: »

Duck and dive? It's called DEFENCE. He fought the first fight on the ropes and fought on the inside and still won. Then in the second fight he boxed and moved and won AGAIN only more convincingly. It's called boxing , hit and not get hit.

Maidana is a solid fighter and much improved from the brawler he once was since he started being trained by Robert Garcia. I'm sure people will see this once he makes his comeback later this year.

Why is that people take offence so much when anybody says anything about Ali? As if they owe him something personally. Ali was hardly an angel himself. Ask Joe Fraizer.

It's more to do with Floyd's comments being inaccurate and silly that I posted.

BTW, Floyd still eeked the wins vs. Maidana, yet he has the stupidity to criticize the far far more difficult task that Ali had in 1974. One of the greatest boxing/tough man displays in ring history. Floyd cannot come close to that performance. Floyd can never be greater than Ali as he would not last more than a couple of rds in the ring with the many men that Ali beat!

walshb

Emmo-m- wrote: »

Poor ole Mosley is a bit punch drunk these days I think. Slurring his words a lot. I hope for his own sake he doesn't start fighting again.

Yes, and he just gives next to no fight analysis. Gimme RJJ any day. Even fence sitting SRL would be better!

Emmo-m-

walshb wrote: »

It's more to do with Floyd's comments being inaccurate and silly that I posted.

BTW, Floyd still eeked the wins vs. Maidana, yet he has the stupidity to criticize the far far more difficult task that Ali had in 1974. One of the greatest boxing/tough man displays in ring history. Floyd cannot come close to that performance.

First was close i'll give you that when Floyd basically adapted a similar rope a dope style but he still won and everybody said was because his legs were gone. So in the next fight he boxes and moves and 2 judges had it 116-111 which is hardly close.

I'm a big Floyd fan purely for his boxing talent and I think there is certainly room for debate that he is a better boxer than Ali. But , not so much Ray Robinson who even Ali himself said was the greatest.

walshb

Emmo-m- wrote: »

First was close i'll give you that when Floyd basically adapted a similar rope a dope style but he still won and everybody said was because his legs were gone. So in the next fight he boxes and moves and 2 judges had it 116-111 which is hardly close.

I'm a big Floyd fan purely for his boxing talent and I think there is certainly room for debate that he is a better boxer than Ali. But , not so much Ray Robinson who even Ali himself said was the greatest.

116-111 is just a score. It doesn't tell the whole story. Floyd was unhappy with both performances.

Anyway, point stands, he has some neck slating the 1974 Ali display against 'history's strongest ever boxer,' who was intent on destroying Ali. Very few men could have withstood that Foreman. Only Ali ever did! Ali faced all comers. Floyd never will. There is no comparison as who was greater.

His bringing up Spinks who had 7 fights was also a little silly. Leon was a gold medalist and was young and hungry and fresh against a clearly faded and aged Ali. Ali still fought like a lion in that fight. Holyfield won a world belt at 12 fights, and several men have won belts with less pro fights.

And I can never ever envisage Ali dodging a MW or LHW fighter like Floyd dodged Manny for several years and brought up drugs as an excuse. Greater my ar&e!

Emmo-m-

walshb wrote: »

116-111 is juts a score. It doesn't tell the whole story. Floyd was unhappy with both performances.

Anyway, point stands, he has some neck slating the 1974 Ali display against 'history's strongest ever boxer, who was intent on destroying Ali. Very few men could have withstood that Foreman. Only Ali ever did! Ali faced all comers. Floyd never will. There is no comparison as who was greater.

His bringing up Spinks who had 7 fights was also a little silly. Leon was a gold medalist and was young and hungry and fresh against a clearly faded and aged Ali. Ali still fought like a lion on that fight. Holyfield won a world belt at 12 fights, and several men have won belts with less pro fights.

No matter what he does , some people just don't give him credit because they dislike his personality and weigh that up against his boxing talent. Even if he goes and shuts Pac out which is quite possible IMO , people will still say "It's 5 years too late" etc etc.

Ali was a great fighter no doubt about it but people are too quick to jump to the defense of him when anybody questions or speaks of him. If Ali wasn't the great hope he was outside of the ring as many people say , would he still be classed as highly as just a boxer? I'm not so sure.

walshb

Emmo-m- wrote: »

No matter what he does , some people just don't give him credit because they dislike his personality and weigh that up against his boxing talent. Even if he goes and shuts Pac out which is quite possible IMO , people will still say "It's 5 years too late" etc etc.

Ali was a great fighter no doubt about it but people are too quick to jump to the defense of him when anybody questions or speaks of him. If Ali wasn't the great hope he was outside of the ring as many people say , would he still be classed as highly as just a boxer? I'm not so sure.

I was strictly speaking about the two comments Floyd made as regards Spinks, and Ali's display in 1974. For me both are inaccurate and ignorant.

The answer to your question on Ali being a great boxer had he not been so well known? Well, of course, look at what he did inside the ring. He was one of the best HWs ever. He is an ATG no matter what he did outside the ring. I have no issue separating the two. He was a 3 time HW champ who met all comers and beat all comers, in a career that spanned 20 years. No question that he is an ATG.

Regarding Floyd and "No matter what he does , some people just don't give him credit because they dislike his personality," well, I judge him as a boxer. He is a top talent, no doubt, but not a top 10 ATG for me.

Emmo-m-

walshb wrote: »

I was strictly speaking about the two comments Floyd made as regards Spinks, and Ali's display in 1974. For me both are inaccurate and ignorant.

The answer to your question on Ali being a great boxer had he not been so well known? Well, of course, look at what he id inside the ring. He was one of the best HWs ever. He is an ATG no matter what he did outside the ring. I have no issue separating the two. He was a 3 time HW champ who met all comers and beat all comers, in a career that spanned 20 years. No question that he is an ATG.

Regarding Floyd and "No matter what he does , some people just don't give him credit because they dislike his personality," well, I judge him as a boxer. He is a top talent, no doubt, but not a top 10 ATG for me.

Just out of curiosity who's on your ATG list? Even top 5 in any order.

walshb

Emmo-m- wrote: »

Just out of curiosity who's on your ATG list? Even top 5 in any order.

In no particular order the fighters I consider the best ever fighters/boxers are James Toney/SRR/Duran/Ali/Tyson. When at their best they were awesome!

Emmo-m-

walshb wrote: »

In no particular order the fighters I consider the best ever fighters/boxers are James Toney/SRR/Duran/Ali/Tyson. When at their best they were awesome!

But who was/is your favorite ?

walshb

Emmo-m- wrote: »

But who was/is your favorite ?

Toney without a doubt. No fighter was as hard and effortless and confident and smooth and relaxed as Toney. No fighter could stand right in front of any man ever and fight with him like Toney. Not just MWs, but any man! He was that tough and skilled.

SRL would also make my list. Fantastic all around fighter.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

His bringing up Spinks who had 7 fights was also a little silly. Leon was a gold medalist and was young and hungry and fresh against a clearly faded and aged Ali. Ali still fought like a lion in that fight.

Spinks had 7 fights and 1 of those was also a draw, Let's be honest that was a terrible fight and should not have been made, And to lose it was very poor

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Spinks had 7 fights and 1 of those was also a draw, Let's be honest that was a terrible fight and should not have been made, And to lose it was very poor

His record is just a statistic. I have seen the fight. Spinks was perpetual motion against a clearly aged and faded champ. It happens. If Floyd went on and on it could happen to him. It happened to SRL against Norris. Let's not make out that Spinks was some nobody. He was a career boxer who won gold in Montreal. He had pedigree. Floyd's comments, particularly the 1974 comment were ridiculous.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

His record is just a statistic. I have seen the fight. Spinks was perpetual motion against a clearly aged and faded champ. It happens. If Floyd went on and on it could happen to him. It happened to SRL against Norris. Let's not make out that Spinks was some nobody. He was a career boxer who won gold in Montreal. He had pedigree. Floyd's comments, particularly the 1974 comment were ridiculous.

Point is the fight shouldn't have happened, Spinks did not earn it and it was thought to be a handy fight for Ali, yes it backfired
After this fight in his next 7 he won 3, lost 3 and drew 1, he simply wasn't a good pro boxer

strobe

I think if floyd wins he'll that'll be that. I think if manny wins there'll be a rematch. Maybe even a trilogy. For that reason I've gotta go for manny. I adore the whole excitement of a big upcoming blockbuster fight, but this one's been a bit hard to get into, for everyone cause we all kinda think floyds going to do what he does and it'll be a bit of a damp squib.

But if manny pulls it off. If he does the unexpected. Sweet mother of God imagine the lead in to that rematch. It'll be fvcking electric. Everything up in the air. How will that first pro loss effect floyd? Will it be a re-run of the first fight? Will floyd have the confidence to try the same again even though it failed the first time? Maybe he'll come out absolutely banging instead? God knows, it's all up there in the ether.

I don't get how as a fight fan you could want floyd to win tbh. Imagine that second fight!

walshb

I reckon the only way a rematch would be justified is because of a Manny win, no matter how clear he wins a rematch would be justified, as it's Floyd's first loss and his precious record gone. If Floyd wins and fairly then a rematch means nothing. It would take a stinker of a decision in Floyd's favor to justify a rematch.