Manny’s World Tour: What’s Next for the Pac-Man After Brisbane?

PACQUIAO’S FAREWELL TOUR — Manny Pacquiao (59-6-2) seems to be embarking on his final tour, but like the entertainer Cher, “final” doesn’t seem to mean final. After his April 2016 bout with Timothy Bradley where he bankrolled a $20 million purse plus his cut of Filipino TV money, Manny said he was retired “as of now.” Sure he was.

Speaking of Cher, a 2002 Rolling Stone article estimated her wealth at over $600 million. Since then she has embarked on a hugely successful farewell tour that is still going.

The latest from Top Rank (subject to weekly change) has Manny fighting in July and then again in November with Terrence Crawford, Amir Khan, and Adrien Broner possible opponents. His fight with Australian Jeff Horn (16-0-1) Down Under in April somehow got lost in the shuffle, but all of a sudden it has been resuscitated with July 2 the new date. Says Arum, “We’re slowly finishing up the deal to fight…People have agreed on essential points.” The fight, as it now stands, will be in the Aussie’s hometown of Brisbane, most likely at 52,000-seat Suncorp Stadium.

The fight would be the biggest in Australian boxing history. Horn has drawing power offset by a favorable risk-reward equation for Team Pacquiao. In short, he is compelling but not overly risky

Shawn Porter offered former sparring partner Manny a final chance at a major fight before the eight-division world champion retires and wants to replace Horn. But Porter also said he thinks Manny should retire now. Fact is, Porter is all over the place when it comes to Pac Man and is now set to fight Andre Berto. Forget about him.

A potentially lucrative match with an always dangerous but chinny Amir Khan in May in theUnited Arab Emirates.fell apart due to lack of financing leaving the talkative and self-promoting Khan on the outside looking in ,but he will soon find someone else to shamelessly harangue for that big payday.

Arum had mentioned Adrien Broner, Terrance Crawford, and Khan as possibilities for the November fight. Crawford (30-0) is scheduled to face Felix Diaz on May 20. Thus, the beginning of Manny’s World Tour (at least for now) is commencing in Australia.

Arum’s potential scenario

“The word ‘world champion’ should mean something…A world champion is some guy who will go to places he is not familiar with to fight the best fighter in that area. And that’s what he’s doing.” — Arum

An aging (he’s 38) but still scintillating and highly ranked Pacquiao needs to be circumspect about the order of his opponents whomever they turn out to be. Clearly, Crawford is the most dangerous and Manny might want to save him for his “final” act—or, better yet, avoid him altogether. It’s equally clear that Horn (no slouch) is the safest to start with.

Broner would have been more compelling given his recent struggle with Adrian Granados. In fact, against both Horn and Broner, there is a distinct possibility that Pac-Man could finally break his long streak of no stoppage wins dating all the way back to 2009 when he obliterated a prime Miguel Cotto. Since then he has nine wins by decision and a lot of miles on his ring odometer. Moreover, the interest in a Broner fight would be huge—and a promoter’s dream.

Khan might be the next, depending on if and how Manny would solve “The Problem.” Khan’s weak chin always presents the possibility of an abrupt ending and that possibility would whet the appetite of the fans. However, Amir is no “gimme” and could give the Filipino senator serious problems.

At any rate, there are different scenarios that can be sequenced depending on what amount of risk Team Pacquiao wants to take. Moreover, fighting a number of talented fighters consecutively can be draining and make each progressive fight more difficult.

Here are three possible ways to play out Manny’s “Farewell Tour”:

Safest Scenario

Fight Horn in July.

Fight Argentinian Diego Chaves (25-2-1) in November

Fight Broner in 2018

Retire.

Most Risky Scenario

Fight Horn in July

Fight Khan in November.

Fight Crawford in 2018.

Retire.

Fan-friendly and financially rewarding Scenario

Fight Horn in July

Fight Broner in November.

Fight Miguel Cotto in 2018 assuming Cotto wins his intervening fight or fights.

Retire.

This is not the same Manny who ran roughshod between 2003 and 2011, nor is it the one that stopped Barrera, Morales, De La Hoya, Hatton and Cotto to cement his legacy as an All Time Great. However, it’s still a pretty good and highly ranked Manny who managed to school Timothy Bradley “three” times and punish Brandon Rios, Chris Algieri, and Jesse Vargas.

Ironically, while Mayweather negotiates with McGregor to engage in a disgraceful farce and while former four-time world titleholder 43-year-old Juan Manuel Marquez struggles to find an opponent for a farewell fight in Mexico, Pac Man perseveres and remains the quintessential A Side fighter who can pick and choose as he pretty much chooses..

Check out more boxing news on video at The Boxing Channel.

Ted Sares is one of the world’s oldest active power lifters and holds several records in the Grand Master class. A member of Ring 4’s Boxing Hall of Fame, he enjoys writing about boxing.

COMMENTS

-FrankinDallas :

Is Manny even relevant anymore? I appreciate that he needs to fight and make money to pay his entourage, but surely he doesn't get top contender type bouts anymore.


-FrankinDallas :

Is Manny even relevant anymore? I appreciate that he needs to fight and make money to pay his entourage, but surely he doesn't get top contender type bouts anymore.


-larueboenig :

How about here in Las Vegas?


-dollar bond :

Crawford was more then ready...it was the biggest fight out there that MP said he was considering (Crawford, Khan, Bradley, Vargas)...Arum, point blank, asked Pacquino to fight Crawford...Pacquino wasn't ready to get his butt kicked in by Crawford--and has steadily refused to fight any of the top Walters. Sad.


-JohnnyTango :

His popularity generates money, so I'd keep fighting if I were him. However, I'd make DAMN sure my opponents are hand picked. Luckily, I was able to see Pacquiao fight Rickey Hatton at the MGM back in 2009. The Filipinos absolutely love him! Thanks for keeping us boxing fans up-to-date, Ted. Another well written and informative article.


-JohnnyTango :

His popularity generates money, so I'd keep fighting if I were him. However, I'd make DAMN sure my opponents are hand picked. Luckily, I was able to see Pacquiao fight Rickey Hatton at the MGM back in 2009. The Filipinos absolutely love him! Thanks for keeping us boxing fans up-to-date, Ted. Another well written and informative article.


-stormcentre :

Wow . . . With all this talk of Horn and Pacquaio . . . . . And with ?consistency? in such an abundance, as it is. For the love of all that is holy, cutting to the chase, and consistent; one could easily be forgiven for expecting/thinking there would be absolute outrage over Pac fighting Horn. Just as there was with Floyd fighting Berto. I mean Horn is more proven than Berto, right? :) Lift your skirt up Queens, and bend over the table. You know what time it is. I know one thing. As riveting as this piece is . . . . Its author certainly won't be telling us anything factual/new about the IBF's rules too soon. Let alone starting another argument about them.

""Let me refresh you about the IBF rules . . . ."






->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110388&viewfull=1#post110388



" Yep, looks like it's another Numpty's (who failed to even begin to prove themselves and then took a beating for their efforts) scalp that goes up on the hunting room?s wall. Love it. Now all that remains is a real victory celebration. Cheers,
Storm(SupaMegaDominator)Centre. :) :) :)


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110782&viewfull=1#post110782
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110804&viewfull=1#post110804
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110812&viewfull=1#post110812
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865


-Kid Blast :

Deal with the content of the article. I give Horn a slim to -0- chance of winning but I do think he will get his early retirement payday. Mayweather fighting Berto was Mayweather's last fight. I don't diss him for picking a "safe" opponent. Same with the start of Manny's tour. It has to be safe or there will be no tour. Keep in mind that the best no longer fight the best as a rule. Kovalev vs. Ward is somewhat of an anomaly. Ortiz vs Rossy is more the case these days.

.


-Kid Blast :

Deal with the content of the article. I give Horn a slim to -0- chance of winning but I do think he will get his early retirement payday. Mayweather fighting Berto was Mayweather's last fight. I don't diss him for picking a "safe" opponent. Same with the start of Manny's tour. It has to be safe or there will be no tour. Keep in mind that the best no longer fight the best as a rule. Kovalev vs. Ward is somewhat of an anomaly. Ortiz vs Rossy is more the case these days.


-Kid Blast :

I have no idea why the posts keep duplicating and I think others seem to have that issue as well.


-Kid Blast :

I have no idea why the posts keep duplicating and I think others seem to have that issue as well.


-stormcentre :

Deal with the content of the article.
Oh, that's not very nice ?Dr Consistency?. I got something for you though. :) Hey . . . ?Dr Consistency? . . . It's good to hear from you again. You know, I thought you had gone AWOL.

Now, to answer your (latest) crying question . . . .


"Dr. Consistency"; ""Deal with the content of the article.""

And, I know (from the below/other posts/links) that you just "love" issuing questions much, much, much, "more" than you appreciate the provision of answers.

I thought I did deal with the content of the article. I dealt with it the way I wanted to. Just like, say, how you dealt with the content of these (below-linked) ?articles? that you (effectively) started, ran from, and then (as predicted) got utterly flogged for.


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110782&viewfull=1#post110782
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110804&viewfull=1#post110804
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110812&viewfull=1#post110812
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110956&viewfull=1#post110956

So, you see . . . . Unlike you I didn?t run; instead (and "yet again" contrary to your claims) I just dealt with the content of your ?article? in a way you didn?t like. Still, that said . . . As I dealt with the content of your ?article?; I was reasonably lenient and/or nice. Not in the least as I didn?t even begin to point out any real/imagined inconsistencies or assumptions with it. Not like how you did, with the IBF rules and all the clangers you dropped with respect to that unfortunate matter. Now, before I go. A little word of warning to you. By you responding to me it does make your last excuse for not being able to explain all that is detailed within the above links seem to be, well . . . . Just another lie. How about that eh? Who would have expected that from you. Look . . . (When you first started to pretend and start arguments with your trivial knowledge/insecurities) I told you I would kick your azz and laugh doing it. And now I have (unlike you) proven my case and (as predicted) exposed yours; I am doing just that - kicking your azz and laughing as I do it. And, just as you clearly think that, running, pretending, and making questionable claims is your right . . . Please be assured that, kicking your azz and laughing as I do it, is now my right. Of course, in the event I am wrong with it all, you can go over here . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865

And address the outstanding points within all your claims that are detailed there. Furthermore, if you were to do that, I feel confident that it would take you less time than it did to write this wonderful piece of yours. Don?t worry, within that lonely post/link I have not listed all of the (many) problems with your claims and arguments; only a few. I used that (condensed/lenient) approach, as I didn?t want to scare you off forever. And, we all know how facts and the truth has that effect on you. Anyway, top of the morning to you. Oh, one more thing . . . If you ever need to quote and/or understand the IBF rules . . . Please feel free to give me a buzz. Doing so will most likely save you from, both;


A) Pretending to source the IBF rules from fake IBF websites.
B) Pretending the IBF rules don?t contain information that exposes your claims.

Plus, using that approach (where others with real knowledge guide you) will probably take the temptation to pretend (that you clearly suffer from) right out of your ?DonkeyDrooper infested? hands. And, as a result you?ll then suffer far less embarrassment too. Ha ha ha. Lots of love. Cheers,
Storm(TheOwnerOfYourSeverelyKickedAzz)Centre. :) :)


-stormcentre :

Deal with the content of the article.
Oh, that's not very nice “Dr Consistency”. I got something for you though. :) Hey . . . “Dr Consistency” . . . It's good to hear from you again. You know, I thought you had gone AWOL.

Now, to answer your (latest) crying claim . . . .


"Dr. Consistency"; ""Deal with the content of the article.""

And, I know (from the below/other posts/links) that you just "love" issuing questions much, much, much, "more" than you appreciate the provision of answers.

I thought I did deal with the content of the article. I dealt with it the way I wanted to. Just like, say, how you dealt with the content of these (below-linked) “articles” that you (effectively) started, ran from, and then (as predicted) got utterly flogged for.


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110782&viewfull=1#post110782
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110804&viewfull=1#post110804
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110812&viewfull=1#post110812
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110956&viewfull=1#post110956

So, you see . . . . Unlike you I didn’t run; instead (and "yet again" contrary to your claims) I just dealt with the content of your “article” in a way you didn’t like. Still, that said . . . As I dealt with the content of your “article”; I was reasonably lenient and/or nice. Not in the least as I didn’t even begin to point out any real/imagined inconsistencies or assumptions with it. Not like how you did, with the IBF rules and all the clangers you dropped with respect to that unfortunate matter. Now, before I go. A little word of warning to you. By you responding to me it does make your last excuse for not being able to explain all that is detailed within the above links seem to be, well . . . . Just another lie. How about that eh? Who would have expected that from you. Look . . . (When you first started to pretend and start arguments with your trivial knowledge/insecurities) I told you I would kick your azz and laugh doing it. And now I have (unlike you) proven my case and (as predicted) exposed yours; I am doing just that - kicking your azz and laughing as I do it. And, just as you clearly think that, running, pretending, and making questionable claims is your right . . . Please be assured that, kicking your azz and laughing as I do it, is now my right. Of course, in the event I am wrong with it all, you can go over here . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865

And address the outstanding points within all your claims that are detailed there. Furthermore, if you were to do that, I feel confident that it would take you less time than it did to write this wonderful piece of yours. Don’t worry, within that lonely post/link I have not listed all of the (many) problems with your claims and arguments; only a few. I used that (condensed/lenient) approach, as I didn’t want to scare you off forever. And, we all know how facts and the truth has that effect on you. Anyway, top of the morning to you. Oh, one more thing . . . If you ever need to quote and/or understand the IBF rules . . . Please feel free to give me a buzz. Doing so will most likely save you from, both;


A) Pretending to source the IBF rules from fake IBF websites.
B) Pretending the IBF rules don’t contain information that exposes your claims.

Plus, using that approach (where others with real knowledge guide you) will probably take the temptation to pretend (that you clearly suffer from) right out of your “DonkeyDrooper infested” hands. And, as a result you’ll then suffer far less embarrassment too. Ha ha ha. Lots of love. Cheers,
Storm(TheOwnerOfYourSeverelyKickedAzz)Centre. :) :)


-stormcentre :

Deal with the content of the article.
Oh, that's not very nice ?Dr Consistency?. I got something for you though. :) Hey . . . ?Dr Consistency? . . . It's good to hear from you again. You know, I thought you had gone AWOL.

Now, to answer your (latest) crying claim . . . .


"Dr. Consistency"; ""Deal with the content of the article.""

And, I know (from the below/other posts/links) that you just "love" issuing questions much, much, much, "more" than you appreciate the provision of answers.

I thought I did deal with the content of the article. I dealt with it the way I wanted to. Just like, say, how you dealt with the content of these (below-linked) ?articles? that you (effectively) started, ran from, and then (as predicted) got utterly flogged for.


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110782&viewfull=1#post110782
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110804&viewfull=1#post110804
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110812&viewfull=1#post110812
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110956&viewfull=1#post110956

So, you see . . . . Unlike you I didn?t run; instead (and "yet again" contrary to your claims) I just dealt with the content of your ?article? in a way you didn?t like. Still, that said . . . As I dealt with the content of your ?article?; I was reasonably lenient and/or nice. Not in the least as I didn?t even begin to point out any real/imagined inconsistencies or assumptions with it. Not like how you did, with the IBF rules and all the clangers you dropped with respect to that unfortunate matter. Now, before I go. A little word of warning to you. By you responding to me it does make your last excuse for not being able to explain all that is detailed within the above links seem to be, well . . . . Just another lie. How about that eh? Who would have expected that from you. Look . . . (When you first started to pretend and start arguments with your trivial knowledge/insecurities) I told you I would kick your azz and laugh doing it. And now I have (unlike you) proven my case and (as predicted) exposed yours; I am doing just that - kicking your azz and laughing as I do it. And, just as you clearly think that, running, pretending, and making questionable claims is your right . . . Please be assured that, kicking your azz and laughing as I do it, is now my right. Of course, in the event I am wrong with it all, you can go over here . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865

And address the outstanding points within all your claims that are detailed there. Furthermore, if you were to do that, I feel confident that it would take you less time than it did to write this wonderful piece of yours. Don?t worry, within that lonely post/link I have not listed all of the (many) problems with your claims and arguments; only a few. I used that (condensed/lenient) approach, as I didn?t want to scare you off forever. And, we all know how facts and the truth has that effect on you. Anyway, top of the morning to you. Oh, one more thing . . . If you ever need to quote and/or understand the IBF rules . . . Please feel free to give me a buzz. Doing so will most likely save you from, both;


A) Pretending to source the IBF rules from fake IBF websites.
B) Pretending the IBF rules don?t contain information that exposes your claims.

Plus, using that approach (where others with real knowledge guide you) will probably take the temptation to pretend (that you clearly suffer from) right out of your ?DonkeyDrooper infested? hands. And, as a result you?ll then suffer far less embarrassment too. Ha ha ha. Lots of love. Cheers,
Storm(TheOwnerOfYourSeverelyKickedAzz)Centre. :) :)


-Kid Blast :

Yes, the Pinoys truly idolize him. Donny Nietes has a great record and has been a super dominant champion and get little attention. Casimero is another. Manny just out shadows everything else. Meant for Tango


-Kid Blast :

Is Manny even relevant anymore? I appreciate that he needs to fight and make money to pay his entourage, but surely he doesn't get top contender type bouts anymore.
Yes actually he does. He is an A Side kind of guy and that allows him to pick and choose. Moreover, because of his great popularity, albeit with diminishing skills, he is a sought after opponent for those seeking a monster payday and early retirement. Case in point: Khan.


-Kid Blast :

Crawford was more then ready...it was the biggest fight out there that MP said he was considering (Crawford, Khan, Bradley, Vargas)...Arum, point blank, asked Pacquino to fight Crawford...Pacquino wasn't ready to get his butt kicked in by Crawford--and has steadily refused to fight any of the top Walters. Sad.
He needs to stay away from Crawford who, in my view, would knock him cold.


-Kid Blast :

His popularity generates money, so I'd keep fighting if I were him. However, I'd make DAMN sure my opponents are hand picked. Luckily, I was able to see Pacquiao fight Rickey Hatton at the MGM back in 2009. The Filipinos absolutely love him! Thanks for keeping us boxing fans up-to-date, Ted. Another well written and informative article.
Yes, the Pinoys truly idolize him. Donny Nietes has a great record and has been a super dominant champion and get little attention. Casimero is another. Manny just out shadows everything else. Actually, I had to change this article at the last minute because the Horn deal was no longer on the table, but with Arum you never say never.


-stormcentre :

Deal with the content of the article.
Oh, that's not very nice “Dr Consistency”. I got something for you though. :) Hey . . . “Dr Consistency” . . . It's good to hear from you again. You know, I thought you had gone AWOL.

Now, to answer your (latest) crying claim . . . .


"Dr. Consistency"; ""Deal with the content of the article.""

And, I know (from the below/other posts/links) that you just "love" issuing questions much, much, much, "more" than you appreciate the provision of answers.

I thought I did deal with the content of the article. I dealt with it the way I wanted to. Just like, say, how you dealt with the content of these (below-linked) “articles” that you (effectively) started, ran from, and then (as predicted) got utterly flogged for.


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110782&viewfull=1#post110782
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110804&viewfull=1#post110804
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110812&viewfull=1#post110812
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110956&viewfull=1#post110956

So, you see . . . . Unlike you I didn’t run; instead (and "yet again" contrary to your claims) I just dealt with the content of your “article” in a way you didn’t like. Still, that said . . . As I dealt with the content of your “article”; I was reasonably lenient and/or nice. Not in the least as I didn’t even begin to point out any real/imagined inconsistencies or assumptions with it. Not like how you did, with the IBF rules and all the clangers you dropped with respect to that unfortunate matter. Now, before I go. A little word of warning to you. By you responding to me it does make your last excuse for not being able to explain all that is detailed within the above links seem to be, well . . . . Just another lie. How about that eh? Who would have expected that from you. Look . . . (When you first started to pretend and start arguments with your trivial knowledge/insecurities) I told you I would kick your azz and laugh doing it. And now I have (unlike you) proven my case and (as predicted) exposed yours; I am doing just that - kicking your azz and laughing as I do it. And, just as you clearly think that, running, pretending, and making questionable claims is your right . . . Please be assured that, kicking your azz and laughing as I do it, is now my right. Of course, in the event I am wrong with it all, you can go over here . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865

And address the outstanding points within all your claims that are detailed there. Furthermore, if you were to do that, I feel confident that it would take you less time than it did to write this wonderful piece of yours. Don’t worry, within that lonely post/link I have not listed all of the (many) problems with your claims and arguments; only a few. I used that (condensed/lenient) approach, as I didn’t want to scare you off forever. And, we all know how facts and the truth has that effect on you. Anyway, top of the morning to you. Oh, one more thing . . . If you ever need to quote and/or understand the IBF rules . . . Please feel free to give me a buzz. Doing so will most likely save you from, both;


A) Pretending to source the IBF rules from fake IBF websites.
B) Pretending the IBF rules don’t contain information that exposes your claims.

Plus, using that approach (where others with real knowledge guide you) will probably take the temptation to pretend (that you clearly suffer from) right out of your “DonkeyDrooper infested” hands. And, as a result you’ll then suffer far less embarrassment too. Ha ha ha. Lots of love. Cheers,
Storm(TheOwnerOfYourSeverelyKickedAzz)Centre. :) :)


-stormcentre :

Deal with the content of the article.
Oh, that's not very nice ?Dr Consistency?. I got something for you though. :) Hey . . . ?Dr Consistency? . . . It's good to hear from you again. You know, I thought you had gone AWOL.

Now, to answer your (latest) crying claim . . . .


"Dr. Consistency"; ""Deal with the content of the article.""

And, I know (from the below/other posts/links) that you just "love" issuing questions much, much, much, "more" than you appreciate the provision of answers.

I thought I did deal with the content of the article. I dealt with it the way I wanted to. Just like, say, how you dealt with the content of these (below-linked) ?articles? that you (effectively) started, ran from, and then (as predicted) got utterly flogged for.


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110782&viewfull=1#post110782
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110804&viewfull=1#post110804
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110812&viewfull=1#post110812
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110956&viewfull=1#post110956

So, you see . . . . Unlike you I didn?t run; instead (and "yet again" contrary to your claims) I just dealt with the content of your ?article? in a way you didn?t like. Still, that said . . . As I dealt with the content of your ?article?; I was reasonably lenient and/or nice. Not in the least as I didn?t even begin to point out any real/imagined inconsistencies or assumptions with it. Not like how you did, with the IBF rules and all the clangers you dropped with respect to that unfortunate matter. Now, before I go. A little word of warning to you. By you responding to me it does make your last excuse for not being able to explain all that is detailed within the above links seem to be, well . . . . Just another lie. How about that eh? Who would have expected that from you. Look . . . (When you first started to pretend and start arguments with your trivial knowledge/insecurities) I told you I would kick your azz and laugh doing it. And now I have (unlike you) proven my case and (as predicted) exposed yours; I am doing just that - kicking your azz and laughing as I do it. And, just as you clearly think that, running, pretending, and making questionable claims is your right . . . Please be assured that, kicking your azz and laughing as I do it, is now my right. Of course, in the event I am wrong with it all, you can go over here . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865

And address the outstanding points within all your claims that are detailed there. Furthermore, if you were to do that, I feel confident that it would take you less time than it did to write this wonderful piece of yours. Don?t worry, within that lonely post/link I have not listed all of the (many) problems with your claims and arguments; only a few. I used that (condensed/lenient) approach, as I didn?t want to scare you off forever. And, we all know how facts and the truth has that effect on you. Anyway, top of the morning to you. Oh, one more thing . . . If you ever need to quote and/or understand the IBF rules . . . Please feel free to give me a buzz. Doing so will most likely save you from, both;


A) Pretending to source the IBF rules from fake IBF websites.
B) Pretending the IBF rules don?t contain information that exposes your claims.

Plus, using that approach (where others with real knowledge guide you) will probably take the temptation to pretend (that you clearly suffer from) right out of your ?DonkeyDrooper infested? hands. And, as a result you?ll then suffer far less embarrassment too. Ha ha ha. Lots of love. Cheers,
Storm(TheOwnerOfYourSeverelyKickedAzz)Centre. :) :)


-larueboenig :

by Ted Sares PACQUIAO?S FAREWELL TOUR -- Manny Pacquiao (59-6-2) seems to be embarking on his final tour, but like the entertainer Cher, ?final? doesn?t seem to mean final. After his April 2016 bout with Timothy Bradley where he bankrolled a $20 million purse plus his cut of Filipino TV money, Manny said he was retired "as of now.? Sure he was. Speaking of Cher, a 2002 Rolling Stone article estimated her wealth at over $600 million. Since then she has embarked on a hugely successful farewell tour that is still going. The latest from Top Rank (subject to weekly change) has Manny fighting in July and then again in November with Terrence Crawford, Amir Khan, and Adrien Broner possible opponents. His fight with Australian Jeff Horn (16-0-1) Down Under in April somehow got lost in the shuffle, but all of a sudden it has been resuscitated with July 2 the new date. Says Arum, "We?re slowly finishing up the deal to fight...People have agreed on essential points." The fight, as it now stands, will be in the Aussie?s hometown of Brisbane, most likely at 52,000-seat Suncorp Stadium. The fight would be the biggest in Australian boxing history. Horn has drawing power offset by a favorable risk-reward equation for Team Pacquiao. In short, he is compelling but not overly risky Shawn Porter offered former sparring partner Manny a final chance at a major fight before the eight-division world champion retires and wants to replace Horn. But Porter also said he thinks Manny should retire now. Fact is, Porter is all over the place when it comes to Pac Man and is now set to fight Andre Berto. Forget about him. A potentially lucrative match with an always dangerous but chinny Amir Khan in May in theUnited Arab Emirates.fell apart due to lack of financing leaving the talkative and self-promoting Khan on the outside looking in ,but he will soon find someone else to shamelessly harangue for that big payday. Arum had mentioned Adrien Broner, Terrance Crawford, and Khan as possibilities for the November fight. Crawford (30-0) is scheduled to face Felix Diaz on May 20. Thus, the beginning of Manny?s World Tour (at least for now) is commencing in Australia. Arum?s potential scenario ?The word 'world champion? should mean something. A world champion is some guy who will go to places he is not familiar with to fight the best fighter in that area. And that?s what he?s doing.? -- Arum An aging (he?s 38) but still scintillating and highly ranked Pacquiao needs to be circumspect about the order of his opponents whomever they turn out to be. Clearly, Crawford is the most dangerous and Manny might want to save him for his ?final? act?or, better yet, avoid him altogether. It?s equally clear that Horn (no slouch) is the safest to start with. Broner would have been more compelling given his recent struggle with Adrian Granados. In fact, against both Horn and Broner, there is a distinct possibility that Pac-Man could finally break his long streak of no stoppage wins dating all the way back to 2009 when he obliterated a prime Miguel Cotto. Since then he has nine wins by decision and a lot of miles on his ring odometer. Moreover, the interest in a Broner fight would be huge?and a promoter?s dream. Khan might be the next, depending on if and how Manny would solve ?The Problem.? Khan?s weak chin always presents the possibility of an abrupt ending and that possibility would whet the appetite of the fans. However, Amir is no ?gimme? and could give the Filipino senator serious problems. At any rate, there are different scenarios that can be sequenced depending on what amount of risk Team Pacquiao wants to take. Moreover, fighting a number of talented fighters consecutively can be draining and make each progressive fight more difficult. Here are three possible ways to play out Manny?s ?Farewell Tour": Safest Scenario Fight Horn in July. Fight Argentinian Diego Chaves (25-2-1) in November Fight Broner in 2018 Retire. Most Risky Scenario Fight Horn in July Fight Khan in November. Fight Crawford in 2018. Retire. Fan-friendly and financially rewarding Scenario Fight Horn in July Fight Broner in November. Fight Miguel Cotto in 2018 assuming Cotto wins his intervening fight or fights. Retire. This is not the same Manny who ran roughshod between 2003 and 2011, nor is it the one that stopped Barrera, Morales, De La Hoya, Hatton and Cotto to cement his legacy as an All Time Great. However, it?s still a pretty good and highly ranked Manny who managed to school Timothy Bradley ?three? times and punish Brandon Rios, Chris Algieri, and Jesse Vargas. Ironically, while Mayweather negotiates with McGregor to engage in a disgraceful farce and while former four-time world titleholder 43-year-old Juan Manuel Marquez struggles to find an opponent for a farewell fight in Mexico, Pac Man perseveres and remains the quintessential A Side fighter who can pick and choose as he pretty much chooses.. Check out more boxing news on video at [url=http://theboxingchannel.tv]The Boxing Channel. Ted Sares is one of the world?s oldest active power lifters and holds several records in the Grand Master class. A member of Ring 4?s Boxing Hall of Fame, he enjoys writing about boxing.
What about Danny Garcia? He could find a place here, no?What about Danny Garcia? He could find a place here, no?


-Joe Bruno :

ms to be embarking on his final tour, but like the entertainer Cher, ?final? doesn?t seem to mean final. After his April 2016 bout with Timothy Bradley where he bankrolled a $20 million purse plus his cut of Filipino TV money, Manny said he was retired "as of now.? Sure he was. Speaking of Cher, a 2002 Rolling Stone article estimated her wealth at over $600 million. Since then she has embarked on a hugely successful farewell tour that is still going. The latest from Top Rank (subject to weekly change) has Manny fighting in July and then again in November with Terrence Crawford, Amir Khan, and Adrien Broner possible opponents. His fight with Australian Jeff Horn (16-0-1) Down Under in April somehow got lost in the shuffle, but all of a sudden it has been resuscitated with July 2 the new date. Says Arum, "We?re slowly finishing up the deal to fight...People have agreed on essential points." The fight, as it now stands, will be in the Aussie?s hometown of Brisbane, most likely at 52,000-seat Suncorp Stadium. The fight would be the biggest in Australian boxing history. Horn has drawing power offset by a favorable risk-reward equation for Team Pacquiao. In short, he is compelling but not overly risky Shawn Porter offered former sparring partner Manny a final chance at a major fight before the eight-division world champion retires and wants to replace Horn. But Porter also said he thinks Manny should retire now. Fact is, Porter is all over the place when it comes to Pac Man and is now set to fight Andre Berto. Forget about him. A potentially lucrative match with an always dangerous but chinny Amir Khan in May in theUnited Arab Emirates.fell apart due to lack of financing leaving the talkative and self-promoting Khan on the outside looking in ,but he will soon find someone else to shamelessly harangue for that big payday. Arum had mentioned Adrien Broner, Terrance Crawford, and Khan as possibilities for the November fight. Crawford (30-0) is scheduled to face Felix Diaz on May 20. Thus, the beginning of Manny?s World Tour (at least for now) is commencing in Australia. Arum?s potential scenario ?The word 'world champion? should mean something. A world champion is some guy who will go to places he is not familiar with to fight the best fighter in that area. And that?s what he?s doing.? -- Arum An aging (he?s 38) but still scintillating and highly ranked Pacquiao needs to be circumspect about the order of his opponents whomever they turn out to be. Clearly, Crawford is the most dangerous and Manny might want to save him for his ?final? act?or, better yet, avoid him altogether. It?s equally clear that Horn (no slouch) is the safest to start with. Broner would have been more compelling given his recent struggle with Adrian Granados. In fact, against both Horn and Broner, there is a distinct possibility that Pac-Man could finally break his long streak of no stoppage wins dating all the way back to 2009 when he obliterated a prime Miguel Cotto. Since then he has nine wins by decision and a lot of miles on his ring odometer. Moreover, the interest in a Broner fight would be huge?and a promoter?s dream. Khan might be the next, depending on if and how Manny would solve ?The Problem.? Khan?s weak chin always presents the possibility of an abrupt ending and that possibility would whet the appetite of the fans. However, Amir is no ?gimme? and could give the Filipino senator serious problems. At any rate, there are different scenarios that can be sequenced depending on what amount of risk Team Pacquiao wants to take. Moreover, fighting a number of talented fighters consecutively can be draining and make each progressive fight more difficult. Here are three possible ways to play out Manny?s ?Farewell Tour": Safest Scenario Fight Horn in July. Fight Argentinian Diego Chaves (25-2-1) in November Fight Broner in 2018 Retire. Most Risky Scenario Fight Horn in July Fight Khan in November. Fight Crawford in 2018. Retire. Fan-friendly and financially rewarding Scenario Fight Horn in July Fight Broner in November. Fight Miguel Cotto in 2018 assuming Cotto wins his intervening fight or fights. Retire. This is not the same Manny who ran roughshod between 2003 and 2011, nor is it the one that stopped Barrera, Morales, De La Hoya, Hatton and Cotto to cement his legacy as an All Time Great. However, it?s still a pretty good and highly ranked Manny who managed to school Timothy Bradley ?three? times and punish Brandon Rios, Chris Algieri, and Jesse Vargas. Ironically, while Mayweather negotiates with McGregor to engage in a disgraceful farce and while former four-time world titleholder 43-year-old Juan Manuel Marquez struggles to find an opponent for a farewell fight in Mexico, Pac Man perseveres and remains the quintessential A Side fighter who can pick and choose as he pretty much chooses.. Check out more boxing news on video at [url=http://theboxingchannel.tv]The Boxing Channel. Ted Sares is one of the world?s oldest active power lifters and holds several records in the Grand Master class. A member of Ring 4?s Boxing Hall of Fame, he enjoys writing about boxing.


-JohnnyTango :

Yes, the Pinoys truly idolize him. Donny Nietes has a great record and has been a super dominant champion and get little attention. Casimero is another. Manny just out shadows everything else. Meant for Tango
Indeed, Ted! FYI: The Pacquiao / Hatton fight was one of the most celebrated fights I've attended. On one side, you had the Brits drinking their pints and chanting. On the other side was the respectful and humble Filipinos. It was quite an interesting mix. Please keep us up-to-date on Pacquiao's upcoming fights.


-JohnnyTango :

Yes, the Pinoys truly idolize him. Donny Nietes has a great record and has been a super dominant champion and get little attention. Casimero is another. Manny just out shadows everything else. Meant for Tango
Indeed, Ted! FYI: The Pacquiao / Hatton fight was one of the most celebrated fights I've attended. On one side, you had the Brits drinking their pints and chanting. On the other side was the respectful and humble Filipinos. It was quite an interesting mix. Please keep us up-to-date on Pacquiao's upcoming fights.


-Kid Blast :

Manny is still one of the best fighters out there. I rather see him fight than half the champions in the world. Why not Manny/Mayweather again??
Actually, I think Manny might have a better chance this time around if they met. He has been very active. May has not.


-Kid Blast :

What about Danny Garcia? He could find a place here, no?What about Danny Garcia? He could find a place here, no?
Excellent point. Garcia could fit in as a last opponent but he would be risky--or at least more risky than Khan. If I were Manny and wanted to go out in style, I'd avoid him.


-The Tijuana Kid :

I could care less about who Manny fights now. He needs a payday and seems unwillingly to lay down or give the rub to anyone else. Bob Arum of course wants that passing of the torch moment so he can have the next cash cow replace Manny. And good for Manny, that he hasn't given in to Arum's transition plan, which of course is giving the superstar rub to Crawford.


-Radam G :

I could care less about who Manny fights now. He needs a payday and seems unwillingly to lay down or give the rub to anyone else. Bob Arum of course wants that passing of the torch moment so he can have the next cash cow replace Manny. And good for Manny, that he hasn't given in to Arum's transition plan, which of course is giving the superstar rub to Crawford.
T-Craw, with all of his criminal misbehaving, is not equiped to hang with Da Manny. Otherwise the bout would been staged last year. T-Craw has a lot of outsiders straight-up brainwashed. Those in the know know that he does not have the heart for the likes of an ancient Manny. Neither does Mikey G. Holla!


-stormcentre :

Ladies and gents . . . . There's both, some interesting, and also possibly some short sighted comments here. I'm not sure whether Crawford's criminal behavior meaningfully impinges upon his performance in the ring. It may do, but that has not been proven yet. Even though the cards were neatly stacked in Terrance?s favor for the fight due to Gamboa?s recent inactivity, size, and what can only be described as his foolish stubbornness with respect to failing to adjust his style to address defensive liabilities; Crawford?s best performance was against Gamboa in my opinion. Arguably, that fight was also Yuriokis? best performance too. And as an adjunct, Gamboa?s performance in the Crawford fight - given all the constraints he carried at the time - provides a window into how Lomanchenko would fare against a properly prepared Gamboa whom adjusted his style. As, its worth some (objective; not emotional/subjective) consideration as to how Loma would have fared with the same Crawford. Anyway, back to the Pacquaio V Crawford fantasy fight . . . My understanding was that PacRoach and/or Arum didn't want Pac to fight Crawford; when the fight was most likely - for similar reasons to how Rigo dished out a few schoolings to Pac when they were all at the WC gym. I only know that from others I know and also someone that trained at the WC gym, so it may be hearsay. Happy to be corrected on it with facts. As for MayPac2 . . . . Those that can't learn from *history are doomed to repeat it. The layoff never hurt Sugar Ray Leonard when he came out of retirement after supposedly waiting for Hagler to get old; and I doubt it will meaningfully hurt Floyd either. And, Sugar Ray Leonard, stylistically talking and also in other respects, is probably the closest fighter we have to Floyd Mayweather. Sure he doesn?t go for the kill like Sugar Ray Leonard did, and he may not be as exciting. But then, Sugar Ray Leonard (whom, even though I really like Floyd, I probably could say I am a bigger fan of than Floyd) is not quite as completely skilled as Floyd either. Happy to be corrected on that last ?Sugar Ray Leonard V Floyd Mayweather skills? comment with video, evidence, and facts; not emotional rants, factoids, and false IBF quotes/interpretations. Even aside from how Horn is about as (embarrassingly) low down in the danger stakes as Pac could possibly go (Horn is way, way, less proven and less of a challenge than Andre Berto, and Horn is meant to be one of Pacquaio?s last few fights) and what that says about where Pacquaio himself thinks he is . . . There was absolutely nothing in the way that Floyd easily outsmarted and beat Pac the first time around that even remotely suggests that the (only) advantage Pac would have the second time around (if the MayPac2 fight were to ever happen) would play a significant part; due to Floyd's layoff. Still, (genuine oversights aside) I guess for those that had/have difficulty analyzing (or getting over the first Floyd derived Pacquaio loss brought about by) the first MayPac fight, it makes sense that this same group would possibly misconceive the second fight. Even before it starts. As (misconceiving the first fight before it started on the basis of wide sweeping emotional beliefs and combined with very little sound/meaningful analytical evaluation) is precisely what happened in the first MayPac fight . . . Which of course led to many genuine Pac fans and also some PacQueens crying and living in absolute denial (almost like Hillary Clinton supporters fresh after a right royal Trump shafting) after Pacquaio was beaten. The way Pacquaio and Roach approached almost all of Pacquaio?s his biggest fights and testing, combined with Pacquaio?s aggressive (but, in an elite context, technically limited) fighting style told the seasoned fight fan (whom could scrutinse without emotin) that Pacquaio would always struggle with a really talented welterweight fighter that was not strapped to a catchweight. There is no shame in losing to Floyd.
Pacquaio is a legend, and he's probably the most accomplished P4P contender in the welterweight (or thereabouts) division alive today. Someone above said that his bet fight was against Hatton, and to some extent I agree; as that was devastating and reasonably unexpected. That said, Pacquaio does nothing better now than when he fought Floyd. In short, Pacquaio (at the elite level) can't adapt and change. It is almost always this way for guys that fight with Pacquaio?s style. Pacquaio?s entire fight game and strategy is (aside from my above-mentioned comments about how he approached his big fights) usually underpinned by hand-speed, stamina, and offence. And, that style (for many reasons, including their reliance upon certain forward/other movements that leave their author over exposed and in irreversible danger when interrupted) is relatively easy for guys like Mayweather to disrupt and/or undo. The proof is in how Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves, quite literally came out of the woodwork prior to MayPac1 to tell us all how Floyd's southpaw sparring partners were woefully inadequate to prepare him for Pacquaio. We were all told - in writing - by Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves that the ?B? and ?C? graders that Floyd had in his camp to prepare him for Pacquaio would be his downfall; as none came even close to comparing to Pacquaio. And, as we all know they were all wrong. As, the fact of the matter was that (according to Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves) Floyd's woefully inadequate southpaw sparring partners "were" actually more than enough to prepare Mayweather for the version of Pacquaio that Floyd faced. And, that version, in my opinion, was and is far better than the one we have now and that which would fight Floyd again in the fantasy MayPac2 fight. Further objective proof of this comes from the fact that (even according to Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves; whom, whilst in denial about the Pacquaio loss complained loudly about Floyd?s low activity within the MayPac1 fight, effectively confirming that) Floyd didn?t even need to do much in the first fight, to beat Pacquaio. This is because a guy as skilled as Floyd (even with a low activity rate) can disrupt Pacquaio?s style and stop him fighting his own fight. In turn that makes Pacquaio fight someone else?s fight. And Pacquaio;


A) Not only, doesn?t do that very often.
B) But also, he probably would be unable to properly train/prepare for it; especially with Roach in his corner.

So, we see that (contrary to what Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves emotionally told us about how Floyd's southpaw sparring partners and the other preparation activities Floyd engaged in prior to fighting Pacquaio were supposedly woefully inadequate to prepare him for Pacquaio) the unpopular fact of the matter was that Pacquaio "himself "was the one that was not fully prepared. And, that was where the (questionable and largely unproven) shoulder injury (and running from explanations) came in very handy. Some would say, Pacquaio took ?"the high road"? by leaving the MayPac post fight presser early with tail between legs, failing to adequately explain himself, and hiding behind the shoulder injury and all the suspicious activities that followed it and did nothing to remove the ambiguity. Others would call it cheating and lying. Still, if nothing else, it possibly provides an insight into how/why some may favor Pacquaio over Floyd in a fantasy rematch. No matter what (like some others whom bite off more than they can chew and then subscribe to factoids as they run) Pacquaio pretty much begged for the Mayweather fight - then when he got himself into the fight and it became obvious that he was not completely prepared for how easily Floyd would dismantle his style, he then lost. From there Pacquaio ran from the truth and provision of explanations about it. Sound familiar? Anyway, speaking of *history repeating itself . . . . With the Brisbane Horn V Pacquaio fight now seemingly looming I am just waiting for a few reliably insightful boxing writers to, once again (and in true Green V Mundine form) push scrutiny to one side as they open and swallow up big almost any and everything that Duco events and Top Rank send them about the fight and its participants. And, just as some pre-fight articles about the Horn V Pacquaio fight themselves may serve as writer's advertisements to the promoters themselves; in a context that will hopefully create a connection and communication channel to facilitate un-scrutinized/other information to pass back and forth in a mutually convenient way . . . . You can almost be certain it will happen with the Horn V Pacquaio fight . In fact, in that context/sense, I will not be at all surprised to see the Horn V Pacquaio fight reported on in a manner not too dissimilar to one of those heavily advertised ?B? grade movies that ultimately turn out to be unintended comedies; due to how predictable and poorly planned they are. Appreciate this post may not be the ?feel good news? some want to hear. So with that and also the evil, wicked, and naughty, truth in mind . . . . If there's anything that's not true in it please detail it clearly and I will consider giving it my best shot to explain, substantiate, clarify, and - where required - amend. Till dat happen . . . . . Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110782&viewfull=1#post110782
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110804&viewfull=1#post110804
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110812&viewfull=1#post110812
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110956&viewfull=1#post110956
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110985&viewfull=1#post110985


-stormcentre :

Ladies and gents . . . . There's both, some interesting, and also possibly some short sighted comments here. I'm not sure whether Crawford's criminal behavior meaningfully impinges upon his performance in the ring. It may do, but that has not been proven yet. Even though the cards were neatly stacked in Terrance’s favor for the fight due to Gamboa’s recent inactivity, size, and what can only be described as his foolish stubbornness with respect to failing to adjust his style to address defensive liabilities; Crawford’s best performance was against Gamboa in my opinion. Arguably, that fight was also Yuriokis’ best performance too. And as an adjunct, Gamboa’s performance in the Crawford fight - given all the constraints he carried at the time - provides a window into how Lomanchenko would fare against a properly prepared Gamboa whom adjusted his style. As, its worth some (objective; not emotional/subjective) consideration as to how Loma would have fared with the same Crawford. Anyway, back to the Pacquaio V Crawford fantasy fight . . . My understanding was that PacRoach and/or Arum didn't want Pac to fight Crawford; when the fight was most likely - for similar reasons to how Rigo dished out a few schoolings to Pac when they were all at the WC gym. I only know that from others I know and also someone that trained at the WC gym, so it may be hearsay. Happy to be corrected on it with facts. As for MayPac2 . . . . Those that can't learn from *history are doomed to repeat it. The layoff never hurt Sugar Ray Leonard when he came out of retirement after supposedly waiting for Hagler to get old; and I doubt it will meaningfully hurt Floyd either. And, Sugar Ray Leonard, stylistically talking and also in other respects, is probably the closest fighter we have to Floyd Mayweather. Sure he doesn’t go for the kill like Sugar Ray Leonard did, and he may not be as exciting. But then, Sugar Ray Leonard (whom, even though I really like Floyd, I probably could say I am a bigger fan of than Floyd) is not quite as completely skilled as Floyd either. Happy to be corrected on that last “Sugar Ray Leonard V Floyd Mayweather skills” comment with video, evidence, and facts; not emotional rants, factoids, and false IBF quotes/interpretations. Even aside from how Horn is about as (embarrassingly) low down in the danger stakes as Pac could possibly go (Horn is way, way, less proven and less of a challenge than Andre Berto, and Horn is meant to be one of Pacquaio’s last few fights) and what that says about where Pacquaio himself thinks he is . . . There was absolutely nothing in the way that Floyd easily outsmarted and beat Pac the first time around that even remotely suggests that the (only) advantage Pac would have the second time around (if the MayPac2 fight were to ever happen) would play a significant part; due to Floyd's layoff. Still, (genuine oversights aside) I guess for those that had/have difficulty analyzing (or getting over the first Floyd derived Pacquaio loss brought about by) the first MayPac fight, it makes sense that this same group would possibly misconceive the second fight. Even before it starts. As (misconceiving the first fight before it started on the basis of wide sweeping emotional beliefs combined with very little sound/meaningful analytical evaluation) is precisely what happened in the first MayPac fight . . . Which of course led to many genuine Pac fans and also some PacQueens crying and living in absolute denial (almost like Hillary Clinton supporters fresh after a right royal Trump shafting) after Pacquaio was beaten. The way Pacquaio and Roach approached almost all of Pacquaio’s biggest fights and testing, combined with Pacquaio’s aggressive (but, in an elite context, technically limited) fighting style told the seasoned fight fan (whom could scrutinse without emotion) that Pacquaio would always struggle with a really talented welterweight fighter that was not strapped to a catchweight. There is no shame in losing to Floyd.
Pacquaio is a legend, and he's probably the most accomplished P4P contender in the welterweight (or thereabouts) division alive today. Someone above said that his best fight was against Hatton, and to some extent I agree; as that was devastating and reasonably unexpected. That said, Pacquaio does nothing better now than when he fought Floyd. In short, Pacquaio (at the elite level) can't adapt and change. It is almost always this way for guys that fight with Pacquaio’s style. Pacquaio’s entire fight game and strategy is (aside from my above-mentioned comments about how he approached his big fights) usually underpinned by hand-speed, stamina, and offence. And, that style (for many reasons, including their reliance upon certain forward/other movements that leave their author over exposed and in irreversible danger when interrupted) is relatively easy for guys like Mayweather to disrupt and/or undo. The proof is in how Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves, quite literally came out of the woodwork prior to MayPac1 to tell us all how Floyd's southpaw sparring partners were woefully inadequate to prepare him for Pacquaio. We were all told - in writing - by Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves that the “B” and “C” graders that Floyd had in his camp to prepare him for Pacquaio would be his downfall; as none came even close to comparing to Pacquaio. And, as we all know they were all wrong. As, the fact of the matter was that (according to Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves) Floyd's woefully inadequate southpaw sparring partners "were" actually more than enough to prepare Mayweather for the version of Pacquaio that Floyd faced. And, that version, in my opinion, was and is far better than the one we have now and that which would fight Floyd again in the fantasy MayPac2 fight. Further objective proof of this comes from the fact that (even according to Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves; whom, whilst in denial about the Pacquaio loss complained loudly about Floyd’s low activity within the MayPac1 fight, effectively confirming that) Floyd didn’t even need to do much in the first fight, to beat Pacquaio. This is because a guy as skilled as Floyd (even with a low activity rate) can disrupt Pacquaio’s style and stop him fighting his own fight. In turn that makes Pacquaio fight someone else’s fight. And Pacquaio;


A) Not only, doesn’t do that very often.
B) But also, he probably would be unable to properly train/prepare for it; especially with Roach in his corner.

So, we see that (contrary to what Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves emotionally told us about how Floyd's southpaw sparring partners and the other preparation activities Floyd engaged in prior to fighting Pacquaio that were supposedly woefully inadequate to prepare him for Pacquaio) the unpopular fact of the matter was that Pacquaio "himself "was the one that was not fully prepared. And, that was where the (questionable and largely unproven) shoulder injury (and running from explanations) came in very handy. Some would say, Pacquaio took “"the high road"” by leaving the MayPac post fight presser early with tail between legs, failing to adequately explain himself, and hiding behind the shoulder injury and all the suspicious activities that both, followed it and did nothing to remove the ambiguity. Others would call it cheating and lying. Still, if nothing else, it possibly provides an insight into how/why some may favor Pacquaio over Floyd in a fantasy rematch. No matter what (like some others whom bite off more than they can chew and then subscribe to factoids as they run) Pacquaio pretty much begged for the Mayweather fight - then when he got himself into the fight and it became obvious that he was not completely prepared for how easily Floyd would dismantle his style, he then lost. From there Pacquaio ran from the truth and provision of explanations about it. Sound familiar? Anyway, speaking of *history repeating itself . . . . With the Brisbane Horn V Pacquaio fight now seemingly looming I am just waiting for a few reliably insightful boxing writers to, once again (and in true Green V Mundine form) push scrutiny to one side as they open and swallow up big almost any and everything that Duco events and Top Rank send them about the fight and its participants. And, just as some pre-fight articles about the Horn V Pacquaio fight themselves may serve as writer's advertisements to the promoters themselves; in a context that will hopefully create a connection and communication channel to facilitate un-scrutinized/other information to pass back and forth in a mutually convenient way . . . . You can almost be certain it will happen with the Horn V Pacquaio fight . In fact, in that context/sense, I will not be at all surprised to see the Horn V Pacquaio fight reported on in a manner not too dissimilar to one of those heavily advertised “B” grade movies that ultimately turn out to be unintended comedies; due to how predictable and poorly planned they are. Appreciate this post may not be the “feel good news” some want to hear. So with that and also the evil, wicked, and naughty, truth in mind . . . . If there's anything that's not true in it please detail it clearly and I will consider giving it my best shot to explain, substantiate, clarify, and - where required - amend. Till dat happen . . . . . Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110782&viewfull=1#post110782
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110804&viewfull=1#post110804
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110812&viewfull=1#post110812
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110956&viewfull=1#post110956
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110985&viewfull=1#post110985


-stormcentre :

Ladies and gents . . . . There's both, some interesting, and also possibly some short sighted comments here. I'm not sure whether Crawford's criminal behavior meaningfully impinges upon his performance in the ring. It may do, but that has not been proven yet. Even though the cards were neatly stacked in Terrance?s favor for the fight due to Gamboa?s recent inactivity, size, and what can only be described as his foolish stubbornness with respect to failing to adjust his style to address defensive liabilities; Crawford?s best performance was against Gamboa in my opinion. Arguably, that fight was also Yuriokis? best performance too. And as an adjunct, Gamboa?s performance in the Crawford fight - given all the constraints he carried at the time - provides a window into how Lomanchenko would fare against a properly prepared Gamboa whom adjusted his style. As, its worth some (objective; not emotional/subjective) consideration as to how Loma would have fared with the same Crawford. Anyway, back to the Pacquaio V Crawford fantasy fight . . . My understanding was that PacRoach and/or Arum didn't want Pac to fight Crawford; when the fight was most likely - for similar reasons to how Rigo dished out a few schoolings to Pac when they were all at the WC gym. I only know that from others I know and also someone that trained at the WC gym, so it may be hearsay. Happy to be corrected on it with facts. As for MayPac2 . . . . Those that can't learn from *history are doomed to repeat it. The layoff never hurt Sugar Ray Leonard when he came out of retirement after supposedly waiting for Hagler to get old; and I doubt it will meaningfully hurt Floyd either. And, Sugar Ray Leonard, stylistically talking and also in other respects, is probably the closest fighter we have to Floyd Mayweather. Sure he doesn?t go for the kill like Sugar Ray Leonard did, and he may not be as exciting. But then, Sugar Ray Leonard (whom, even though I really like Floyd, I probably could say I am a bigger fan of than Floyd) is not quite as completely skilled as Floyd either. Happy to be corrected on that last ?Sugar Ray Leonard V Floyd Mayweather skills? comment with video, evidence, and facts; not emotional rants, factoids, and false IBF quotes/interpretations. Even aside from how Horn is about as (embarrassingly) low down in the danger stakes as Pac could possibly go (Horn is way, way, less proven and less of a challenge than Andre Berto, and Horn is meant to be one of Pacquaio?s last few fights) and what that says about where Pacquaio himself thinks he is . . . There was absolutely nothing in the way that Floyd easily outsmarted and beat Pac the first time around that even remotely suggests that the (only) advantage Pac would have the second time around (if the MayPac2 fight were to ever happen) would play a significant part; due to Floyd's layoff. Still, (genuine oversights aside) I guess for those that had/have difficulty analyzing (or getting over the first Floyd derived Pacquaio loss brought about by) the first MayPac fight, it makes sense that this same group would possibly misconceive the second fight. Even before it starts. As (misconceiving the first fight before it started on the basis of wide sweeping emotional beliefs combined with very little sound/meaningful analytical evaluation) is precisely what happened in the first MayPac fight . . . Which of course led to many genuine Pac fans and also some PacQueens crying and living in absolute denial (almost like Hillary Clinton supporters fresh after a right royal Trump shafting) after Pacquaio was beaten. The way Pacquaio and Roach approached almost all of Pacquaio?s biggest fights and testing, combined with Pacquaio?s aggressive (but, in an elite context, technically limited) fighting style told the seasoned fight fan (whom could scrutinse without emotion) that Pacquaio would always struggle with a really talented welterweight fighter that was not strapped to a catchweight. There is no shame in losing to Floyd.
Pacquaio is a legend, and he's probably the most accomplished P4P contender in the welterweight (or thereabouts) division alive today. Someone above said that his best fight was against Hatton, and to some extent I agree; as that was devastating and reasonably unexpected. That said, Pacquaio does nothing better now than when he fought Floyd. In short, Pacquaio (at the elite level) can't adapt and change. It is almost always this way for guys that fight with Pacquaio?s style. Pacquaio?s entire fight game and strategy is (aside from my above-mentioned comments about how he approached his big fights) usually underpinned by hand-speed, stamina, and offence. And, that style (for many reasons, including their reliance upon certain forward/other movements that leave their author over exposed and in irreversible danger when interrupted) is relatively easy for guys like Mayweather to disrupt and/or undo. The proof is in how Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves, quite literally came out of the woodwork prior to MayPac1 to tell us all how Floyd's southpaw sparring partners were woefully inadequate to prepare him for Pacquaio. We were all told - in writing - by Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves that the ?B? and ?C? graders that Floyd had in his camp to prepare him for Pacquaio would be his downfall; as none came even close to comparing to Pacquaio. And, as we all know they were all wrong. As, the fact of the matter was that (according to Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves) Floyd's woefully inadequate southpaw sparring partners "were" actually more than enough to prepare Mayweather for the version of Pacquaio that Floyd faced. And, that version, in my opinion, was and is far better than the one we have now and that which would fight Floyd again in the fantasy MayPac2 fight. Further objective proof of this comes from the fact that (even according to Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves; whom, whilst in denial about the Pacquaio loss complained loudly about Floyd?s low activity within the MayPac1 fight, effectively confirming that) Floyd didn?t even need to do much in the first fight, to beat Pacquaio. This is because a guy as skilled as Floyd (even with a low activity rate) can disrupt Pacquaio?s style and stop him fighting his own fight. In turn that makes Pacquaio fight someone else?s fight. And Pacquaio;


A) Not only, doesn?t do that very often.
B) But also, he probably would be unable to properly train/prepare for it; especially with Roach in his corner.

So, we see that (contrary to what Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves emotionally told us about how Floyd's southpaw sparring partners and the other preparation activities Floyd engaged in prior to fighting Pacquaio that were supposedly woefully inadequate to prepare him for Pacquaio) the unpopular fact of the matter was that Pacquaio "himself "was the one that was not fully prepared. And, that was where the (questionable and largely unproven) shoulder injury (and running from explanations) came in very handy. Some would say, Pacquaio took ?"the high road"? by leaving the MayPac post fight presser early with tail between legs, failing to adequately explain himself, and hiding behind the shoulder injury and all the suspicious activities that both, followed it and did nothing to remove the ambiguity. Others would call it cheating and lying. Still, if nothing else, it possibly provides an insight into how/why some may favor Pacquaio over Floyd in a fantasy rematch. No matter what (like some others whom bite off more than they can chew and then subscribe to factoids as they run) Pacquaio pretty much begged for the Mayweather fight - then when he got himself into the fight and it became obvious that he was not completely prepared for how easily Floyd would dismantle his style, he then lost. From there Pacquaio ran from the truth and provision of explanations about it. Sound familiar? Anyway, speaking of *history repeating itself . . . . With the Brisbane Horn V Pacquaio fight now seemingly looming I am just waiting for a few reliably insightful boxing writers to, once again (and in true Green V Mundine form) push scrutiny to one side as they open and swallow up big almost any and everything that Duco events and Top Rank send them about the fight and its participants. And, just as some pre-fight articles about the Horn V Pacquaio fight themselves may serve as writer's advertisements to the promoters themselves; in a context that will hopefully create a connection and communication channel to facilitate un-scrutinized/other information to pass back and forth in a mutually convenient way . . . . You can almost be certain it will happen with the Horn V Pacquaio fight . In fact, in that context/sense, I will not be at all surprised to see the Horn V Pacquaio fight reported on in a manner not too dissimilar to one of those heavily advertised ?B? grade movies that ultimately turn out to be unintended comedies; due to how predictable and poorly planned they are. Appreciate this post may not be the ?feel good news? some want to hear. So with that and also the evil, wicked, and naughty, truth in mind . . . . If there's anything that's not true in it please detail it clearly and I will consider giving it my best shot to explain, substantiate, clarify, and - where required - amend. Till dat happen . . . . . Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110782&viewfull=1#post110782
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110804&viewfull=1#post110804
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110812&viewfull=1#post110812
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110956&viewfull=1#post110956
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110985&viewfull=1#post110985


-Kid Blast :

T-Craw, with all of his criminal misbehaving, is not equiped to hang with Da Manny. Otherwise the bout would been staged last year. T-Craw has a lot of outsiders straight-up brainwashed. Those in the know know that he does not have the heart for the likes of an ancient Manny. Neither does Mikey G. Holla!
I understand your observations about Crawford, but once the bell rings he is a focused fighter with a noticeable mean-streak. I really think he should not be in Pac's World Tour. But I would give Pac a least a shot at beating him. As for Mikey, I'd avoid him like the bubonic plague. If JJM was able to counter Pac to sleep, certainly a harder hitting Garcia might well do the same. That would be a dangerous fight for Pac. Much better off with Garcia, Cotto, or Khan. My favorite fight would be a match up with Broner. Could be billed as Bad vs Good. As for a rematch with Mayweather, the issue for me is ring rust vs activity. Mayweather reportedly is always in the gym and lives a clean life, However, the issue of reflexes is one that must be addressed. Jones seemed to lose them overnight in is first fight with Tarver, though I place much of the blame on his weight loss after Ruiz. Mayweather is still someone who has a tremendous tool box from which to pick and choose. Pac is Pac and though he looked good at beating Bradley and Vargas, his style remains essentially the same sans power. This all said, I like Pac's chances in a rematch. Thee is no way in hell Mayweather can stop him and knowing this, Roach should be able to come up with an offensive plan that allows Pac to anticipate May's sneaky leads and sharp counters. The blue print was laid out there by Maidana in the first encounter. Use it and a rematch could be interesting. Would Pac risk one? I think yes. Mayweather? I think not So it remains a fantasy proposition.


-Kid Blast :

T-Craw, with all of his criminal misbehaving, is not equiped to hang with Da Manny. Otherwise the bout would been staged last year. T-Craw has a lot of outsiders straight-up brainwashed. Those in the know know that he does not have the heart for the likes of an ancient Manny. Neither does Mikey G. Holla!
I understand your observations about Crawford, but once the bell rings he is a focused fighter with a noticeable mean-streak. I really think he should not be in Pac's World Tour. But I would give Pac a shot at beating him. As for Mikey, I'd avoid him like the bubonic plague. If JJM was able to counter Pac to sleep, certainly a harder hitting Garcia might well do the same. That would be a dangerous fight for Pac. Much better off with Garcia, Cotto, or Khan. My favorite fight would be a match up with Broner. Could be billed as Bad vs Good. As for a rematch with Mayweather, the issue here is ring rust vs activity. Mayweather reportedly is always in the gym and lives a clean life, However, the issue of reflexes is one that must be addressed. Jones seemed to lose them overnight in his first fight with Tarver, though I place much of the blame on his weight loss after Ruiz. Mayweather will still someone who has a tremendous tool box from which to pick and choose. Pac is Pac and though he looked good at beating Bradley and Vargas, his style remains the same sans power. This all said, I like Pac's chances in a rematch. Thee is no way in hell Mayweather can stop him and Roach should be able to come up with an offensive plan that allows Pac to anticipate May's sneaky leads and sharp counters. The blue print was laid out there by Maidana in the first encounter. Use it and a rematch could be interesting. Would Pac risk one? I think yes. Mayweather? I think not So it remains a fantasy proposition. Thanks for your post Radam


-Kid Blast :

I could care less about who Manny fights now. He needs a payday and seems unwillingly to lay down or give the rub to anyone else. Bob Arum of course wants that passing of the torch moment so he can have the next cash cow replace Manny. And good for Manny, that he hasn't given in to Arum's transition plan, which of course is giving the superstar rub to Crawford.
Nice to see you drop by from Panama Kid and thanks for the email re my son-in-law. You are right. Arum is Arum and now it's time to milk some final egg money from a touring Pac, and then promote the Crawford bandwagon--maybe with some help from Warren Buffet who is a Crawford fan. However, Bud needs to keep his outside-the-ring activities in tow. He needs someone to counsel him and get his head straight NOW.


-Kid Blast :

I could care less about who Manny fights now. He needs a payday and seems unwillingly to lay down or give the rub to anyone else. Bob Arum of course wants that passing of the torch moment so he can have the next cash cow replace Manny. And good for Manny, that he hasn't given in to Arum's transition plan, which of course is giving the superstar rub to Crawford.
Nice to see you drop by from Panama Kid and thanks for the email re my son-in-law. You are right. Arum is Arum and now it's time to milk some final egg money from a touring Pac, and then promote the Crawford bandwagon--maybe with some help from Warren Buffet who is a Crawford fan. However, Bud needs to keep his outside-the-ring activities in tow. He needs someone to counsel him and get his head straight NOW.


-stormcentre :

Ladies and gents . . . . There's both, some interesting, and also possibly some short sighted comments here. I'm not sure whether Crawford's criminal behavior meaningfully impinges upon his performance in the ring. It may do, but that has not been proven yet. Even though the cards were neatly stacked in Terrance’s favor for the fight due to Gamboa’s recent inactivity, size, and what can only be described as his foolish stubbornness with respect to failing to adjust his style to address defensive liabilities; Crawford’s best performance was against Gamboa in my opinion. Arguably, that fight was also Yuriokis’ best performance too. And as an adjunct, Gamboa’s performance in the Crawford fight - given all the constraints he carried at the time - provides a window into how Lomanchenko would fare against a properly prepared Gamboa whom adjusted his style. As, its worth some (objective; not emotional/subjective) consideration as to how Loma would have fared with the same Crawford. Anyway, back to the Pacquaio V Crawford fantasy fight . . . My understanding was that PacRoach and/or Arum didn't want Pac to fight Crawford; when the fight was most likely - for similar reasons to how Rigo dished out a few schoolings to Pac when they were all at the WC gym. I only know that from others I know and also someone that trained at the WC gym, so it may be hearsay. Happy to be corrected on it with facts. As for MayPac2 . . . . Those that can't learn from *history are doomed to repeat it. The layoff never hurt Sugar Ray Leonard when he came out of retirement after supposedly waiting for Hagler to get old; and I doubt it will meaningfully hurt Floyd either. And, Sugar Ray Leonard, stylistically talking and also in other respects, is probably the closest fighter we have to Floyd Mayweather. Sure he doesn’t go for the kill like Sugar Ray Leonard did, and he may not be as exciting. But then, Sugar Ray Leonard (whom, even though I really like Floyd, I probably could say I am a bigger fan of than Floyd) is not quite as completely skilled as Floyd either. Happy to be corrected on that last “Sugar Ray Leonard V Floyd Mayweather skills” comment with video, evidence, and facts; not emotional rants, factoids, and false IBF quotes/interpretations. Even aside from how Horn is about as (embarrassingly) low down in the danger stakes as Pac could possibly go (Horn is way, way, less proven and less of a challenge than Andre Berto, and Horn is meant to be one of Pacquaio’s last few fights) and what that says about where Pacquaio himself thinks he is . . . There was absolutely nothing in the way that Floyd easily outsmarted and beat Pac the first time around that even remotely suggests that the (only) advantage Pac would have the second time around (if the MayPac2 fight were to ever happen) would play a significant part; due to Floyd's layoff. Still, (genuine oversights aside) I guess for those that had/have difficulty analyzing (or getting over the first Floyd derived Pacquaio loss brought about by) the first MayPac fight, it makes sense that this same group would possibly misconceive the second fight. Even before it starts. As (misconceiving the first fight before it started on the basis of wide sweeping emotional beliefs combined with very little sound/meaningful analytical evaluation) is precisely what happened in the first MayPac fight . . . Which of course led to many genuine Pac fans and also some PacQueens crying and living in absolute denial (almost like Hillary Clinton supporters fresh after a right royal Trump shafting) after Pacquaio was beaten. The way Pacquaio and Roach approached almost all of Pacquaio’s biggest fights and testing, combined with Pacquaio’s aggressive (but, in an elite context, technically limited) fighting style told the seasoned fight fan (whom could scrutinse without emotion) that Pacquaio would always struggle with a really talented welterweight fighter that was not strapped to a catchweight. There is no shame in losing to Floyd.
Pacquaio is a legend, and he's probably the most accomplished P4P contender in the welterweight (or thereabouts) division alive today. Someone above said that his best fight was against Hatton, and to some extent I agree; as that was devastating and reasonably unexpected. That said, Pacquaio does nothing better now than when he fought Floyd. In short, Pacquaio (at the elite level) can't adapt and change. It is almost always this way for guys that fight with Pacquaio’s style. Pacquaio’s entire fight game and strategy is (aside from my above-mentioned comments about how he approached his big fights) usually underpinned by hand-speed, stamina, and offence. And, that style (for many reasons, including their reliance upon certain forward/other movements that leave their author over exposed and in irreversible danger when interrupted) is relatively easy for guys like Mayweather to disrupt and/or undo. The proof is in how Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves, quite literally came out of the woodwork prior to MayPac1 to tell us all how Floyd's southpaw sparring partners were woefully inadequate to prepare him for Pacquaio. We were all told - in writing - by Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves that the “B” and “C” graders that Floyd had in his camp to prepare him for Pacquaio would be his downfall; as none came even close to comparing to Pacquaio. And, as we all know they were all wrong. As, the fact of the matter was that (according to Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves) Floyd's woefully inadequate southpaw sparring partners "were" actually more than enough to prepare Mayweather for the version of Pacquaio that Floyd faced. And, that version, in my opinion, was and is far better than the one we have now and that which would fight Floyd again in the fantasy MayPac2 fight. Further objective proof of this comes from the fact that (even according to Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves; whom, whilst in denial about the Pacquaio loss complained loudly about Floyd’s low activity within the MayPac1 fight, effectively confirming that) Floyd didn’t even need to do much in the first fight, to beat Pacquaio. This is because a guy as skilled as Floyd (even with a low activity rate) can disrupt Pacquaio’s style and stop him fighting his own fight. In turn that makes Pacquaio fight someone else’s fight. And Pacquaio;


A) Not only, doesn’t do that very often.
B) But also, he probably would be unable to properly train/prepare for it; especially with Roach in his corner.

So, we see that (contrary to what Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves emotionally told us about how Floyd's southpaw sparring partners and the other preparation activities Floyd engaged in prior to fighting Pacquaio that were supposedly woefully inadequate to prepare him for Pacquaio) the unpopular fact of the matter was that Pacquaio "himself "was the one that was not fully prepared. And, that was where the (questionable and largely unproven) shoulder injury (and running from explanations) came in very handy. Some would say, Pacquaio took “"the high road"” by leaving the MayPac post fight presser early with tail between legs, failing to adequately explain himself, and hiding behind the shoulder injury and all the suspicious activities that both, followed it and did nothing to remove the ambiguity. Others would call it cheating and lying. Still, if nothing else, it possibly provides an insight into how/why some may favor Pacquaio over Floyd in a fantasy rematch. No matter what (like some others whom bite off more than they can chew and then subscribe to factoids as they run) Pacquaio pretty much begged for the Mayweather fight - then when he got himself into the fight and it became obvious that he was not completely prepared for how easily Floyd would dismantle his style, he then lost. From there Pacquaio ran from the truth and provision of explanations about it. Sound familiar? Anyway, speaking of *history repeating itself . . . . With the Brisbane Horn V Pacquaio fight now seemingly looming I am just waiting for a few reliably insightful boxing writers to, once again (and in true Green V Mundine form) push scrutiny to one side as they open and swallow up big almost any and everything that Duco events and Top Rank send them about the fight and its participants. And, just as some pre-fight articles about the Horn V Pacquaio fight themselves may serve as writer's advertisements to the promoters themselves; in a context that will hopefully create a connection and communication channel to facilitate un-scrutinized/other information to pass back and forth in a mutually convenient way . . . . You can almost be certain it will happen with the Horn V Pacquaio fight . In fact, in that context/sense, I will not be at all surprised to see the Horn V Pacquaio fight reported on in a manner not too dissimilar to one of those heavily advertised “B” grade movies that ultimately turn out to be unintended comedies; due to how predictable and poorly planned they are. Appreciate this post may not be the “feel good news” some want to hear. So with that and also the evil, wicked, and naughty, truth in mind . . . . If there's anything that's not true in it please detail it clearly and I will consider giving it my best shot to explain, substantiate, clarify, and - where required - amend. Till dat happen . . . . . Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110782&viewfull=1#post110782
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110804&viewfull=1#post110804
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110812&viewfull=1#post110812
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110956&viewfull=1#post110956
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110985&viewfull=1#post110985


-stormcentre :

Ladies and gents . . . . There's both, some interesting, and also possibly some short sighted comments here. I'm not sure whether Crawford's criminal behavior meaningfully impinges upon his performance in the ring. It may do, but that has not been proven yet. Even though the cards were neatly stacked in Terrance?s favor for the fight due to Gamboa?s recent inactivity, size, and what can only be described as his foolish stubbornness with respect to failing to adjust his style to address defensive liabilities; Crawford?s best performance was against Gamboa in my opinion. Arguably, that fight was also Yuriokis? best performance too. And as an adjunct, Gamboa?s performance in the Crawford fight - given all the constraints he carried at the time - provides a window into how Lomanchenko would fare against a properly prepared Gamboa whom adjusted his style. As, its worth some (objective; not emotional/subjective) consideration as to how Loma would have fared with the same Crawford. Anyway, back to the Pacquaio V Crawford fantasy fight . . . My understanding was that PacRoach and/or Arum didn't want Pac to fight Crawford; when the fight was most likely - for similar reasons to how Rigo dished out a few schoolings to Pac when they were all at the WC gym. I only know that from others I know and also someone that trained at the WC gym, so it may be hearsay. Happy to be corrected on it with facts. As for MayPac2 . . . . Those that can't learn from *history are doomed to repeat it. The layoff never hurt Sugar Ray Leonard when he came out of retirement after supposedly waiting for Hagler to get old; and I doubt it will meaningfully hurt Floyd either. And, Sugar Ray Leonard, stylistically talking and also in other respects, is probably the closest fighter we have to Floyd Mayweather. Sure he doesn?t go for the kill like Sugar Ray Leonard did, and he may not be as exciting. But then, Sugar Ray Leonard (whom, even though I really like Floyd, I probably could say I am a bigger fan of than Floyd) is not quite as completely skilled as Floyd either. Happy to be corrected on that last ?Sugar Ray Leonard V Floyd Mayweather skills? comment with video, evidence, and facts; not emotional rants, factoids, and false IBF quotes/interpretations. Even aside from how Horn is about as (embarrassingly) low down in the danger stakes as Pac could possibly go (Horn is way, way, less proven and less of a challenge than Andre Berto, and Horn is meant to be one of Pacquaio?s last few fights) and what that says about where Pacquaio himself thinks he is . . . There was absolutely nothing in the way that Floyd easily outsmarted and beat Pac the first time around that even remotely suggests that the (only) advantage Pac would have the second time around (if the MayPac2 fight were to ever happen) would play a significant part; due to Floyd's layoff. Still, (genuine oversights aside) I guess for those that had/have difficulty analyzing (or getting over the first Floyd derived Pacquaio loss brought about by) the first MayPac fight, it makes sense that this same group would possibly misconceive the second fight. Even before it starts. As (misconceiving the first fight before it started on the basis of wide sweeping emotional beliefs combined with very little sound/meaningful analytical evaluation) is precisely what happened in the first MayPac fight . . . Which of course led to many genuine Pac fans and also some PacQueens crying and living in absolute denial (almost like Hillary Clinton supporters fresh after a right royal Trump shafting) after Pacquaio was beaten. The way Pacquaio and Roach approached almost all of Pacquaio?s biggest fights and testing, combined with Pacquaio?s aggressive (but, in an elite context, technically limited) fighting style told the seasoned fight fan (whom could scrutinse without emotion) that Pacquaio would always struggle with a really talented welterweight fighter that was not strapped to a catchweight. There is no shame in losing to Floyd.
Pacquaio is a legend, and he's probably the most accomplished P4P contender in the welterweight (or thereabouts) division alive today. Someone above said that his best fight was against Hatton, and to some extent I agree; as that was devastating and reasonably unexpected. That said, Pacquaio does nothing better now than when he fought Floyd. In short, Pacquaio (at the elite level) can't adapt and change. It is almost always this way for guys that fight with Pacquaio?s style. Pacquaio?s entire fight game and strategy is (aside from my above-mentioned comments about how he approached his big fights) usually underpinned by hand-speed, stamina, and offence. And, that style (for many reasons, including their reliance upon certain forward/other movements that leave their author over exposed and in irreversible danger when interrupted) is relatively easy for guys like Mayweather to disrupt and/or undo. The proof is in how Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves, quite literally came out of the woodwork prior to MayPac1 to tell us all how Floyd's southpaw sparring partners were woefully inadequate to prepare him for Pacquaio. We were all told - in writing - by Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves that the ?B? and ?C? graders that Floyd had in his camp to prepare him for Pacquaio would be his downfall; as none came even close to comparing to Pacquaio. And, as we all know they were all wrong. As, the fact of the matter was that (according to Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves) Floyd's woefully inadequate southpaw sparring partners "were" actually more than enough to prepare Mayweather for the version of Pacquaio that Floyd faced. And, that version, in my opinion, was and is far better than the one we have now and that which would fight Floyd again in the fantasy MayPac2 fight. Further objective proof of this comes from the fact that (even according to Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves; whom, whilst in denial about the Pacquaio loss complained loudly about Floyd?s low activity within the MayPac1 fight, effectively confirming that) Floyd didn?t even need to do much in the first fight, to beat Pacquaio. This is because a guy as skilled as Floyd (even with a low activity rate) can disrupt Pacquaio?s style and stop him fighting his own fight. In turn that makes Pacquaio fight someone else?s fight. And Pacquaio;


A) Not only, doesn?t do that very often.
B) But also, he probably would be unable to properly train/prepare for it; especially with Roach in his corner.

So, we see that (contrary to what Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves emotionally told us about how Floyd's southpaw sparring partners and the other preparation activities Floyd engaged in prior to fighting Pacquaio that were supposedly woefully inadequate to prepare him for Pacquaio) the unpopular fact of the matter was that Pacquaio "himself "was the one that was not fully prepared. And, that was where the (questionable and largely unproven) shoulder injury (and running from explanations) came in very handy. Some would say, Pacquaio took ?"the high road"? by leaving the MayPac post fight presser early with tail between legs, failing to adequately explain himself, and hiding behind the shoulder injury and all the suspicious activities that both, followed it and did nothing to remove the ambiguity. Others would call it cheating and lying. Still, if nothing else, it possibly provides an insight into how/why some may favor Pacquaio over Floyd in a fantasy rematch. No matter what (like some others whom bite off more than they can chew and then subscribe to factoids as they run) Pacquaio pretty much begged for the Mayweather fight - then when he got himself into the fight and it became obvious that he was not completely prepared for how easily Floyd would dismantle his style, he then lost. From there Pacquaio ran from the truth and provision of explanations about it. Sound familiar? Anyway, speaking of *history repeating itself . . . . With the Brisbane Horn V Pacquaio fight now seemingly looming I am just waiting for a few reliably insightful boxing writers to, once again (and in true Green V Mundine form) push scrutiny to one side as they open and swallow up big almost any and everything that Duco events and Top Rank send them about the fight and its participants. And, just as some pre-fight articles about the Horn V Pacquaio fight themselves may serve as writer's advertisements to the promoters themselves; in a context that will hopefully create a connection and communication channel to facilitate un-scrutinized/other information to pass back and forth in a mutually convenient way . . . . You can almost be certain it will happen with the Horn V Pacquaio fight . In fact, in that context/sense, I will not be at all surprised to see the Horn V Pacquaio fight reported on in a manner not too dissimilar to one of those heavily advertised ?B? grade movies that ultimately turn out to be unintended comedies; due to how predictable and poorly planned they are. Appreciate this post may not be the ?feel good news? some want to hear. So with that and also the evil, wicked, and naughty, truth in mind . . . . If there's anything that's not true in it please detail it clearly and I will consider giving it my best shot to explain, substantiate, clarify, and - where required - amend. Till dat happen . . . . . Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110782&viewfull=1#post110782
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110804&viewfull=1#post110804
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110812&viewfull=1#post110812
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110956&viewfull=1#post110956
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110985&viewfull=1#post110985


-Kid Blast :

Ladies and gents . . . . There's both, some interesting, and also possibly some short sighted comments here. I'm not sure whether Crawford's criminal behavior meaningfully impinges upon his performance in the ring. It may do, but that has not been proven yet. Even though the cards were neatly stacked in Terrance’s favor for the fight due to Gamboa’s recent inactivity, size, and what can only be described as his foolish stubbornness with respect to failing to adjust his style to address defensive liabilities; Crawford’s best performance was against Gamboa in my opinion. Arguably, that fight was also Yuriokis’ best performance too. And as an adjunct, Gamboa’s performance in the Crawford fight - given all the constraints he carried at the time - provides a window into how Lomanchenko would fare against a properly prepared Gamboa whom adjusted his style. As, its worth some (objective; not emotional/subjective) consideration as to how Loma would have fared with the same Crawford. Anyway, back to the Pacquaio V Crawford fantasy fight . . . My understanding was that PacRoach and/or Arum didn't want Pac to fight Crawford; when the fight was most likely - for similar reasons to how Rigo dished out a few schoolings to Pac when they were all at the WC gym. I only know that from others I know and also someone that trained at the WC gym, so it may be hearsay. Happy to be corrected on it with facts. As for MayPac2 . . . . Those that can't learn from *history are doomed to repeat it. The layoff never hurt Sugar Ray Leonard when he came out of retirement after supposedly waiting for Hagler to get old; and I doubt it will meaningfully hurt Floyd either. And, Sugar Ray Leonard, stylistically talking and also in other respects, is probably the closest fighter we have to Floyd Mayweather. Sure he doesn’t go for the kill like Sugar Ray Leonard did, and he may not be as exciting. But then, Sugar Ray Leonard (whom, even though I really like Floyd, I probably could say I am a bigger fan of than Floyd) is not quite as completely skilled as Floyd either. Happy to be corrected on that last “Sugar Ray Leonard V Floyd Mayweather skills” comment with video, evidence, and facts; not emotional rants, factoids, and false IBF quotes/interpretations. Even aside from how Horn is about as (embarrassingly) low down in the danger stakes as Pac could possibly go (Horn is way, way, less proven and less of a challenge than Andre Berto, and Horn is meant to be one of Pacquaio’s last few fights) and what that says about where Pacquaio himself thinks he is . . . There was absolutely nothing in the way that Floyd easily outsmarted and beat Pac the first time around that even remotely suggests that the (only) advantage Pac would have the second time around (if the MayPac2 fight were to ever happen) would play a significant part; due to Floyd's layoff. Still, (genuine oversights aside) I guess for those that had/have difficulty analyzing (or getting over the first Floyd derived Pacquaio loss brought about by) the first MayPac fight, it makes sense that this same group would possibly misconceive the second fight. Even before it starts. As (misconceiving the first fight before it started on the basis of wide sweeping emotional beliefs combined with very little sound/meaningful analytical evaluation) is precisely what happened in the first MayPac fight . . . Which of course led to many genuine Pac fans and also some PacQueens crying and living in absolute denial (almost like Hillary Clinton supporters fresh after a right royal Trump shafting) after Pacquaio was beaten. The way Pacquaio and Roach approached almost all of Pacquaio’s biggest fights and testing, combined with Pacquaio’s aggressive (but, in an elite context, technically limited) fighting style told the seasoned fight fan (whom could scrutinse without emotion) that Pacquaio would always struggle with a really talented welterweight fighter that was not strapped to a catchweight. There is no shame in losing to Floyd.
Pacquaio is a legend, and he's probably the most accomplished P4P contender in the welterweight (or thereabouts) division alive today. Someone above said that his best fight was against Hatton, and to some extent I agree; as that was devastating and reasonably unexpected. That said, Pacquaio does nothing better now than when he fought Floyd. In short, Pacquaio (at the elite level) can't adapt and change. It is almost always this way for guys that fight with Pacquaio’s style. Pacquaio’s entire fight game and strategy is (aside from my above-mentioned comments about how he approached his big fights) usually underpinned by hand-speed, stamina, and offence. And, that style (for many reasons, including their reliance upon certain forward/other movements that leave their author over exposed and in irreversible danger when interrupted) is relatively easy for guys like Mayweather to disrupt and/or undo. The proof is in how Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves, quite literally came out of the woodwork prior to MayPac1 to tell us all how Floyd's southpaw sparring partners were woefully inadequate to prepare him for Pacquaio. We were all told - in writing - by Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves that the “B” and “C” graders that Floyd had in his camp to prepare him for Pacquaio would be his downfall; as none came even close to comparing to Pacquaio. And, as we all know they were all wrong. As, the fact of the matter was that (according to Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves) Floyd's woefully inadequate southpaw sparring partners "were" actually more than enough to prepare Mayweather for the version of Pacquaio that Floyd faced. And, that version, in my opinion, was and is far better than the one we have now and that which would fight Floyd again in the fantasy MayPac2 fight. Further objective proof of this comes from the fact that (even according to Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves; whom, whilst in denial about the Pacquaio loss complained loudly about Floyd’s low activity within the MayPac1 fight, effectively confirming that) Floyd didn’t even need to do much in the first fight, to beat Pacquaio. This is because a guy as skilled as Floyd (even with a low activity rate) can disrupt Pacquaio’s style and stop him fighting his own fight. In turn that makes Pacquaio fight someone else’s fight. And Pacquaio;


A) Not only, doesn’t do that very often.
B) But also, he probably would be unable to properly train/prepare for it; especially with Roach in his corner.

So, we see that (contrary to what Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves emotionally told us about how Floyd's southpaw sparring partners and the other preparation activities Floyd engaged in prior to fighting Pacquaio that were supposedly woefully inadequate to prepare him for Pacquaio) the unpopular fact of the matter was that Pacquaio "himself "was the one that was not fully prepared. And, that was where the (questionable and largely unproven) shoulder injury (and running from explanations) came in very handy. Some would say, Pacquaio took “"the high road"” by leaving the MayPac post fight presser early with tail between legs, failing to adequately explain himself, and hiding behind the shoulder injury and all the suspicious activities that both, followed it and did nothing to remove the ambiguity. Others would call it cheating and lying. Still, if nothing else, it possibly provides an insight into how/why some may favor Pacquaio over Floyd in a fantasy rematch. No matter what (like some others whom bite off more than they can chew and then subscribe to factoids as they run) Pacquaio pretty much begged for the Mayweather fight - then when he got himself into the fight and it became obvious that he was not completely prepared for how easily Floyd would dismantle his style, he then lost. From there Pacquaio ran from the truth and provision of explanations about it. Sound familiar? Anyway, speaking of *history repeating itself . . . . With the Brisbane Horn V Pacquaio fight now seemingly looming I am just waiting for a few reliably insightful boxing writers to, once again (and in true Green V Mundine form) push scrutiny to one side as they open and swallow up big almost any and everything that Duco events and Top Rank send them about the fight and its participants. And, just as some pre-fight articles about the Horn V Pacquaio fight themselves may serve as writer's advertisements to the promoters themselves; in a context that will hopefully create a connection and communication channel to facilitate un-scrutinized/other information to pass back and forth in a mutually convenient way . . . . You can almost be certain it will happen with the Horn V Pacquaio fight . In fact, in that context/sense, I will not be at all surprised to see the Horn V Pacquaio fight reported on in a manner not too dissimilar to one of those heavily advertised “B” grade movies that ultimately turn out to be unintended comedies; due to how predictable and poorly planned they are. Appreciate this post may not be the “feel good news” some want to hear. So with that and also the evil, wicked, and naughty, truth in mind . . . . If there's anything that's not true in it please detail it clearly and I will consider giving it my best shot to explain, substantiate, clarify, and - where required - amend. Till dat happen . . . . . Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110782&viewfull=1#post110782
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110804&viewfull=1#post110804
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110812&viewfull=1#post110812
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110956&viewfull=1#post110956
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110985&viewfull=1#post110985
Thank you for your post.


-Kid Blast :

Ladies and gents . . . . There's both, some interesting, and also possibly some short sighted comments here. I'm not sure whether Crawford's criminal behavior meaningfully impinges upon his performance in the ring. It may do, but that has not been proven yet. Even though the cards were neatly stacked in Terrance’s favor for the fight due to Gamboa’s recent inactivity, size, and what can only be described as his foolish stubbornness with respect to failing to adjust his style to address defensive liabilities; Crawford’s best performance was against Gamboa in my opinion. Arguably, that fight was also Yuriokis’ best performance too. And as an adjunct, Gamboa’s performance in the Crawford fight - given all the constraints he carried at the time - provides a window into how Lomanchenko would fare against a properly prepared Gamboa whom adjusted his style. As, its worth some (objective; not emotional/subjective) consideration as to how Loma would have fared with the same Crawford. Anyway, back to the Pacquaio V Crawford fantasy fight . . . My understanding was that PacRoach and/or Arum didn't want Pac to fight Crawford; when the fight was most likely - for similar reasons to how Rigo dished out a few schoolings to Pac when they were all at the WC gym. I only know that from others I know and also someone that trained at the WC gym, so it may be hearsay. Happy to be corrected on it with facts. As for MayPac2 . . . . Those that can't learn from *history are doomed to repeat it. The layoff never hurt Sugar Ray Leonard when he came out of retirement after supposedly waiting for Hagler to get old; and I doubt it will meaningfully hurt Floyd either. And, Sugar Ray Leonard, stylistically talking and also in other respects, is probably the closest fighter we have to Floyd Mayweather. Sure he doesn’t go for the kill like Sugar Ray Leonard did, and he may not be as exciting. But then, Sugar Ray Leonard (whom, even though I really like Floyd, I probably could say I am a bigger fan of than Floyd) is not quite as completely skilled as Floyd either. Happy to be corrected on that last “Sugar Ray Leonard V Floyd Mayweather skills” comment with video, evidence, and facts; not emotional rants, factoids, and false IBF quotes/interpretations. Even aside from how Horn is about as (embarrassingly) low down in the danger stakes as Pac could possibly go (Horn is way, way, less proven and less of a challenge than Andre Berto, and Horn is meant to be one of Pacquaio’s last few fights) and what that says about where Pacquaio himself thinks he is . . . There was absolutely nothing in the way that Floyd easily outsmarted and beat Pac the first time around that even remotely suggests that the (only) advantage Pac would have the second time around (if the MayPac2 fight were to ever happen) would play a significant part; due to Floyd's layoff. Still, (genuine oversights aside) I guess for those that had/have difficulty analyzing (or getting over the first Floyd derived Pacquaio loss brought about by) the first MayPac fight, it makes sense that this same group would possibly misconceive the second fight. Even before it starts. As (misconceiving the first fight before it started on the basis of wide sweeping emotional beliefs combined with very little sound/meaningful analytical evaluation) is precisely what happened in the first MayPac fight . . . Which of course led to many genuine Pac fans and also some PacQueens crying and living in absolute denial (almost like Hillary Clinton supporters fresh after a right royal Trump shafting) after Pacquaio was beaten. The way Pacquaio and Roach approached almost all of Pacquaio’s biggest fights and testing, combined with Pacquaio’s aggressive (but, in an elite context, technically limited) fighting style told the seasoned fight fan (whom could scrutinse without emotion) that Pacquaio would always struggle with a really talented welterweight fighter that was not strapped to a catchweight. There is no shame in losing to Floyd.
Pacquaio is a legend, and he's probably the most accomplished P4P contender in the welterweight (or thereabouts) division alive today. Someone above said that his best fight was against Hatton, and to some extent I agree; as that was devastating and reasonably unexpected. That said, Pacquaio does nothing better now than when he fought Floyd. In short, Pacquaio (at the elite level) can't adapt and change. It is almost always this way for guys that fight with Pacquaio’s style. Pacquaio’s entire fight game and strategy is (aside from my above-mentioned comments about how he approached his big fights) usually underpinned by hand-speed, stamina, and offence. And, that style (for many reasons, including their reliance upon certain forward/other movements that leave their author over exposed and in irreversible danger when interrupted) is relatively easy for guys like Mayweather to disrupt and/or undo. The proof is in how Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves, quite literally came out of the woodwork prior to MayPac1 to tell us all how Floyd's southpaw sparring partners were woefully inadequate to prepare him for Pacquaio. We were all told - in writing - by Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves that the “B” and “C” graders that Floyd had in his camp to prepare him for Pacquaio would be his downfall; as none came even close to comparing to Pacquaio. And, as we all know they were all wrong. As, the fact of the matter was that (according to Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves) Floyd's woefully inadequate southpaw sparring partners "were" actually more than enough to prepare Mayweather for the version of Pacquaio that Floyd faced. And, that version, in my opinion, was and is far better than the one we have now and that which would fight Floyd again in the fantasy MayPac2 fight. Further objective proof of this comes from the fact that (even according to Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves; whom, whilst in denial about the Pacquaio loss complained loudly about Floyd’s low activity within the MayPac1 fight, effectively confirming that) Floyd didn’t even need to do much in the first fight, to beat Pacquaio. This is because a guy as skilled as Floyd (even with a low activity rate) can disrupt Pacquaio’s style and stop him fighting his own fight. In turn that makes Pacquaio fight someone else’s fight. And Pacquaio;


A) Not only, doesn’t do that very often.
B) But also, he probably would be unable to properly train/prepare for it; especially with Roach in his corner.

So, we see that (contrary to what Pac fans and also PacQueens themselves emotionally told us about how Floyd's southpaw sparring partners and the other preparation activities Floyd engaged in prior to fighting Pacquaio that were supposedly woefully inadequate to prepare him for Pacquaio) the unpopular fact of the matter was that Pacquaio "himself "was the one that was not fully prepared. And, that was where the (questionable and largely unproven) shoulder injury (and running from explanations) came in very handy. Some would say, Pacquaio took “"the high road"” by leaving the MayPac post fight presser early with tail between legs, failing to adequately explain himself, and hiding behind the shoulder injury and all the suspicious activities that both, followed it and did nothing to remove the ambiguity. Others would call it cheating and lying. Still, if nothing else, it possibly provides an insight into how/why some may favor Pacquaio over Floyd in a fantasy rematch. No matter what (like some others whom bite off more than they can chew and then subscribe to factoids as they run) Pacquaio pretty much begged for the Mayweather fight - then when he got himself into the fight and it became obvious that he was not completely prepared for how easily Floyd would dismantle his style, he then lost. From there Pacquaio ran from the truth and provision of explanations about it. Sound familiar? Anyway, speaking of *history repeating itself . . . . With the Brisbane Horn V Pacquaio fight now seemingly looming I am just waiting for a few reliably insightful boxing writers to, once again (and in true Green V Mundine form) push scrutiny to one side as they open and swallow up big almost any and everything that Duco events and Top Rank send them about the fight and its participants. And, just as some pre-fight articles about the Horn V Pacquaio fight themselves may serve as writer's advertisements to the promoters themselves; in a context that will hopefully create a connection and communication channel to facilitate un-scrutinized/other information to pass back and forth in a mutually convenient way . . . . You can almost be certain it will happen with the Horn V Pacquaio fight . In fact, in that context/sense, I will not be at all surprised to see the Horn V Pacquaio fight reported on in a manner not too dissimilar to one of those heavily advertised “B” grade movies that ultimately turn out to be unintended comedies; due to how predictable and poorly planned they are. Appreciate this post may not be the “feel good news” some want to hear. So with that and also the evil, wicked, and naughty, truth in mind . . . . If there's anything that's not true in it please detail it clearly and I will consider giving it my best shot to explain, substantiate, clarify, and - where required - amend. Till dat happen . . . . . Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110782&viewfull=1#post110782
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110804&viewfull=1#post110804
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110812&viewfull=1#post110812
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110956&viewfull=1#post110956
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110985&viewfull=1#post110985
Thank you for your post.


-stormcentre :

Thank you for your post.
You're welcome ?Dr Consistency?. And please let me also add that it?s absolutely wonderful to be the recipient of your most genuine and benevolent welcoming hospitality. Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110782&viewfull=1#post110782
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110804&viewfull=1#post110804
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110812&viewfull=1#post110812
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110956&viewfull=1#post110956
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110985&viewfull=1#post110985


-Kid Blast :

What is your take on Horn since you live in the same country?


-stormcentre :

y) low down in the danger stakes as Pac could possibly go (Horn is way, way, less proven and less of a challenge than Andre Berto, and Horn is meant to be one of Pacquaio?s last few fights) and what that says about where Pacquaio himself thinks he is . . .




[QUOTE=StormCentre; post #5]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272167353-Lost-in-the-Shadow-of-an-Historic-Moment-Jeff-Horn-Scored-a-Big-Win&p=108513&viewfull=1#post108513 Oh dear. The hype bandwagon seems to be in top gear replete with claims (pertaining to Australian fighters/history, Horn, and Arum) that (in some senses) come across as if they're unfiltered straight from other sources and, quite frankly, (at best) questionable. Firstly, it was a good win for Horn and he is a great prospect; agreed. But . . . . The best boxer to come out of Australia since Jeff Fenech? Please !!!! This reads like the management of Horn/Parker sent it through. I could go a reasonable way down the list of guys that have - since Jeff Fenech - come out of Australia, and still arrive at a few fighters that are from and/or have lived in Australia that are better than (the current version of) Horn and have fought better competition than him. Robbie Peden, Anthony Mundine, Billy Dib, Justin Rowsell, Shannon Taylor, Michael Katsidis, Danny Green, Jeff Harding, Sam Soliman, and Lovemore Ndou. There you go. And (since I haven't put guys like Lester Ellis, Daniel Geale, and Tszyu in there, you can see) they're not even the top picks (of the best guys to come out of Australia since Jeff Fenech); but they're all still ahead of (the current version of) Horn in terms of being the best boxer to come out of Australia since Jeff Fenech. And let's be straight here, Horn is (still *) fighting - at best - "C" grade welterweight competition (and in the case of Funeka) that's nowhere near its prime. As far as the welterweight division is concerned, Funeka is (now) about as dangerous and washed up as one of Horn's other recent opponents; Randall Bailey. Funeka's best days where when he fought the technical wizard Joan Guzman; and they're long gone. Happy to hear counter views on why Ali Funeka is not as I claim.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * 2015 Horn V Plotnykov fight.


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?22299-An-Interesting-Example-Of-How-To-Manipulate-Rules-A-Bout-amp-An-Incompetent-Referee&p=86689&viewfull=1#post86689
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?22299-An-Interesting-Example-Of-How-To-Manipulate-Rules-A-Bout-amp-An-Incompetent-Referee&p=86723&viewfull=1#post86723
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?22299-An-Interesting-Example-Of-How-To-Manipulate-Rules-A-Bout-amp-An-Incompetent-Referee&p=86742&viewfull=1#post86742
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?22299-An-Interesting-Example-Of-How-To-Manipulate-Rules-A-Bout-amp-An-Incompetent-Referee&p=86770&viewfull=1#post86770

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ever since Horn struggled with Viktor Plotnykov (whom, within the scheme of things, was {for Horn} a reasonably experienced/competent Eastern Bloc fighter) in 2015 and his corner managed to questionably manipulate proceedings as detailed within the above provided hyperlinks, Horn's competition has arguably been (even more) carefully selected; perhaps to ensure there are no further Plotnykov-like surprises. Plotnykov gave Horn and his management quite a surprise - possibly revealing how poorly they had done their matchmaking; and ever since then we have seen Horn face competition that is - if anything - very un Jeff Fenech like. Which (even aside from the fact that neither; Plotnykov, Funeka, Bailley, or Mueller {Horn's last 4 opponents} are considered (by independent and non-sanctioning bodies) to be within the top 50 welterweights in the world right now) is a little concerning, especially given that Horn is supposedly;


A) Not only, the best boxer to come out of Australia since Jeff Fenech.
B) But also, apparently the next guy inline to fight Pacquaio.

Does anyone here really think Jeff Horn deserves a shot at Pacquaio and is even in Pac's (now veteran/dimished) league? AK47, as TSS Editor in chief you should know and/or check all this. I say that as, the story comes across a little like a promotional piece - which is usually passable provided the facts stand on their own 2 feet; and I am not sure they and the hype do. I like Horn and he has potential. But, when Horn's management ceases to select the opponents in the careful manner they currently (and perhaps wisely) do - and when Horn proves himself against a top (even) "B" grade welterweight and one that's not clearly on the decline; then we can perhaps start ringing the celebration bell loudly and consider whether he's the best boxer to come out of Australia since Jeff Fenech. Unless anyone thinks Jeff Horn is ready for Pacquaio (or Brook, or Spence, or Thurman) . . . . . All that is happening here is that Jeff Horn is being moved into the (
~
import) position that Golden Boy - Top Rank previously had Will Tomlinson in (for Fransisco Vargas) so Arum can keep it all under his hat, and some are buying into what Arum is saying about Horn and in doing so facilitating the ruse.
~
This view also appears to align with the comments here . . . .


->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272167316-Heavyweight-Hopeful-Andy-Ruiz-Takes-His-Act-on-the-Road-Is-he-a-Live-Dog&p=108439&viewfull=1#post108439 ""When one observes this pattern in a fighter with a solid record, particularly a heavyweight, it?s a fair guess that he is being fattened up to serve as fodder for a rising contender overseas. But Andy Ruiz is promoted by Top Rank which doesn?t play this game (
they will import fighters with misleading records, but they don?t export them).""

So, in summary (and without the hype). . . On Saturday night Jeff Horn had another good win in New Zealand - the hometown of his management company and place where the above-mentioned Horn V Plotnykov debacle took place without resistance and/or repercussion - and his abilities are promising. Bob Arum is looking for another starry eyed import that will say and do anything to get a shot at the big time, and Horn (particularly whilst both, he continues to win against the competition he is facing and Arum knows his management team are aching to get their first taste of premier league boxing/cheques; and will therefore offer little negotiation resistance) appears to be it. Whilst Horn has not proven himself to be a top contender, Arum is not concerned about that because (even aside form the options on Horn he will get if a Pacquaio fight comes off and Pacquaio should lose) Bob - primarily - has other plans for Horn. Namely as fodder and an easy win (that will raise none of the concerns that Berto did for Floyd) for Pac. When and if Jeff Horn fights, beats, and even stops a top contender in the same fashion as he did Funeka, we can then safely consider Jeff to be genuine world title material. Until then, the fact of the matter is that there are many, many, other Australian fighters ahead of Horn that themselves are still not the best thing to come out of Austalia since Jeff Fenech. I for one, hope Jeff Horn goes all the way. However, I suspect that being matched/managed as he currently is, will probably eventually hurt him.[/QUOTE]

Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110782&viewfull=1#post110782
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110804&viewfull=1#post110804
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110812&viewfull=1#post110812
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110956&viewfull=1#post110956
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110985&viewfull=1#post110985


-Kid Blast :

Thank you I also think SRL stayed on way too long after Hagler. What say you? Arguably, I think Gamboa's best performance cane when he destroyed Rogers Mtagwa who himself had ruined Junama. I also think Gamboa is done. What say you? If Fenech is not the best to come out of Australia, who is?


-Kid Blast :

Thank you I also think SRL stayed on way too long after Hagler. What say you? Arguably, I think Gamboa's best performance cane when he destroyed Rogers Mtagwa who himself had ruined Junama. I also think Gamboa is done. What say you? If Fenech is not the best to come out of Australia, who is? Patrick, Sands, Rose, .....???


-Radam G :

I understand your observations about Crawford, but once the bell rings he is a focused fighter with a noticeable mean-streak. I really think he should not be in Pac's World Tour. But I would give Pac a least a shot at beating him. As for Mikey, I'd avoid him like the bubonic plague. If JJM was able to counter Pac to sleep, certainly a harder hitting Garcia might well do the same. That would be a dangerous fight for Pac. Much better off with Garcia, Cotto, or Khan. My favorite fight would be a match up with Broner. Could be billed as Bad vs Good. As for a rematch with Mayweather, the issue for me is ring rust vs activity. Mayweather reportedly is always in the gym and lives a clean life, However, the issue of reflexes is one that must be addressed. Jones seemed to lose them overnight in is first fight with Tarver, though I place much of the blame on his weight loss after Ruiz. Mayweather is still someone who has a tremendous tool box from which to pick and choose. Pac is Pac and though he looked good at beating Bradley and Vargas, his style remains essentially the same sans power. This all said, I like Pac's chances in a rematch. Thee is no way in hell Mayweather can stop him and knowing this, Roach should be able to come up with an offensive plan that allows Pac to anticipate May's sneaky leads and sharp counters. The blue print was laid out there by Maidana in the first encounter. Use it and a rematch could be interesting. Would Pac risk one? I think yes. Mayweather? I think not So it remains a fantasy proposition.
All of your points are well taken. But T-Craw has what every bully has -- most believing that he is more than meets the eye until returned, fast shots are nailing him upside his head and in his guts. The few guts that he has. I give it up to him and his team. They are masters of TsOTT until a speed and stealthiness that he has never encounter spooks him. He will end up shocking the world by being defeated sooner before later. Holla!


-Kid Blast :

All of your points are well taken. But T-Craw has what every bully has -- most believing that he is more than meets the eye until returned, fast shots are nailing him upside his head and in his guts. The few guts that he has. I give it up to him and his team. They are masters of TsOTT until a speed and stealthiness that he has never encounter spooks him. He will end up shocking the world by being defeated sooner before later. Holla!
OK. Got, especially the part of being a bully.


-Kid Blast :

All of your points are well taken. But T-Craw has what every bully has -- most believing that he is more than meets the eye until returned, fast shots are nailing him upside his head and in his guts. The few guts that he has. I give it up to him and his team. They are masters of TsOTT until a speed and stealthiness that he has never encounter spooks him. He will end up shocking the world by being defeated sooner before later. Holla!
OK. Got, especially the part of being a bully.


-stormcentre :

Thank you I also think SRL stayed on way too long after Hagler. What say you? Arguably, I think Gamboa's best performance cane when he destroyed Rogers Mtagwa who himself had ruined Junama. I also think Gamboa is done. What say you? If Fenech is not the best to come out of Australia, who is? Patrick, Sands, Rose, .....???

I am happy to answer your questions further. Including those that, on the face of it, do appear to have assumed that only Gamboa?s wins are candidates for his best fights. When, in fact, he probably has never been in tougher than with Crawford.

However, before I answer (even) more questions (than I already have) for you . . .
Now I believe it?s high time for a question to be answered by "you". It's just one little lonesome question based on your below 3 posts - so it's not really "that" scary; as it relates to what "you" said.

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #62 [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110545 "Explicitly mentions both, champions and the +10 pound rule; along with how that all applies to the second/same-day weigh in.'
Yes, world champions like Jacobs. DL was not a world champion in this fight. I have no issues with what Jacobs did. It was wrong.
But where---where---in the IBF rule does it state that a non-world champion must do the +10 pond rule.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #68 [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110624 From #22" "A) That the fight was originally sanctioned by the IBF and intended to be for an IBF title; and as such compliance with their rules was required."
What title would that be Storm? A world title? If so, I concede on the spot. If not, please apologize and break out the white flag. It's as simple as that. It really is. I could do this as a syllogism, but why bother? You would only send me a 10-page response. So can you end this NOW?

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Kid Blast; post #74 [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forum...l=1#post110662 If Jacobs did not flout the rules (you said no), how could DL have flouted the rules.
What part of brevity and logic don't you get?

[/QUOTE] Here it is . . . .

One assumes that by now you do know that your previous Lemiuex and Jacobs claims (detailed within the below links) and how they supposedly;




A) Underpinned your back flip of defeat admission on the IBF rules thingy you started; that - if we?re honest - you have not begun to explain.
B) Applied to the IBF rules in a manner that supposedly;


(i) Exonerated Lemieux?s actions as (according to you) they pertain to him failing to attend the second day Lemieux V Stevens weigh in; due to him (in your words/inferences) not being an IBF champion at the time.
(ii) Whilst at the same time they (according to you) did not exonerated Jacob?s actions as they pertain to him failing to attend the Jacobs V Golovkin second day weigh in; due to him (in your words/inferences) being a champion at the time.

Is flawed at many levels.



Including as per that/those explicitly defined by the very IBF rules that you yourself quoted. As (even if your above-mentioned assertions were not incorrect in the way they inconsistently assigned/applied championship ownership/rights to the matter) anyone that can read can now see that, all along, the very IBF rules that you yourself provided "do not" in any way state that non-champions are exempt from the second day weigh ins. In fact, it?s quite the opposite. As, instead, they actually/explicitly state and mean that;


A) Both/all boxers are to attend the second day weigh ins.
B) Only with the IBF's permission can boxers not attend the second day weigh ins.
C) That without the IBF's permission any boxer not attending the second day weigh in, fails; and therefore is not complaint with the IBF's rules.



After all, even though several weeks ago it was patently obvious to even those with impaired comprehension skills . . . At this point (and, despite the fact that it is not required to ascertain the winner of the debate) it does seem that the best and most honorable option for you at this point in time is to simply admit that your above claims were, in the least, not very well founded. Alternatively, a quick and well educated like "cut to the chase" explanation as to how your above claims were actually very well founded, may suffice.

That is most certainly what I would do if I were in your position and unable to explain myself, my claims, and all my many inexplicable retractions, somersaults, and back flips. Anyway, give it some thought and see how you go. As, I'm not sure about you, but it seems to me that anything less would (and please correct me if I am wrong here) constitute an explicit example of you doing both, the opposite of and hypocritically also precisely as you wrongly claimed I was doing in your below post #76; when previously you advised of the (then) reason for your absent explanations.

[QUOTE=Dr. Consistency; post #76] [SIZE=1]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110683&viewfull=1#post110683
and your electronic music. But make no mistake, it was my request that triggered the end. Adios amigo. I am done.[/QUOTE]

Over to you now. Please be noble, honest, and righteous in your response my fellow forum member. Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110782&viewfull=1#post110782
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110804&viewfull=1#post110804
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110812&viewfull=1#post110812
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110956&viewfull=1#post110956
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110985&viewfull=1#post110985


-Kid Blast :

Done and done.


-Kid Blast :

Done and done.


-Kid Blast :

Test


-stormcentre :

Done and done.
Yes . . . . Just as expected. Not even 1 single question related to your own outrageous claims can you yourself address; as you continuously both, expect and receive much more from others. Anyway, since this is the case I will now refer to a very apt remix of your very own post/words that - due to how predictable you and your evasion/running are - I had already prepared prior to my last post . . . .

[QUOTE=Dr. Consistency (StormCentre Remix; Feat TruthHurtsAsMuchAsDrBackFlipsKicjedAzz); post #76]
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168216-Ringside-at-Turning-Stone-David-Lemieux-Capsizes-Curtis-Stevens&p=110683&viewfull=1#post110683
[and answer 1 simple
StormCentre question about your own claims (as you expect your own questions answered)]
[proven]
[that Dr. Consistency's blame shifting claims that wrongly suggested that (not him) but instead others, whom supposedly]
[Dr. Consistency's supposed]
[them - was nothing other than yet another a hypocritical Dr. Consistency's lie designed to circumvent the fact that Dr. Consistency's grasp of the IBF rules and other matters he claims to have great expertise with, is, in real life, actually so woeful that it's
(i) matched only by how poor his grasp of the truth is, and
(ii) by how easily he can invent excuses not to explain, and
(iii) last, but not least, Dr. Consistency's grasp of the IBF rules and other matters that he claims to know of, is so woeful that, despite the fact that - all along - the very IBF rules Dr BackFlip (saw fit to) falsely sourced and questionably asserted (and in a very unmistakable, authoritarian, and unique Dr. Consistency . . ""Let me refresh you - do you even know the rules???"" way)
somehow completely substantiated his claims . . . . Actually did the very opposite of what he said; which, I have no doubt, is the true reason for both, the *contrast I refer to below and also how popular it has now (that the truth and hard questions are out) become to run. Furthermore, even at the point when Dr. Consistency was literally forced to publish the (non referenced) IBF rules and it "then" became patently obvious (that is if Dr. Consistency had actually read/understood the IBF rules half as good as he delivered threats and false claims underpinned by the falsehood that the IBF rules did as he imagined) that the rules - in direct conflict with what Dr Consistency claimed - actually/explicitly did contain the very information Dr. Consistency (wrongly) claimed the absence of was what made him correct . . . Even at that point all Dr. Consistency could do then, was fail to fulfill precisely what this (remixed) post of his initially said he would do; which was explain himself. Of course, none of this even begins to directly address the fact that Dr. Consistency also (in conjunction with all the above) failed to understand how Jacobs and Lemieux's non/championship status really worked as he told us all these circumstances also supported his bizarre claims; whether or not it was within the context of the very same IBF rules that Dr. Consistency was (episodically mistaking whilst also) questionably telling us all he was supposedly an expert in.]
[/QUOTE]

Anyway . . . . I hope you enjoyed the "(
StormCentre Remix; Feat TruthHurtsAsMuchAsDrBackFlipsKicjedAzz) version of your own incredibly apt, hypocritical, and completely false post #76; as much as we did over here. I love this. Love kicking your azz on a subject that you waded right into and - in true Numpty form - simply would not be told about slowing down.

You may recall . . . That when you first started on the Lemieux/IBF-rules matter (amongst my many compassionate suggestions for you to take some time to slow down and rethink your strategy) I effectively told you that (once the truth became too hard to hide for you) it would not be pleasant for you, and as a result your azz would be (as it now is) mine. But you (my noble, honest, and righteous fellow forum member) simply would not listen; would you? You *knew it all back then; didn't you? No problems *getting buy in from you back then, eh? Back then (when the truth about your wild and unproven knowledge/claims was not laid quite as bare for all to see, as it is now; such that it allowed you to still foolishly believe that {even though all along you had absolutely nothing meaningful to give} you could bluff your way through and trick the readers) there was absolutely *no problem getting you to explain yourself; was there? You were big time then. And this is perhaps never more so proven than by your above (remixed) post's (lying and predictably unfulfilled) threat to (supposedly) "
" me.

And, now, look at you. You simply can't *back-peddle, *run, and *evade, quickly and/or frequently enough. And, my good Doctor of Spin, "Consistency", and Back Flip . . . . . I strongly suspect that that is precisely why you now can't get past all the laughable *claims and wild *hypocrisy contained;


A) Within your very own above pasted post #76 (both the original and remixed versions).
B) Even within your last post #43 & #44 (within this thread) that precedes this one, to begin to allow yourself to answer even 1/10th of the questions (about your own remarkable claims) in the manner that you expect others to provide (as misdirection) for you.

This
~
pretend dude doesn't even know when or what non/champions apply to what IBF fights/circumstances. Even though he bizarrely seeks to use that same
~
non-knowledge combined with the same "Jacobs/Lemieux non/championship no 2nd day weigh in", claims, assertions, and suggestions (that themselves were also utilised as a means to supposedly assert validity in relation to his own
~
unproven knowledge and
~
imaginary facts {themselves, completely indefensible due to the fact that they're
~
invented straight from DonkeyWonderland} that actually gave birth to the very questionable "Jacobs/Lemieux non/championship no 2nd day weigh in" dilemma/claims) somehow - but,
~
without ever actually explaining how - as supporting evidence for his own previous claims that both, got him into this mess and he is now
~
running from. And, despite all that . . . . Absolutely none of the
~
non-knowledge that Dr Consistency possesses on the aforementioned matters
~
stops him from choosing to start arguments on those "same" matters. If only he explained as well as he misplaced confidence in his own non-knowledge and running. It's all quality stuff here folks. Truth be told; I should not be able to detail such a
~
heavily nested and
~
accurate description of
~
lies,
~
evasion,
~
pretending, and the tangled
~
web Dr. Consistency has weaved with this matter and all his remarkable claims and actions. But, the fact of the matter is that, I can, he simply can't explain himself, his azz is mine, and . . . . it's fun. :) Love it !!! Cheers,
Storm. :) :) :)
PS: I think I am going to have to go out and buy me some new boots. As the ones I have now are getting mighty worn out on KB's azz pretty quickly now; and I'm only kicking every 10th lie of his I stumble across.
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110782&viewfull=1#post110782
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110804&viewfull=1#post110804
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110812&viewfull=1#post110812
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110865&viewfull=1#post110865
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110956&viewfull=1#post110956
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?272168331-The-IBF-Rules-amp-Whom-Really-Knows-Them&p=110985&viewfull=1#post110985