Mayweather vs Pacquiao May 2nd [official]

[The Bay Area]

As for Pac you said 1-2 punches. So the two punches would be a combo.

Sorry about that it does look like I'm referring to Pacquiao ONLY throwing "1" or "2" punches. What I am saying is Pacquiao throws the 1-2 punch combination to start off his continued barrage of punches. 1-2 combination is the jab followed by the power hand (his left). 1-2-3 combination is usually the 3rd punch being the hook (but can be an upper cut, body shot, etc). It seems to me Pacquiao has a limited method of setting off his combinations by leaping in with the 1-2 which Marquez began to time and I'm sure Floyd will as well. Floyd is not or shouldn't be worried about body shots...lead hooks...or upper cuts. Floyd should only be mindful of Manny's positioning at the time Pacquiao lets his shots go and that Manny only throws the 1-2 to start everything off.

 

[HERESY]

Are you serious...Shane Mosley was washed up at this point.

Doesn't matter if he was washed up or not. Your claim is that a great big man beats a great little man. When Floyd fought Shane Shane had five losses. When Manny fought him he had six. So it's not that big of a difference. If Mosley was physically bigger, which he was, then why was he beaten by a smaller guy In Pacquio? Why was Floyd able to beat him? oh he must have lost an inch or two.

 

[The Bay Area]

Doesn't matter if he was washed up or not. Your claim is that a great big man beats a great little man. When Floyd fought Shane Shane had five losses. When Manny fought him he had six. So it's not that big of a difference. If Mosley was physically bigger, which he was, then why was he beaten by a smaller guy In Pacquio? Why was Floyd able to beat him? oh he must have lost an inch or two.

No bro...you are using this in the wrong way lol. The saying is used between two fighters when all things are considered equal. Meaning both fighters are in their prime or both are at the same point in their career...Mayweather is 38 and Pacquaio is 36 both have maintained their relative speed and neither fighter is a KO machine. The only thing that separates them is Floyd is physically the bigger fighter and so the saying is, "A good big man beats a good little man." This is not an "absolute" but rather a "more than likely" outcome. My question to you is...have you ever heard this passage said in reference to boxing...because if you have then their is no reason do debate the issue. More times than not a good big man will beat a good little man.

 

[The Bay Area]

Doesn't matter if he was washed up or not. Your claim is that a great big man beats a great little man.

Here read this and it will explain to you the concept and why you can't compare a "washed up fighter" in Shane Mosley who fought two "prime" fighters in Pacquiao and Mayweather.

The Big Apple: “A good big man will beat a good little man” (boxing adage)

When Floyd Mayweather fought Juan Manuel Marquez--->

BOXINGTALK : A GOOD BIG MAN ALWAYS BEATS A GOOD LITTLE MAN

Once again there are exceptions to this "rule" but more times than not...it's not.

 

[HERESY]

No bro...you are using this in the wrong way lol. The saying is used between two fighters when all things are considered equal. Meaning both fighters are in their prime or both are at the same point in their career...Mayweather is 38 and Pacquaio is 36 both have maintained their relative speed and neither fighter is a KO machine. The only thing that separates them is Floyd is physically the bigger fighter and so the saying is, "A good big man beats a good little man." This is not an "absolute" but rather a "more than likely" outcome. My question to you is...have you ever heard this passage said in reference to boxing...because if you have then their is no reason do debate the issue. More times than not a good big man will beat a good little man.

No you are going the wrong way with this. Hearns was physically bigger and got demolished in three rounds. Ali was smaller than Foreman, had two losses, had less knockouts and was seven years older. George was undefeated and a KO percentage in the 90's. he was at his peak. Ali wasn't. What happened?

There are tons of great smaller fights who have beaten great larger fighters. Yes I have heard the passage said in boxing and just because it is said it doesn't mean it is true or even remotely close to being true. It's just a saying, it isn't absolute and a "more than likely" outcome is not something that has been quantified, not even in your links. Even "styles makes fights" is not an absolute as all it takes is getting hit with the wrong punch and that's all she wrote.

 

[HERESY]

Here read this and it will explain to you the concept and why you can't compare a "washed up fighter" in Shane Mosley who fought two "prime" fighters in Pacquiao and Mayweather.

The Big Apple: “A good big man will beat a good little man” (boxing adage)

When Floyd Mayweather fought Juan Manuel Marquez--->

BOXINGTALK : A GOOD BIG MAN ALWAYS BEATS A GOOD LITTLE MAN

Once again there are exceptions to this "rule" but more times than not...it's not.

You are the one who is guilty of using terms no one here has an idea of (go to the back leg comment or whatever you said in that one post.)

Now let's look at your first link:

"A good big man is better than a good little man” is a boxing adage, popular mostly in the heavyweight division. All other things being equal, the heavier man with the longer reach will win the fight, the adage goes. The adage is less popularly used in other weight divisions, where the fighters are roughly the same weight. "

So your link says it's mostly used in the heavyweight division. All other things being equal means what exactly? Knockout ratio? Age? Win loss record? So it's the heavier man with the longest reach? What happened to Lennox when he fought McCall? Then your link goes on to say the adage is "less popularly used in other weight divisions..." why? Because they are roughly the same weight. Are Pac and FLOYD roughly the same weight? Yes Floyd has a longer reach but Pac has always fought guys that are larger than himself. So what exactly is your point here?

So is this a case of people parroting things they've heard without understanding the context? Parroting things they heard because it sounds good (like Rakim being the best rapper of all time for example)?

 

[HERESY]

This is too funny. Disregarding the obvious bias the writer in the second article shows, in his first paragraph he states, " This rule hasn’t always held true lately (Pacquiao-De La Hoya) but it still usually holds true when the two fighters are at the same skill level but one lacks height, reach, or weight." Your source, the one you provided, clearly said the adage didn't hold true when it involved Pac fighting DLH. So think about that for a minute...

Then he says it still usually holds true but what does he spend two paragraphs doing? Explaining how little guys beat big guys and does it by providing in depth examples (considering the medium.) then he spends one short paragraph saying the adage doesn't hold true, says there is a long list of fighters to prove the adage is true yet provides two examples, lol.

I'm done man. No need for us to continue talking about a bigger fighter, smaller guy, whatever. Whoever can come in, is able to execute their will and not get hit with that fight changing punch wins. Simple.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Mike Tyson: Mayweather Will Be Hit, Hurt More Than Ever


By Edward Chaykovsky

Former undisputed heavyweight king Mike Tyson is very excited about the May 2nd welterweight unification between Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Manny Pacquiao. The two fighters will battle for the WBO/WBA/WBC welterweight belts at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. Showtime/HBO will come together to put on the pay-per-view.

Tyson feels Pacquiao will be the first boxer to fully test Mayweather's talents in the ring. While Tyson is not openly picking Pacquiao to win, he says Mayweather will take more damage, and more punches, than he's ever taken in any of his previous fights in the past.

“You need to put constant pressure on Floyd. Be in front of him all the time, but moving side to side and punching from angles. Manny is going to feint Floyd out of position a lot and make him throw more punches than he is used to, and that will open Floyd up,” Tyson told reporters at the Champs premier.

“He has never really been tested. Whatever happens in this fight, I really think that Floyd is going to be hit and hurt more than he has ever been before. We’re going to see how tough he is.”

 

[RAVAGE]

@UglyNigga what do ur shirts look like that you pressed for this event?

 

[VERSACERO]

 

[The Bay Area]

No you are going the wrong way with this. Hearns was physically bigger and got demolished in three rounds.

Here's the popular opinion on who was the physically bigger man between Hagler and Hearns...it doesn't seem to give your stance much validity.

Re: Hagler or Hearns? Who was the Bigger Man?
Quote:

Originally Posted by emallini
??
interesting question. When Hearns fought Hagler, Hagler was the stronger man at middleweight, but Hearns could fight and win two titles at 175 when Hagler probably could not have. It is a hard question. Hearns went up to Cruiserweight also.
In the end Hearns was bigger in height yet in reality Hearns natural best weight was 154 and Marvin's 160. So with that in mind Hagler might have been the bigger guy as far as natural weight and best fighting-Hagler was the natural middleweight. Hearns might have been leaner than Hagler, and I bet if they were to get side by side now in the ring, Hagler would still have bigger legs. Hearns would probably still look leaner.
Hearns never was a huge guy either. When he fought Virgil Hill he looked leaner than Virgil and looked like a guy as tall as Virgil, yet he still looked like a middleweight fighting a lightheavyweight and he still won.

--------–------------------

At the time they fought Hagler was the bigger man. But Hearns had the bigger frame which allowed him to more easily add weight later on, yet still be effective, hence his success at higher weights.

--------–------------------

Cleary Hagler. We're talking in terms of weight rather than height. Hagler was a natural middle, Hearns wasn't.

--------–------------------

Hearns was just the taller guy. Hagler's the bigger fighter between the two.

--------–------------------

Hearns was the smaller guy at the time. Yeah hearns did go all the way up to cw, but he was an exceptional talent and theres reason he is considered an ATG.

--------–------------------

Hagler the MW was bigger and stronger, but although Hearns was taller that right hand was a jaw breaker, Hagler ate every single one and spit it out.

--------–------------------

Hagler was the bigger man.

--------–------------------

Hagler for sure.

Ali was smaller than Foreman,

Okay...let's see--->

Muhammad Ali

HEIGHT - 6ft 3in
WEIGHT - 210 1/2lb
REACH - 84in
CHEST (NOR) - 43in
CHEST (EXP) - 45 1/2in
FIST 12 1/2in

George Foreman

HEIGHT - 6ft 3.5in
WEIGHT - 217 1/2lb
REACH - 82in
CHEST (NOR) - 42in
CHEST (EXP) - 44 1/2in
FIST - 12in


To sum this whole thing up without going all across the board...Floyd Mayweather is the bigger man between he and Pacquiao and that in my opinion gives Mayweather the advantage (among other things I've previously mentioned) to where it's going to be an easy night for Floyd and I can revised all these posts and smile...8 rounds to 4 Floyd Mayweather Jr. Easy work.

 

[HERESY]

Here's the popular opinion on who was the physically bigger man between Hagler and Hearns...it doesn't seem to give your stance much validity.

Re: Hagler or Hearns? Who was the Bigger Man?
Quote:

Originally Posted by emallini
??
interesting question. When Hearns fought Hagler, Hagler was the stronger man at middleweight, but Hearns could fight and win two titles at 175 when Hagler probably could not have. It is a hard question. Hearns went up to Cruiserweight also.
In the end Hearns was bigger in height yet in reality Hearns natural best weight was 154 and Marvin's 160. So with that in mind Hagler might have been the bigger guy as far as natural weight and best fighting-Hagler was the natural middleweight. Hearns might have been leaner than Hagler, and I bet if they were to get side by side now in the ring, Hagler would still have bigger legs. Hearns would probably still look leaner.
Hearns never was a huge guy either. When he fought Virgil Hill he looked leaner than Virgil and looked like a guy as tall as Virgil, yet he still looked like a middleweight fighting a lightheavyweight and he still won.

--------–------------------

At the time they fought Hagler was the bigger man. But Hearns had the bigger frame which allowed him to more easily add weight later on, yet still be effective, hence his success at higher weights.

--------–------------------

Cleary Hagler. We're talking in terms of weight rather than height. Hagler was a natural middle, Hearns wasn't.

--------–------------------

Hearns was just the taller guy. Hagler's the bigger fighter between the two.

--------–------------------

Hearns was the smaller guy at the time. Yeah hearns did go all the way up to cw, but he was an exceptional talent and theres reason he is considered an ATG.

--------–------------------

Hagler the MW was bigger and stronger, but although Hearns was taller that right hand was a jaw breaker, Hagler ate every single one and spit it out.

--------–------------------

Hagler was the bigger man.

--------–------------------

Hagler for sure.





Okay...let's see--->

Muhammad Ali

HEIGHT - 6ft 3in
WEIGHT - 210 1/2lb
REACH - 84in
CHEST (NOR) - 43in
CHEST (EXP) - 45 1/2in
FIST 12 1/2in

George Foreman

HEIGHT - 6ft 3.5in
WEIGHT - 217 1/2lb
REACH - 82in
CHEST (NOR) - 42in
CHEST (EXP) - 44 1/2in
FIST - 12in


To sum this whole thing up without going all across the board...Floyd Mayweather is the bigger man between he and Pacquiao and that in my opinion gives Mayweather the advantage (among other things I've previously mentioned) to where it's going to be an easy night for Floyd and I can revised all these posts and smile...8 rounds to 4 Floyd Mayweather Jr. Easy work.

Sources not cited (they appear to be random guys on a forum and in no way represent a general consensus) so I can't respond. Like I said, whoever can impose their will and not get hit with that fight changing punch wins. Both men have beaten guys who were physically bigger so I really don't see that as an issue.

 

[HERESY]

Boxing Science: How Manny Pacquiao's Body Has Tricked Analysts and Opponents - Bad Left Hook

Now that was written by a scientist and some of the same things he said I asked some months ago when we discussed the lawsuit. Anyway I just came across this today. And thought it was a nice read.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

I wish this was a Photoshop

Mayweather-Pacquiao: WBC Emerald Belt Will Be at Stake


After an intense voting week, fans have ruled that the winner of MEGFIGHT between Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao will triumphantly hold aloft ... The Emerald Belt! This exquisite masterpiece is especially designed by the World Boxing Council for a unique bout that is already gracing the pages of boxing history.

In order to appropriately recognize the winner of this titanic and epic event on May 2nd, emeralds have triumphed. It was a very close decision, as the emerald belt won by a margin of 53 percent to 47 percent for the onyx belt.

The World Boxing Council is very grateful to the multitude of fans who participated in this process by voting on our web page to choose the historic belt Mayweather or Pacquiao will proudly possess.

 

[The Bay Area]

Sources not cited (they appear to be random guys on a forum and in no way represent a general consensus) so I can't respond. Like I said, whoever can impose their will and not get hit with that fight changing punch wins. Both men have beaten guys who were physically bigger so I really don't see that as an issue.

I still can't find anyone who agrees that Tommy Hearns was the bigger fighter coming into the matchup with Hagler...or that George Forman was fighting a "little guy" in Ali when they crossed paths. You gave me the "tale of the tape" when comparing Hearn's and Hagler's weight and height to cement your opinion...but public survey doesn't match up. I did the same with Forman and Ali by giving you the tale of the tape...which is IDENTICAL in their attributes and you don't say anything. So I can assume you took a step back from referencing Ali was the "little man" beating a "big man"? Mayweather will neutralize Pacquaio's only offensive avenue which is his repetitious 1-2 combo (for example watch the Pacquiao vs Marquez 4 fight)...Pacauiao did it over and over and.."He's not getting up Jim...he's not getting up."

 

[VERSACERO]

I wish this was a Photoshop

Mayweather-Pacquiao: WBC Emerald Belt Will Be at Stake


After an intense voting week, fans have ruled that the winner of MEGFIGHT between Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao will triumphantly hold aloft ... The Emerald Belt! This exquisite masterpiece is especially designed by the World Boxing Council for a unique bout that is already gracing the pages of boxing history.

In order to appropriately recognize the winner of this titanic and epic event on May 2nd, emeralds have triumphed. It was a very close decision, as the emerald belt won by a margin of 53 percent to 47 percent for the onyx belt.

The World Boxing Council is very grateful to the multitude of fans who participated in this process by voting on our web page to choose the historic belt Mayweather or Pacquiao will proudly possess.

Is that rodney dangerfield on the belt?

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Lmao it does look like him now u mention it. It's the corrupt wbc president Jose Solimon, or ex president he just died now his son runs the wbc, like dictators.

Anyways, after thinking about this fight further I'm confident Pacquiao is going to take Mayweather's "0". The 48-0 curse is going to catch Floyd. Rematch in September.

 

[HERESY]

I still can't find anyone who agrees that Tommy Hearns was the bigger fighter coming into the matchup with Hagler...or that George Forman was fighting a "little guy" in Ali when they crossed paths. You gave me the "tale of the tape" when comparing Hearn's and Hagler's weight and height to cement your opinion...but public survey doesn't match up. I did the same with Forman and Ali by giving you the tale of the tape...which is IDENTICAL in their attributes and you don't say anything. So I can assume you took a step back from referencing Ali was the "little man" beating a "big man"? Mayweather will neutralize Pacquaio's only offensive avenue which is his repetitious 1-2 combo (for example watch the Pacquiao vs Marquez 4 fight)...Pacauiao did it over and over and.."He's not getting up Jim...he's not getting up."

I didn't give you the "tale of the tape" but I will now. As for what you can or can't find that's not my problem, pimp. Go look at the tale of the tape and you will see he was taller than Hagler by 3 1/2 inches, was younger than Hagler, had a longer reach than Hagler by four inches, had wrists bigger by an inch and bigger ankles. Hagler had a chest that was one inch larger, thighs and calfs two inches larger, neck 3/4 larger and 1/4 larger fists. Now according to the link YOU posted, the heavier man with the longer reach wins. Who has the longer reach? Hearns. Who weighed more on fight night? Hearns. So, according to YOUR link, Hearns should have won. What happened? And LMAO@ "public survey."

As for Ali and Foreman why did I need to say anything? What does your link say? We have a taller fighter in Foreman and he weighed more. What happened? What happened to Ali when he fought Frazier? He gave him his first defeat. You can find the tale of the tape via Google. How about Holyfield and Douglas? He was taller, had a reach advantage and weighed more. What happened?

In closing, a great big man beating a great little man is not something I go by. You can go by that if you want, I'm not. As for Pac, getting knocked out by JMM, it proves what I am talking about. Whoever imposes their will and doesn't get hit with that fight changing punch wins. Nothing else to discuss, pimp.

 

[HERESY]

Lmao it does look like him now u mention it. It's the corrupt wbc president Jose Solimon, or ex president he just died now his son runs the wbc, like dictators.

Anyways, after thinking about this fight further I'm confident Pacquiao is going to take Mayweather's "0". The 48-0 curse is going to catch Floyd. Rematch in September.

I don't bet any money n anyone except for myself, but if I were a betting man, I would put my money on Pac right about now.

 

[HERESY]

And uglynigga, didn't 206 and I bet you on something a month or two back?