Boxing press no longer understands boxing.

It’s proving this with the writing off of Manny Pacquiao.

1.A. Muhammad Ali B. Joe Frazier C. George Foreman:

Under today’s rules, Ali could’ve avoided Frazier and waited until he was destroyed by Foreman, making Frazier irrelevant by today’s retards in the so called boxing press.
Some of you may state, well, Pac hasn’t been looking that good for a while now. Neither was Frazier when he was staggered by Joe Bugner right before “The Thriller in Manila. “

2.A. Hector Camacho b. Jose Luis Ramirez C. Edwin Rosario

Sure, Edwin Rosario and Ramirez went to war. I only witnessed it once and to my knowledge, that’s the only time they fought. They were very similar to Pac and Marquez. I watched Rosario knock Ramirez down twice. Jose Ramirez got up and beat Rosario so severely that Edwin turned his back on him. Was Edwin written off? That would’ve been a joke. He fought Hector Camacho and hit him into altering his whole style of fighting. In today’s world, Hector writes off Rosario because of his loss to Ramirez, then goes in and outclasses Ramirez. The press sees this as a victory over both Rosario and Ramirez.

For those of you who are complaining that the board is dead, it can be brought back alive through common sense judgment calls. Why do I say this? Marquez’s questionable win over Pac (Marquez was obviously on PEDs) is being seen as a victory for Floyd Mayweather. This is incoherent logic and laughable to those of us who know the sport. Pac is conveniently written off because of one fight and you wonder why Boxing is fast becoming somewhat obsolete to major sports publications (Namely Sports Illustrated)?

Letters and articles change things. If you want boxing back, you’ll have to work for it. Believe me, letters are read as are Magazines. These days, I can’t go anywhere to read an honest and intelligent take on anything pertaining to Boxing. Except of course, "The Boxing Palace." (smile)

End of commentary.

while i agree with your post, i still think that there are quite a few people who do understand this logic. i dont at all count pac out. other than a mayweather fight, i would still pick him to beat anybody WW and below. and ive always had mayweather beating him so that pick has nothing to do with pac declining. i even think that pac beats marquez if they fight again.

i think that the main problem is that the media is too quick to jump ship from one great to another. after a devastating KO loss like that, pac isnt the invincible fighter he once was in the eyes of fight fans. it was proven that not only can he be beaten, but he is mortal and can be knocked out cold. the writers want to write about the undefeated fighters who seem invincible because they have never loss, but i feel like thats how it is with a lot of sports now. i think that more than anything its the mentality of 1 loss ruining a fighter rather than thinking that a 1 loss fighter can still go on to be greater than an undefeated fighter.

For those of you who are complaining that the board is dead, it can be brought back alive through common sense judgment calls. Why do I say this? Marquez’s questionable win over Pac (Marquez was obviously on PEDs) is being seen as a victory for Floyd Mayweather. This is incoherent logic and laughable to those of us who know the sport. Pac is conveniently written off because of one fight and you wonder why Boxing is fast becoming somewhat obsolete to major sports publications (Namely Sports Illustrated.......
frank and pp I don't understand both of your posts.especialy the above one frank..a questionable win by marquez.pac was brutaly koed.out cold.no movement.almost every fighter koed like that are not the same.no that wasn't interpreted as a win for Floyd.if there were any doubts who would win if they fought and there were plenty it perhaps was errased by a marqueez win a few fights ago .the fight in which a huge majority of fans and writers and boxing folks felt pac got a gift.i felt for a while pac would beat Floyd but after that fight I said no way..he would have to do several things better and some different to be in that fight.marquez is far from a Floyd.
no one is dismissing pac after that last fight..it was the last 5 he had that showed this guy is sliping or isn't the fighter we thought he was.the marquez ko the Bradley fight yes pac won but fought a guy who had foot and ankle injuries which restricted his movement and how he delivered punches...the marquez fight a gift for pac..fighting a washed up mosley.a big time washed up mosley and all the hugging after each round.the fire was gone in pac...margaritto .even roach was asked by margo why do you think pac wil win..Freddie said I saw your last two fights.that said a lot and margos return with cotto deminstated he was indeed far more washed up then the fans thought.
marquez obviously was on peds.we can maybe suspect because of his strength coach but obviously hell no..marquez was far better prepared then pac.he explained how pac does the same series of things with head feights sholder feights certain foot movement and always after that leads with a jab.marquez said his trainer pointed that out to him and to throw a right down the pike when he starts to jab..thats how he knocked down pac in round 3 and koed him in round 6..that was worked on constantly in training until it was automatic..you can see other times in the fight where that punch landed..
pac dispite thoses last 4 fights was the favorite going into the marquez fight.he was not written off dispite his gift with marquez 3..PP how are writers drifting from one great to another..there are not but a few great fighters fighting today that are still near or at the top..in fact all writers learned one thing and admitted it.its don't count bo -hop out of any fight hes in..hes got a few losses.
based on pacs last 5 fights and a brutal ko writers and fans are in the right to question what pac has left..even roach is saying and thinking that.why.because its reasonable.history over the years has many examples to say yes that's reasonable..thats far from conviently writing pac off after just one fight.
finaly boxings decline in popularity or coverage or legitimancy does not come from writing a pac off after one so called fight etc etc.its the several problems that have increased over the years that has lead to that and righly so.we all know the reasons.4 or 5 phoney ruling bodies creating several champs in one division by the same commish for laughable sanctioning fees.hell ward just got striped of his title do to a injury creating a vacancy to be filled by 2 jokers and ward is stil some kind of champ in recess or whatever in the same comish.
as far as figher A beating fighter B fighter B beating fighter C and fighter C beating fighter A that scenario has been going on since day 1.no where has there been a school of thought that frank states there is.over the years its been disgussed several times and the general school of thought has always been that nothing is a given.nothing.

The logic is very simple;

If fighter A beats fighter B, and fighter B beats Fighter C, it's no proof that fighter A can beat fighter C.

Simple as 2+2=4

Frank wrote:The logic is very simple;

If fighter A beats fighter B, and fighter B beats Fighter C, it's no proof that fighter A can beat fighter C.

Simple as 2+2=4

I don't think theres any serious fan that doesn't understand this already.

Also, I don't think Marquez obviously was on anything. He won fair and square.

Frank wrote:The logic is very simple;

If fighter A beats fighter B, and fighter B beats Fighter C, it's no proof that fighter A can beat fighter C.

Simple as 2+2=4

....again what are you talking about frank.i already said that its not a given.again clarify.your saying that because pac etc etc gets beat by marquez a ko that its a given by the general school of thought that its a win for Floyd.no its a win for marquez..some folks granted may feel that's evidence that Floyd could win but its not as you stated that its a automatic win by Floyd in a fight that was never fought that not only the press thinks that in a huge majority but fans also is what your implying.or because Camacho beats ramierz the press feels its a win over both Rosario and ramierz.thats close to a absolute.and false by the way.thats just like saying that jimmy young beat ali which he did and foreman also that the press gives jimmy a win over frazier which is a automatic way of thinking by the press per you.sorry that's a statement of opinion with no evidence to back it up except a claim out of thin air..

saying marquez was obviously on PEDs is the most blatant ignorant hypocritical statement i have ever read from a pacquiao fan. how is saying that any different than the people who said manny was on PEDs when he first moved up to 147? He KOd oscar and cotto and everyone was assuming he was on PEDs, then he refused to take blood testing for a long time. just because marquez came in in the best shape of his life doesnt mean he was on PEDs. you say marquez was on PEDs, i can say manny was obviously on PEDs for his first several fights at 147, then cycled off when the questions started to arise (coincidently this is when he started to stop looking superhuman) you can twist the evidence into your favor for just about anyting. marquez beat his ass fair and square. manny walked into a very solid shot and got put to sleep, it was more timing and accuracy than raw power. i wouldnt say either has cheated in their career, i like to assume guys are clean until proven otherwise. but to come out and definitively say marquez was clearly on PEDs is just a ridiculous statement, its a two-way street, if you want to be skeptical of one, be skeptical of both. that being said, pac hasnt looked all that great in his last several fights. against margo he didnt look great and margo was nothing but a walking heavy bag at that point.
i think manny has steadily declined since the cotto fight which IMO was 1 of his best performances. i think he lost both of his marquez fights at 147, and in the first 1 marquez was fat lol he also didnt look good against bradley. he should run through rios because he still has his speed and power, but his heart just doesnt seem to be in it anymore and he just doesnt look like the same killer he once was. i may be wrong but i doubt it. also once you get your lights put out like that its a lot easier for it to happen again.

BG. excellent post..

Bullshiiiiiittttttttt BG!!!!!

Just because Dmar likes your post doesn't mean it's right. Dmar's a great and brilliant guy but that damn sure doesn't mean he's always correct.

That fucker Marquez looked like a body builder and the punches he landed on Manny that had little effect before had the effect of knocking him down and in the end, out. Some think this was legitimate. Some don't. I say to Marquez and his people, "Get the fuck outta here." Even Marquez came close to admitting his was on roids. To quote Marquez, "It really doesn't matter if I was on steroids or not because nobody can prove it. "

Define the word "it" in the above sentence. It = I was on steroids.

Because I say this is so, that doesn't mean I think it's unequivocally so. I can be wrong though I seriously doubt it. What I mean is, I have given my opinion on this matter and I won't debate. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You have mine.

By the way, Marquez on PEDs was not the theme of my thread, however I didn't mind talking about it.

dmar5143 wrote:

Frank wrote:The logic is very simple;

If fighter A beats fighter B, and fighter B beats Fighter C, it's no proof that fighter A can beat fighter C.

Simple as 2+2=4

....again what are you talking about frank.i already said that its not a given.again clarify.your saying that because pac etc etc gets beat by marquez a ko that its a given by the general school of thought that its a win for Floyd.no its a win for marquez..some folks granted may feel that's evidence that Floyd could win but its not as you stated that its a automatic win by Floyd in a fight that was never fought that not only the press thinks that in a huge majority but fans also is what your implying.or because Camacho beats ramierz the press feels its a win over both Rosario and ramierz.thats close to a absolute.and false by the way.thats just like saying that jimmy young beat ali which he did and foreman also that the press gives jimmy a win over frazier which is a automatic way of thinking by the press per you.sorry that's a statement of opinion with no evidence to back it up except a claim out of thin air..

You missed my point dmar. Of course the press wouldn't think that way back then, however with the lack of fighting today, more people think the way I suggested they think. My opinion.

Have you looked at some of the announcers on ESPN? There's one guy in particular that is an obnoxious loud mouth when it come to Floyd M. He has no business being a boxing tv journalist until he matures above 10 years old. He's turned the MW vs. Pac into a racial issue. He actually bought on Bernard Hopkins and both of them mocked Pac and said that Floyd would easliy destroy him. That's about as unprofessional and childish as it gets.

Yes Dmar, with the fighters you discussed, people thought a different way. The right way. To prove you were a better fighter than a guy, you fought him and you beat him. Now times have changed. That was my point.

Frank...I understand what you're saying, but you lost me using the JMM on PED's logic. Since when is a stone cold KO a "questionable" win, because you think he was on PED's? You lost all credibility there my friend. JMM could always outbox Manny, he put on some added muscle when he went up in weight to fight him. He's a professional athlete, has always been strong. but always cut weight.....maybe your mind is made up & you're hurt by Manny's loss, but without proof, you're no better than Mayweather's family.

did anybody see that pac wants testing for his fight with rios? they said its because rios is coming up in weight and want to make sure he is clean doing it. haha. if that actually happens then pac is the biggest hypocrite ever.

i do understand franks point on JMM being on PEDs though mainly because i remember him posting a while ago about how pretty much every athlete is using. so with that logic, i see why you think that. but as BG said, as long as you are consistent and assume that pac was using too.

flapanther2001 wrote:Frank...I understand what you're saying, but you lost me using the JMM on PED's logic. Since when is a stone cold KO a "questionable" win, because you think he was on PED's? You lost all credibility there my friend. JMM could always outbox Manny, he put on some added muscle when he went up in weight to fight him. He's a professional athlete, has always been strong. but always cut weight.....maybe your mind is made up & you're hurt by Manny's loss, but without proof, you're no better than Mayweather's family.

Oh c'mon man. I'm a littler better looking than Floyd Sr and a helluva lot smarter than the whole klan. Why insult me like that? LOL

frank, i could say the same about manny for the cotto fight the guy looked like the incredible hulk! you know its not impossible for guys to get bigger and stronger and do it cleanly after all. he added weight for the pac fight, why does it have to be bad weight why cant it be muscle? these guys train non-stop for several months before a fight why is it hard to believe a guy can be ripped up? most fighters are. if your argument is because he put manny out with a punch hes landed before that doesnt really hold weight either. unless of course you also assume sergio was on PEDs for the 2nd williams fight, because he put paul to sleep with a "punch he has hit him with before" as well. there are so many factors that go into a KO. manny stepped into the shot adding to its power. maybe his mouth was slightly open, when the jaw moves it can cause an easier concussion/KO. a punch doesnt necessarily have to be that hard to put someones lights out, perfectly placed can do it as well. yes marquez was ripped up, but it was also the first fight he used a strength and conditioning coach if im not mistaken. similar to what ariza does for manny. JMMS whole training regimen changed just from what i saw on the 24/7. im a personal trainer and i have seen radical transformations like that in short periods of time before so im not in the least bit skeptical based on the eye test.

BoxingGenius wrote:frank, i could say the same about manny for the cotto fight the guy looked like the incredible hulk! you know its not impossible for guys to get bigger and stronger and do it cleanly after all. he added weight for the pac fight, why does it have to be bad weight why cant it be muscle? these guys train non-stop for several months before a fight why is it hard to believe a guy can be ripped up? most fighters are. if your argument is because he put manny out with a punch hes landed before that doesnt really hold weight either. unless of course you also assume sergio was on PEDs for the 2nd williams fight, because he put paul to sleep with a "punch he has hit him with before" as well. there are so many factors that go into a KO. manny stepped into the shot adding to its power. maybe his mouth was slightly open, when the jaw moves it can cause an easier concussion/KO. a punch doesnt necessarily have to be that hard to put someones lights out, perfectly placed can do it as well. yes marquez was ripped up, but it was also the first fight he used a strength and conditioning coach if im not mistaken. similar to what ariza does for manny. JMMS whole training regimen changed just from what i saw on the 24/7. im a personal trainer and i have seen radical transformations like that in short periods of time before so im not in the least bit skeptical based on the eye test.

BG, we have different opinions on this, though none of us have the emperical proof to prove our point. Therefore, a debate is pointless and would prove rather frustrating to both of us.

In other words, neither one of us can prove shit, so let's just cool the fuck out and agree to disagree.

I was finished with this debate months ago and never meant for steroid use to be the major message of my thread. Let the thread end, BG. Let the thread end.

a wise man once told me not to argue with fools, because people from a distance cant tell who is who. frankly i agree that we agree to disagree in regard to this disagreement!

I don't think you just called me a fool, or do you?

Pacquiao isn't on steroids because you're a Pacquiao fan and Marquez is on steroids because you're a Pacquiao fan. Marquez' statements about steroids are just as suspicious Ariza claiming Pacquiao doesn't know what's in his shakes, not taking tests and leg cramping that is consistent with steroid use.

hardcorebee24 wrote:Pacquiao isn't on steroids because you're a Pacquiao fan and Marquez is on steroids because you're a Pacquiao fan. Marquez' statements about steroids are just as suspicious Ariza claiming Pacquiao doesn't know what's in his shakes, not taking tests and leg cramping that is consistent with steroid use.

agreed, i mean id like to believe both are clean but each can be suspected just as easily as the other. a case can be made for just about every fighter on the planet im sure. every guy in the game probably tries to see how close they can get to the line without crossing it. im sure a lot of fighters take "questionable supplements". gotta realize that literally half the stuff that is sold at a store like GNC would cause a fighter to fail a drug test.

Frank wrote:

flapanther2001 wrote:Frank...I understand what you're saying, but you lost me using the JMM on PED's logic. Since when is a stone cold KO a "questionable" win, because you think he was on PED's? You lost all credibility there my friend. JMM could always outbox Manny, he put on some added muscle when he went up in weight to fight him. He's a professional athlete, has always been strong. but always cut weight.....maybe your mind is made up & you're hurt by Manny's loss, but without proof, you're no better than Mayweather's family.

Oh c'mon man. I'm a littler better looking than Floyd Sr and a helluva lot smarter than the whole klan. Why insult me like that? LOL

Thanks for making me spit out my beer......LOL