My article on how Pacquiao can be beaten

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

Tony

Sicc OG
May 15, 2002
13,165
970
113
47
#3
Why would I need to take notes?

I agree with the whole article. Mayweather's style of "boxing" would give a fighter like Pacquiao fits, because he has all the skills (including ring generalship) and won't engage in a toe to toe slugfest like the rest of Pacquiao's opponents. Chris is unbiased as they come and he gave Mayweather an 85% chance of beating Pacquiao.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#4
cause your arguments are "berto would beat pacquiao and mayweather" asked why and your response is, "berto is beast, pac dont want none"

Chris is unbiased as they come and he gave Mayweather an 85% chance of beating Pacquiao.
he also gave berto a 40% chance of beating pac so you gonna change your mind now too?

The percentage is just a guestamate on his part, not like it's some scientific measurement.
 

Tony

Sicc OG
May 15, 2002
13,165
970
113
47
#5
cause your arguments are "berto would beat pacquiao and mayweather" asked why and your response is, "berto is beast, pac dont want none"



he also gave berto a 40% chance of beating pac so you gonna change your mind now too?

The percentage is just a guestamate on his part, not like it's some scientific measurement.
You can call them arguments or you can call them predictions.

Chris has his opinion and obviously he knows boxing.

At this point in his career, I don't think Floyd would be able to handle Berto, after seeing Floyd get rocked by Shane. A prime Floyd would probably school Berto, but Floyd is at the end of his career.

I'd give Berto a 60% chance of beating Pacquiao but that's my opinion....
 
Jul 21, 2002
8,158
665
0
42
Oklahoma
www.youtube.com
#6
I appreciate the feedback brehs.

Definitely an guess/estimate but I'd like to think it's an educated estimate. Berto has all the natural gifts but he needs a trainer that can turn him into a more fundamentally sound fighter. Incredibly fast and strong but you need more than that to be elite. He needs to correct some critical flaws like leaving his left hand down while throwing a right and vice versa especially against fighters that will give him angles and won't just be there in front of them to be hit. Collazo kinda showed that and Berto hasn't exactly improved in that regard. A fresher Quintana might've given him a better fight. I'm rootin for the dude though, I like Berto.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#7
I like Berto too but I don't think he has much power (I believe in your article you stated he has equal or more power than pacquiao). He never hurt two 140 pound fighters (forbes, Urgango) nor did he really hurt the only B level fighter he ever stepped in the ring with (and many believe he lost too) in Collazo.

He's physically strong in that his core body is strong and he can physically overpower guys by clinching and weighing down on them, but as far as punching power goes it's average at welterweight.

I think the biggest flaw with Berto though is his footwork, which is terrible at times. Pacquiao's footwork is A+ he'll stick and move and spin berto to the side and pop him repeatedly. I'd love to see it just to admire the boxing clinic.
 
Jul 21, 2002
8,158
665
0
42
Oklahoma
www.youtube.com
#8
Collazo is pretty tough for what it's worth. I think he was really concerned with Urango's power and was probably ordered or felt something in the fight that made him just box his ears off. Pretty good performance in that fight, even if Urango is limited.

Forbes has never been knocked out before, so you can't knock him too much for that. Collazo had only been stopped once in 2002 as well.

He's physically strong but I still think he has the type of power that can change the fight with one punch with either hand. Pacquiao is a sharper and more accurate puncher though. If Berto can improve in that regard he'll do himself a lot of favors and really start knocking people out.

I think Pac's footwork isn't as good now as it was against DLH and Hatton. Still good but not A+ like it was. Still an A to me and if he fights a figher that really motivates him, it probably will be great again
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#12
You know what would have been the best fight for Pac right now?



I swear to allah that would have been 6-8 rounds of pure savagery.


The tricky thing chis (going back to your article) is that in order for a fighter to beat pac they'll pretty much need to do all of those things you stated (good jab, fantastic stamina, body work, countering skills, feints). There is only one fighter out of anyone you listed that could put all those things together and that is floyd. Floyd on his best day could probably beat pac. Same goes for pac (his best day beats floyd imo). That's why we all want this fight. I also believe floyd has some psychological issue with pacquiao that could be a huge factor in the fight, something that's difficult to measure with stats, fighting styles, etc. I think there is something definitely in floyd's brain that for whatever reason, makes him almost fear pacquiao. Maybe it's jealously, maybe it's he's amazed by his wins, I have no idea. But clearly something is bothering him in a negative way.
 
Apr 25, 2002
9,595
5
38
#13
He didn't write it from a biased point of view. That's why I said I agreed with it.
You agreed with it because he pretty much said Floyd would beat Pacquiao if they fought.

You're transparent.

I agree it was an unbiased article, but if someone else were to write an unbiased article giving the edge to Pacquiao, you'd disagree with it.
 

Tony

Sicc OG
May 15, 2002
13,165
970
113
47
#14
You agreed with it because he pretty much said Floyd would beat Pacquiao if they fought.

You're transparent.

I agree it was an unbiased article, but if someone else were to write an unbiased article giving the edge to Pacquiao, you'd disagree with it.
And don't forget what he said about Berto too smart boy.
 
Apr 25, 2002
9,595
5
38
#16
You're a genious, how did you figure that out? that's a good point son. I'm pretty sure none of these other dudes knew that!
That was directed at the fact you were trying to say the reason you agreed is because the article was unbiased, genius. The unbiased view is not why you agreed, you agreed because the article said what you wanted it to say.

By your reasoning (if it were true), you'd have to agree with an unbiased writer that said Pacquiao would have the advantage. But you wouldn't.

Get it?
 
Jul 21, 2002
8,158
665
0
42
Oklahoma
www.youtube.com
#20
You know what would have been the best fight for Pac right now?



I swear to allah that would have been 6-8 rounds of pure savagery.


The tricky thing chis (going back to your article) is that in order for a fighter to beat pac they'll pretty much need to do all of those things you stated (good jab, fantastic stamina, body work, countering skills, feints). There is only one fighter out of anyone you listed that could put all those things together and that is floyd. Floyd on his best day could probably beat pac. Same goes for pac (his best day beats floyd imo). That's why we all want this fight. I also believe floyd has some psychological issue with pacquiao that could be a huge factor in the fight, something that's difficult to measure with stats, fighting styles, etc. I think there is something definitely in floyd's brain that for whatever reason, makes him almost fear pacquiao. Maybe it's jealously, maybe it's he's amazed by his wins, I have no idea. But clearly something is bothering him in a negative way.
Yep, I've been thinking that about Valero too.

That was also kind of the point of the article. All those things I named would probably need to be done and there's only a couple that could do it. Martinez and Mayweather. The others can do some of those things and they would probably lose because of it.