Pacquiao/Conlan/Povetkin/Shambles of a Sky Card Thread

walshb

They could still make and sell the Crawford fight as huge

Crawford still has not elite signature win on his ledger!

Morrison J

It's nowhere near as big as it would've been if Manny had beaten Horn. Everyone has seen Manny is past his prime now on free to air TV with millions watching.

Not even that pushed to see it now myself. I think Crawford ruins him. Has every advantage in the fight.

hbhook

I can't remember rightly and I can't really be arsed verifying this but apparently Pac was out of contract after Bradley 1...I'm putting it down to a lack of interest and preparation. Happy for Horn though. I think the timing means the Crawford fight will be Spring 2018 and then hopefully retirement for Pacman. Hopefully not a beating into retirement..

walshb

Morrison J wrote: »

It's nowhere near as big as it would've been if Manny had beaten Horn. Everyone has seen Manny is past his prime now on free to air TV with millions watching.

Not even that pushed to see it now myself. I think Crawford ruins him. Has every advantage in the fight.

It would still be a big fight, and bigger than anything Crawford has been involved with to date.

It's not like Manny got well beaten. He was in the fight all the way.

I don't think one can really say: "this is how much the fight does or makes had Manny not been beaten vs. this is how much it will do now since he was beaten."

Let's say Manny got the verdict the other night.....would the Crawford fight still be a kind of let down?

Morrison J

walshb wrote: »

It would still be a big fight, and bigger than anything Crawford has been involved with to date.

It's not like Manny got well beaten. He was in the fight all the way.

I don't think one can really say: "this is how much the fight does or makes had Manny not been beaten vs. this is how much it will do now since he was beaten."

Let's say Manny got the verdict the other night.....would the Crawford fight still be a kind of let down?

Not doubting it's still a big fight at all just it's lost a lot of its shine. It could've been massive if Manny won well against Horn.

It's gone from a generally perceived 50/50 fight to about a 90/10 Crawford fight. That's only gonna get more extreme when Crawford dominates Indongo.

walshb

Morrison J wrote: »

Not doubting it's still a big fight at all just it's lost a lot of its shine. It could've been massive if Manny won well against Horn.

It's gone from a generally perceived 50/50 fight to about a 90/10 Crawford fight. That's only gonna get more extreme when Crawford dominates Indongo.

I wouldn't buy into that big swing from 50-50 to 90-10....

Like we have debated tirelessly, styles need to be factored. Horn being all over the shop was not going to make an older Manny (who I agree has lost a step or two, but not past it in the extreme sense) seem a little off. As well as Manny having next to no inside game, and a lot of the fight was up close...

Crawford will allow Manny more time to figure out his moves. Crawford is not a frenetic windmill. I think that will suit Manny a whole lot more.

I will say it now. If they fight, barring a KO, Manny will not be in as physically draining and tough and rough a fight as the Horn fight. And I think clearly so.

Morrison J

walshb wrote: »

I wouldn't buy into that big swing from 50-50 to 90-10....

Like we have debated tirelessly, styles need to be factored. Horn being all over the shop was not going to make an older Manny (who I agree has lost a step or two, but not past it in the extreme sense) seem a little off. As well as Manny having next to no inside game, and a lot of the fight was up close...

Crawford will allow Manny more time to figure out his moves. Crawford is not a frenetic windmill. I think that will suit Manny a whole lot more.

I will say it now. If they fight, barring a KO, Manny will not be in as physically draining and tough and rough a fight as the Horn fight. And I think clearly so.

I think 90% of people would pick Crawford to win now where as before it was much closer.

Not as physically tough as in Crawford won't be putting him in headlocks etc but he'll be hit with more consistent accurate shots and hurt a lot more.

What does 2017 Manny do better than Crawford? I can't think of one thing in his favour.

hbhook

Morrison J wrote: »

I think 90% of people would pick Crawford to win now where as before it was much closer.

Not as physically tough as in Crawford won't be putting him in headlocks etc but he'll be hit with more consistent accurate shots and hurt a lot more.

What does 2017 Manny do better than Crawford? I can't think of one thing in his favour.

Hmmm good question. I'd pick Crawford as well but I think Pac's unusal style/craft troubles him the way Horn troubled Pac if you know what I mean. Horn's movement seemed unpredictable to me. A keyed-in Pacquiao offers a lot more than the John Molina's and Felix Diaz' of the world. I think it would really have to be soon though. As in this year.
I'm not sure either if a win (even a stoppage) means a whole lot more to anyone including Crawford the longer it goes on. Like, something really far off...2019

walshb

Morrison J wrote: »

I think 90% of people would pick Crawford to win now where as before it was much closer.

Not as physically tough as in Crawford won't be putting him in headlocks etc but he'll be hit with more consistent accurate shots and hurt a lot more.

What does 2017 Manny do better than Crawford? I can't think of one thing in his favour.

I was more thinking/arguing of it as chances wise not people's picks.

90 percent chance winning to me is off. It's 60/40 in Crawford's favour I'd say.

No issue with 90/100 people picking Crawford to win..

HigginsJ

So the WBO are going to have 5 anonymous judges re-score the fight. Even if they come back and say Pacquiao should have won nothing will change in terms of belt or result. The WBO have said Pacquiao will need to use his rematch clause if he wants to win back the title.

Why bother with this if nothing will change?

Also I'd imagine scoring a fight ringside & scoring a fight on TV would be somewhat different? Would they also need these 5 judges to have not seen the fight already to avoid any bias based on their 1st unnofficial viewing?

Very odd.

hbhook

HigginsJ wrote: »

So the WBO are going to have 5 anonymous judges re-score the fight. Even if they come back and say Pacquiao should have won nothing will change in terms of belt or result. The WBO have said Pacquiao will need to use his rematch clause if he wants to win back the title.

Why bother with this if nothing will change?

Also I'd imagine scoring a fight ringside & scoring a fight on TV would be somewhat different? Would they also need these 5 judges to have not seen the fight already to avoid any bias based on their 1st unnofficial viewing?

Very odd.

'Breadman' over on boxing scene had an interesting thought on judging. Check out his latest mailbag.

titan18

The 5 judges came back with the same result anyway, just 5 more eejits

HigginsJ

titan18 wrote: »

The 5 judges came back with the same result anyway, just 5 more eejits

Why 5 more eejits? General consensus on here is that Horn won or it was a toss up. Also all 5 judges didn't score it for Horn. The 5 judges scored it

Horn 115 - 113, Horn 114 - 113 x2, Pacquiao 114 - 113 and the final judge scored it a draw. Again these scores tally with the what I have read on here.

titan18

HigginsJ wrote: »

Why 5 more eejits? General consensus on here is that Horn won or it was a toss up. Also all 5 judges didn't score it for Horn. The 5 judges scored it

Horn 115 - 113, Horn 114 - 113 x2, Pacquiao 114 - 113 and the final judge scored it a draw. Again these scores tally with the what I have read on here.

I think Pac won it cleanly imo. He was poor vs what we'd expect, but he should have been the winner

ASOT

titan18 wrote: »

I think Pac won it cleanly imo. He was poor vs what we'd expect, but he should have been the winner

He lost too many early rounds, you need to take off your pac tinted glasses.