Pacquiao v Algeri LIVE

First topic message reminder :

Who's staying up for this? Was gonna go to bed inbetween Bellew/Cleverly and get up but, despite time being lineal, it has skipped to 1 am before its time, so an all nighter is in order. A few cans of relentless and I'll be doing clap push ups for the next couple of hours, with the occasional break in which I scrawl the names of strangers I hate on the wall in my own blood.

I shall lower a unicorn's hair into a vile of putrid liquid, and the colour it turns to will tell me the outcome of the fight.

Nothing like the fighter of 08/09.

Neither is Floyd

It is still an interesting fight because both guys aren't what they used to be. Sometimes when skill set drops then the fight becomes more of a brawl. If Mayweather can't move around as much as he used to, he will be forced to try and push Manny back and throw more leather than he is accustomed to.

Also both fighters would really raise their games because the winner would most likely go down as the best in the era. Also if the fight is exciting and close there would be a big money rematch.

How did Algieri earn his shot Toppy if Guerrero didn't?

Why is everyone comparing Algeri to Guerrero? You are only as good as your last fight and last I checked Floyd faced Maidana.

I think everyone will agree that Maidana is much more dangerous at welter than Algeri.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:How did Algieri earn his shot Toppy if Guerrero didn't?

Because he beat the guy (Prov) that was scheduled to fight Manny.

I thought RG was just picked out of a hat, so to speak, and hadn't actually won a specific fight or eliminator etc for his shot?

Happy to stand corrected.

(would also comment that if you check my vernacular, I never actually made a 'shot earning' comparison between RG & CA, just said that credit due to CA as he beat the guy that was meant to fight Manny, who many wouldn't have slated Manny for fighting).

DAVE667 wrote:

Nothing like the fighter of 08/09.

Neither is Floyd

Manny has lost a step, Floyd has lost half an inch.

Manny's game was always about the opposite factors to Floyd's (hence why it was such a mouth-watering prospect) and those factors were always likely to decline at a greater rate than Floyd's.

Provodnikov wouldn't have been a great opponent just like Guerrero wasn't or is losing to Bradley enough for a title shot nowadays. Guerrero as interim champion was also the mandatory challenger.

No, and again, pretty sure I never lauded Prov as an oppo (or said either he or CA were better than RG). But I do think that Manny wouldn't have been criticised as heavily for facing Prov as he did CA.

I'm surprised that anyone could fall so decisively on either man's side when it comes to comparing their recent opponents (let's say their last five fights, for argument's sake). For me there's not really anything in it in terms of the challenges and guys they've faced; Mayweather's last five contests have generally come against bigger 'names' so to speak, but in most cases they've been tailor-made for him and their drawing power has been more instrumental in the fights happening rather than them having the right style / tools to give Floyd a lot of bother. The actual names in Pacquiao's last few fights might seem less overwhelming, but he's faced a wider mix of styles and has been in with guys more likely to cause him serious problems from the outset than Floyd has.

Floyd's been more impressive and dominant in those last few fights, though, which is why Pacquiao just doesn't have an equally strong claim to the pound for pound top spot anymore like he did a few years back. Can't dispute that Mayweather's the rightful pound for pound king but the way I see it, his opposition hasn't been from a clearly higher plate than Manny's in the last two or three years, and the same applies vice versa.

Algieri, Rios, Bradleyx2 & Rios vs Maidanax2, Alvarez, Cotto & RG.

I think Floyd takes it, just.

Bradleyx2 is better than Maidanax2 but Alvarez, Cotto & RG are a better line up than Pac's 3.

If you read carefully... no one said Algieri was a great win. All I said was Pacquiao did a better number on him than he did in Ríos. I then said "Algieri is better than Ríos, is Pacquiao back?"...

Okay fair enough, I prefixed it by saying it was a magnificent performance... but he won the fight by 18 points!!!

Yep, wouldn't really object to what you're saying there, Toppy, but that's my point - it's razor thin either way. I agree with the general idea that Bradley twice is better than Maidana twice. Bradley just the all-round better and more skilfull fighter with a style to make Pacquiao a lot more wary than Maidana's usually would for Floyd. Think it's relatively straight forward to say that, whichever way you slice it, Guerrero and Alvarez trump Rios and Algieri. But I'd argue that Marquez was certainly a trickier proposition for Pacquiao than Cotto was for Floyd. Mayweather struggled a bit in that fight, to be fair, and Cotto performed better than expected, but Cotto was clearly faded (he was almost shut out a few months later by Trout and his win over an injured Martinez hasn't made me reconsider that stance to be honest) and generally seen as a good styles match up for Mayweather. In contrast, we know that Marquez is always going to give Pacquiao fits, and he's consistently out-ranked Cotto in any pound for pound list for the past few years.

The fact that Pacquiao got sparked by Marquez in that fourth fight and looked subpar against Bradley makes it irrelevant in some senses as I said earlier, but still basically nowt in the overall quality and challenge of their recent opponents in my view.

I think Bradley is a better win than Maidana. Not sure it is better than Canelo. He is perhaps a better fighter and all but Canelo being a much larger man than Floyd has to come into some consideration.

Also you can't ignore the devastating ko Manny suffered in his last few fights. Overall the recent opponents from both fighters have been close. I would probably give Floyd the edge.

Anyhow I am more of a Floyd fan I can admit that and I am sometimes biased, am sure Manny fans are the same.

Still in saying that, I would love to see them fight. It would of been bigger and closer a few years back but it is still the biggest fight out there, so hopefully they can still make it happen.

No one is saying Maidana is a great victory but when Floyd detractors are wowing a victory over an ordinary chump who fights at 140.

It's right to flag up the hypocrisy..

Show me Floyd's 120-102 scorecard, and I'll apologise, and then call him TBE

Constructive comment Raf not looking argument

I do not think Floyd has ever had a score card like that.Perhaps if Corrales had of went the distance that would of been the closest.

Floyd has also never been knocked out either. 2 different style of fighters to begin with

Bet you think Manny won all 3 decisions against JMM.

AdamT wrote:I think Bradley is a better win than Maidana. Not sure it is better than Canelo. He is perhaps a better fighter and all but Canelo being a much larger man than Floyd has to come into some consideration.

Does being 'a much larger man' count when the 'smaller man' pulls him down to a catchweight??

AdamT wrote:Constructive comment Raf not looking argument

Think Raf's comment was in response to Truss, Ad.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

AdamT wrote:I think Bradley is a better win than Maidana. Not sure it is better than Canelo. He is perhaps a better fighter and all but Canelo being a much larger man than Floyd has to come into some consideration.

Does being 'a much larger man' count when the 'smaller man' pulls him down to a catchweight??

He doesn't get full credit but he gets some. If he did what Manny did to Oscar then no I wouldn't give him any credit.

No doubt you guys think Provo will be rated above Broner....

Oh well..

TopHat24/7 wrote:

AdamT wrote:Constructive comment Raf not looking argument

Think Raf's comment was in response to Truss, Ad.

Yeah I know that but I wanted to comment on the question and we had words yesterday. Was just answering the question and was stating that, i wasn't looking to wind him up or anything.

Will say it's a credit to both men to be still beating alphabet champs at their ages...

Is it a credit to boxing or is it a bad thing when 2 guys are still so dominant at their respective ages?

The Cotto and Marquez fights are tricky to rate, id back Cotto to beat him almost every time but I would agree on a style match up it's a bit different. Should Pacquiao get more credit for struggling against someone that Mayweather gave a boxing lesson?

AdamT wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

AdamT wrote:I think Bradley is a better win than Maidana. Not sure it is better than Canelo. He is perhaps a better fighter and all but Canelo being a much larger man than Floyd has to come into some consideration.

Does being 'a much larger man' count when the 'smaller man' pulls him down to a catchweight??

He doesn't get full credit but he gets some. If he did what Manny did to Oscar then no I wouldn't give him any credit.

Adam mate, I can see what you're trying to say here, but have to just comment on this as it's one of my 'bee in the bonnet' things.

Re: Pacquiao-Oscar. Pacquiao didn't "do" anything at all to De la Hoya and the idea that he cynically cherry-picked a drained, washed up Oscar is a myth which has been allowed to grow.

De la Hoya had been pencilled in for a Mayweather rematch for September 2008. When Floyd announced his mini 'retirement' in June of that year, it went up in smoke and Oscar was left without a big, attractive name to sell to the masses (his fight in May 2008 against Forbed was billed as a warm-up to the Mayweather rematch). Pacquiao by this point was probably the next logical pound for pound number one in light of Mayweather's disappearance and a big name, but he'd never boxed above Lightweight at the time (in fact, his Summer 2008 win over Diaz was his maiden outing at 135 lb, and that was already the fifth weight class in which he'd won either an alphabet or Ring Magazine title).

De la Hoya hand-picked Pacquiao, not the other way around. It was Oscar who was still the biggest pay-per-view attraction in the sport in 2008 and who had the power at the negotiating table. When news got out that he was asking Pacquiao, already someone who'd gone through many weights, to jump up another 12 lb, De la Hoya got an absolute kicking for it and most pre-fight pieces centred on how Oscar was taking the fans for a ride and that the fight was going to be a freak show and mis-match. It was De la Hoya who was using his pulling power to dictate to Pacquiao and who was seen to be gaining a cynical advantage with regards to weight, not Manny.

I don't deny that Oscar was clearly a shell on the night, mind you, and taking himself back down to Welter having not fought there in over seven years backfired big time. But that was nothing to do with Pacquiao's requests or looking to gain an advantage.

Sorry, I'm done on that one now!

Maybe I am wrong but was there not a clause about Oscar not being allowed to hydrate over a certain weight? Can't really remember

It was rumoured in the weeks building up to the fight, from what I remember Adam (something about Roach apparently saying that if De la Hoya wasn't inside 147 on fight night there wouldn't be a fight) but subsequently denied by De la Hoya and all of Pacquiao's team, including Roach who claimed he was misquoted. I remember Freddie stating that Oscar was so drained and knackered in making 147 that he just couldn't re-hydrate much overnight anyway (he hinted at Oscar needing IV). I've never seen anything concrete about that and don't see why Oscar would deny it if it were true (although to be fair to him, Oscar was one of boxing's classier losers, so you never know) but the point remains, even if there was a clause to prevent him re-hydrating, most still felt that it wouldn't make a jot of difference in the fight and it would have been a decision on Oscar's part, rather than a request on Manny's.

Like I said above, I don't consider it one of Pacquiao's best wins as simply using the ol' eye test it's clear that De la Hoya had nothing left on fight night (he was years past his peak in any case, regardless of weight), but I just don't like the myth that Pacquiao was in the driving seat in the negotiations and that it was Oscar who was being dictated to. The perception at the time was the total opposite to that.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The Cotto and Marquez fights are tricky to rate, id back Cotto to beat him almost every time but I would agree on a style match up it's a bit different. Should Pacquiao get more credit for struggling against someone that Mayweather gave a boxing lesson?

Arguably yes, given that Pac chose to fight someone with a style designed to give him difficulties and fought him at a weight he was then comfortable at (each time) whereas Mayweather fought the same guy who's style was never going to be an issue or antithesis and whom was required to step up to a catchweight well above where he'd operated before which Mayweather then ignored anyway.

Always a good thing to remember that Chris is the only poster that has Whittaker above Floyd on here..

Also remember Norris who would have trashed Pernell agreed to come in at 150 against Meldrick.

Wasn't interested.... 135 -150 - 15 pounds..

Mayweather - Alvarez 130 - 152.....22 pounds....

88Chris05 wrote:It was rumoured in the weeks building up to the fight, from what I remember Adam (something about Roach apparently saying that if De la Hoya wasn't inside 147 on fight night there wouldn't be a fight) but subsequently denied by De la Hoya and all of Pacquiao's team, including Roach who claimed he was misquoted. I remember Freddie stating that Oscar was so drained and knackered in making 147 that he just couldn't re-hydrate much overnight anyway (he hinted at Oscar needing IV). I've never seen anything concrete about that and don't see why Oscar would deny it if it were true (although to be fair to him, Oscar was one of boxing's classier losers, so you never know) but the point remains, even if there was a clause to prevent him re-hydrating, most still felt that it wouldn't make a jot of difference in the fight and it would have been a decision on Oscar's part, rather than a request on Manny's.

Like I said above, I don't consider it one of Pacquiao's best wins as simply using the ol' eye test it's clear that De la Hoya had nothing left on fight night (he was years past his peak in any case, regardless of weight), but I just don't like the myth that Pacquiao was in the driving seat in the negotiations and that it was Oscar who was being dictated to. The perception at the time was the total opposite to that.  

Fair enough Chris, to be fair I had a mate over he knew nothing about boxing state that Oscar had no chance by looking at him.

I don't slag Manny for his catchweight win over Cotto. For me it was his greatest performance

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The Cotto and Marquez fights are tricky to rate, id back Cotto to beat him almost every time but I would agree on a style match up it's a bit different. Should Pacquiao get more credit for struggling against someone that Mayweather gave a boxing lesson?

Arguably yes, given that Pac chose to fight someone with a style designed to give him difficulties and fought him at a weight he was then comfortable at (each time) whereas Mayweather fought the same guy who's style was never going to be an issue or antithesis and whom was required to step up to a catchweight well above where he'd operated before which Mayweather then ignored anyway.

I see that side of the argument but Cotto is a better win at 154lbs than Marquez would have been at Welterweight. Can you envisage Cotto ever losing to him because I can't.

I don't think it pays to really look at it that way, Hammersmith. In that case does Mayweather's win over Cotto come with a bit of a question mark or lose some of its lustre, seeing as he could only outscore Cotto in a competitive bout whereas Pacquiao absolutely thrashed and stopped him? What Mayweather did to Marquez underlines his own ability but I don't think it necessarily bears any relevance to how big or praise-worthy a challenge Marquez was to Pacquiao.

Cotto would probably be too big for Marquez in a head-to-head sense every time, but pound for pound Marquez is the superior boxer for me and his stock has been higher (and his form better) than Cotto's for a few years now. I think Marquez is a greater, more worthwhile challenge to Pacquiao than Cotto is to Mayweather - but Pacquiao did lose those last two fights to Marquez, regardless of what the decision in the third installment said.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mayweather - Alvarez 130 - 152.....22 pounds....

Mayweather the 154 lb champ that won his 154lb belt at 154lb and had already fought at 154lb about 5 yrs earlier?

Mayweather certainly doesn't have a lot of fans on here,he gets very little credit

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The Cotto and Marquez fights are tricky to rate, id back Cotto to beat him almost every time but I would agree on a style match up it's a bit different. Should Pacquiao get more credit for struggling against someone that Mayweather gave a boxing lesson?

Arguably yes, given that Pac chose to fight someone with a style designed to give him difficulties and fought him at a weight he was then comfortable at (each time) whereas Mayweather fought the same guy who's style was never going to be an issue or antithesis and whom was required to step up to a catchweight well above where he'd operated before which Mayweather then ignored anyway.

I see that side of the argument but Cotto is a better win at 154lbs than Marquez would have been at Welterweight. Can you envisage Cotto ever losing to him because I can't.

Was only really saying 'arguable', not fixed on it as an opinion.

I don't think there's much to split those two wins, if it's anyone's then it's Floyd's, but only by a very narrow margin.

AdamT wrote:Mayweather certainly doesn't have a lot of fans on here,he gets very little credit

He has some very vociferous ones, which is why anyone not similarly vociferous looks like a 'hater'.

Same happened re Manny when D4 was around.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Always a good thing to remember that Chris is the only poster that has Whittaker above Floyd on here..

Also remember Norris who would have trashed Pernell agreed to come in at 150 against Meldrick.

Wasn't interested....  135 -150 - 15 pounds..

Mayweather - Alvarez 130 - 152.....22 pounds....

Truss, Alvarez is a bit closer to Julio Cesar Vasquez (who Whitaker fought and beat for a 154 lb title, without a catchweight too! ) than Norris, wouldn't you agree? I can't see Mayweather fancying Norris at Light-Middle either, and I wouldn't particularly blame him. Neither Floyd or Pernell are / were anywhere near their best at Light-Middle and I think that shows in their choice of opponents there. Guys like Alvarez and Vasquez were big, strong and could punch a bit, but were also flat-footed, relatively average in terms of output and not great defensively. Kind of different to a fast-as-greased-lightning, combination-punching, light on his feet Norris who had cat-like reflexes to boot!

Have said it plenty of times before, though, that while Mayweather may have started as a Super-Feather his body clearly filled out in to the higher weights (Welter and Light-Middle) a lot better than Whitaker's did. Pea looked like a blown-up Lightweight when he campaigned at 147 whereas Floyd didn't even look that small compared to Alvarez all the way up at 154....Well, 152.

I was only winding you up.................Not chucked Norris at Whittaker lately......

Have to find a way of getting those Nottingham town center chicks in to the mix before my annual Christmas pilgrimmage....

Just do it as an article, beefster.

DID CHRIS GET BEAT UP IN NOTTINGHAM CITY CENTRE BY A GROUP OF GIRLS BACK IN 2010!!???....YES HE DID!!!..

You were green at the time like Hoppo..........So we'll cut you some slack !!

I got smacked over the head by a wild banshee wielding a handbag once Chris. Does that make you feel any better?

Probably not, as I wasn't actually beaten up... That must have been really embarrassing, in an emasculating kind of way.

Always prepared to help by sticking the boot in, Milky. Where's Dipper and his tale of getting smacked around by that female shot putter?

... That was just foreplay

88Chris05 wrote:

AdamT wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

AdamT wrote:I think Bradley is a better win than Maidana. Not sure it is better than Canelo. He is perhaps a better fighter and all but Canelo being a much larger man than Floyd has to come into some consideration.

Does being 'a much larger man' count when the 'smaller man' pulls him down to a catchweight??

He doesn't get full credit but he gets some. If he did what Manny did to Oscar then no I wouldn't give him any credit.

Adam mate, I can see what you're trying to say here, but have to just comment on this as it's one of my 'bee in the bonnet' things.

Re: Pacquiao-Oscar. Pacquiao didn't "do" anything at all to De la Hoya and the idea that he cynically cherry-picked a drained, washed up Oscar is a myth which has been allowed to grow.

De la Hoya had been pencilled in for a Mayweather rematch for September 2008. When Floyd announced his mini 'retirement' in June of that year, it went up in smoke and Oscar was left without a big, attractive name to sell to the masses (his fight in May 2008 against Forbed was billed as a warm-up to the Mayweather rematch). Pacquiao by this point was probably the next logical pound for pound number one in light of Mayweather's disappearance and a big name, but he'd never boxed above Lightweight at the time (in fact, his Summer 2008 win over Diaz was his maiden outing at 135 lb, and that was already the fifth weight class in which he'd won either an alphabet or Ring Magazine title).

De la Hoya hand-picked Pacquiao, not the other way around. It was Oscar who was still the biggest pay-per-view attraction in the sport in 2008 and who had the power at the negotiating table. When news got out that he was asking Pacquiao, already someone who'd gone through many weights, to jump up another 12 lb, De la Hoya got an absolute kicking for it and most pre-fight pieces centred on how Oscar was taking the fans for a ride and that the fight was going to be a freak show and mis-match. It was De la Hoya who was using his pulling power to dictate to Pacquiao and who was seen to be gaining a cynical advantage with regards to weight, not Manny.

I don't deny that Oscar was clearly a shell on the night, mind you, and taking himself back down to Welter having not fought there in over seven years backfired big time. But that was nothing to do with Pacquiao's requests or looking to gain an advantage.

Sorry, I'm done on that one now!

I couldn't have put it better Chris. Why the circumstances surrounding the De La Hoya fight have been so twisted when there's plenty of evidence available online to prove that it was Pac that was supposed to be the sacrificial lamb I don't know.

I'll agree that Oscar was a dead man walking on the night, but that was NOT Pac's responsibility. I've said on numerous occasions that people accusing Pac need only view the last episode of 24/7 (available on Youtube) which shows Oscar weighing himself at 147.9, 3 weeks before the fight. Taking into account that he weighed in at 145 and only hydrated up 2 and a half pounds overnight suggests that he was walking around at the weight displayed on 24/7, albeit unwisely, well in advance and genuinely believed he'd be faster back at welter. Yes, he got it wrong and was a shell on the night, but that was his own fault, not Pacquiao or Roach's.

I'm glad you mentioned that Oscar was set to have a rematch with Floyd back down at welter before the "temporary retirement" cancelled it. Again, there's still plenty of articles on Floyd vs Oscar II available online to support this.Also, another thing that gets lost is that the fight with Steve Forbes was at a catchweight of 150, designed as a sensible way of Oscar shifting down in weight to acclimate him for 147 and I don't remember anybody complaining at the time. Had Floyd not retired and beaten Oscar even more convincingly it's doubtful that it would have been raised as a way of undermining Floyd's victory.

To me 2008 is yesterday, but I guess its yesteryear for some. Little manny was definitely the sacrificial  lamb to the slaughter, and Oscar was lambasted as a bully.

There is a flipside, though. Roach felt Oscar was done... He said something along the lines of 'can't pull the trigger anymore'. So whilst the boxing world were expecting a mismatch, the mismatch they actually got was no surprise to team pacman.

But Chris is right, to blame manny for dragging Oscar down in weight is akin to saying hagler gave Leonard a quiet beating.... And only a complete muppet would think that