Who were you rooting for? Mayweather or Pacquiao

[Ruthless-RKO]

We waited years for their fight to happen.
Wasn't the best fight, certainly not fight of the century.

Who were you rooting for to win when they finally fought?

Also, Who were you rooting for around 2009 when they first tried negotiating a fight?

[DrDuke]

When their negotiations first started, I wasn't much caring about weights they fough in. During their fight I was rooting for Pac.

[giacomino]

Mayweather, but in truth I liked them both. Manny had more fanboys and Money more haters on social media/boxrec, and that may have influenced my support for Mayweather. I would have preferred to have seen them fight at 130-135

[Ambling Alp II]

Too bad they didn't fight several years earlier when the fight would have meant something. It was the biggest potential fight out there for a while.

[DrDuke]

Too bad they didn't fight several years earlier when the fight would have meant something. It was the biggest potential fight out there for a while.

As if no one cared about it in the end. Actually, it remained the biggest fight by the moment of happening.

[margaret thatcher]

they both had absolutely endless droves of ridiculous pacturds and flomos, that couldnt possibly be the basis to separate them for me. i cheered for pac merely because i thought mayweather was far more likely to win, and i usually go for the underdog. mayweather losing woulda been a far bigger deal to me than pac losing

[DrDuke]

It's surprising to see an even poll here. At the moment of the bout Pac seemed to be more loved by the boxing fans.

[elmersalsa]

In this millennium boxing era, the great Manny Pacquiao was the only guy for me to root about.

I asked myself if that fight was a real fight or a sparring session.

[HomicideHenry]

Pacquiao, but it seemed quite obvious that Mayweather was waiting until there was chinks in armor because the moment Pacquiao lost Mayweather was all for it.

[Ambling Alp II]

Too bad they didn't fight several years earlier when the fight would have meant something. It was the biggest potential fight out there for a while.

As if no one cared about it in the end. Actually, it remained the biggest fight by the moment of happening.

Would have actually meant something had it happened a lot earlier. Same with say Lewis-Tyson.

[DrDuke]

Too bad they didn't fight several years earlier when the fight would have meant something. It was the biggest potential fight out there for a while.

As if no one cared about it in the end. Actually, it remained the biggest fight by the moment of happening.

Would have actually meant something had it happened a lot earlier. Same with say Lewis-Tyson.

It had way more meaning in comparison to Lewis-Tyson.

[Ambling Alp II]

Not much. Pacquiao and Mayweather were ancient when they fought. Mayweather was far past his best and Pacquiao was even further. Means very little when ranking them historically. Would have been great 5 or 6 years earlier.

[tiny_acres]

Not much. Pacquiao and Mayweather were ancient when they fought. Mayweather was far past his best and Pacquiao was even further. Means very little when ranking them historically. Would have been great 5 or 6 years earlier.

Pac won a world title 4 years later against a legitimate champion. He was not as gone as people paint him out to be.

[p4p1]

Not much. Pacquiao and Mayweather were ancient when they fought. Mayweather was far past his best and Pacquiao was even further. Means very little when ranking them historically. Would have been great 5 or 6 years earlier.

Pac won a world title 4 years later against a legitimate champion. He was not as gone as people paint him out to be.

That is just how much better the two of them were than their competition. It doesn't mean Pac wasn't well past it by then.

[DrDuke]

Not much. Pacquiao and Mayweather were ancient when they fought. Mayweather was far past his best and Pacquiao was even further. Means very little when ranking them historically. Would have been great 5 or 6 years earlier.

That's nonsense. They were still better than anyone around.

[524046]

I was definitely more of a Pacquiao fan back then, I wasn’t super aware of boxing outside of the old Ali fights my dad had me watch but Pac seemed like a cool guy and there were a lot of Filipinos where I grew up so I heard about him a lot.

On that note there were a decent amount of Pakistani kids at my school as well, and in particular I had one friend who not only told me that Floyd Mayweather Vs. Amir Khan was “confirmed”, but was convinced that Khan would win that fight pretty easily. Honestly I just miss that time when boxing was more of a mainstream sport and teenagers and young adults were talking about it everyday lol.

[watsupdoc87]

Mayweather because i knew he was gonna win and put quite a bit on him before that fight and even more in play when the odds shortened for a couple of rounds.

[Ambling Alp II]

Not much. Pacquiao and Mayweather were ancient when they fought. Mayweather was far past his best and Pacquiao was even further. Means very little when ranking them historically. Would have been great 5 or 6 years earlier.

That's nonsense. They were still better than anyone around.

They might have been considered the top welterweights by some people, but everyone knew they were past it there best, especially Pacquiao. He certainly wasn't nowhere near being #1 or #2 pound for pound fighter by then.
What in the world are you talking about?
Pacquiao had already been stopped by Marquez. Lost to Bradley, struggled with him the rematch.
Had not stopped anyone in six years.
He was 36 and had had been in a lot of tough fights and taken a lot of wear and tear.
Mayweather was closer to his best than Pacquiao but it's silly that think there was no significant difference between him at 38 and when he was in his late 20s/early 30s.
The fight itself speaks volumes. Nobody thought it was a good fight.

[DrDuke]

Not much. Pacquiao and Mayweather were ancient when they fought. Mayweather was far past his best and Pacquiao was even further. Means very little when ranking them historically. Would have been great 5 or 6 years earlier.

That's nonsense. They were still better than anyone around.

They might have been considered the top welterweights by some people, but everyone knew they were past it there best, especially Pacquiao. He certainly wasn't nowhere near being #1 or #2 pound for pound fighter by then.
What in the world are you talking about?
Pacquiao had already been stopped by Marquez. Lost to Bradley, struggled with him the rematch.
Had not stopped anyone in six years.
He was 36 and had had been in a lot of tough fights and taken a lot of wear and tear.
Mayweather was closer to his best than Pacquiao but it's silly that think there was no significant difference between him at 38 and when he was in his late 20s/early 30s.
The fight itself speaks volumes. Nobody thought it was a good fight.

You biased weak mind always refuses to give credit to anything, that is boring for you. The fight was sh1t, but still Mayweather was the best p4p and would win anybody, who could step in to face him in that time. Pac was a one of the best around the WW too, despite being past prime. To point at the Bradley 'loss' is ridiculous. Pac was winning notable fights even after that. To say that the fight was meaningless is total rubbish.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Not much. Pacquiao and Mayweather were ancient when they fought. Mayweather was far past his best and Pacquiao was even further. Means very little when ranking them historically. Would have been great 5 or 6 years earlier.

That's nonsense. They were still better than anyone around.

They might have been considered the top welterweights by some people, but everyone knew they were past it there best, especially Pacquiao. He certainly wasn't nowhere near being #1 or #2 pound for pound fighter by then.
What in the world are you talking about?
Pacquiao had already been stopped by Marquez. Lost to Bradley, struggled with him the rematch.
Had not stopped anyone in six years.
He was 36 and had had been in a lot of tough fights and taken a lot of wear and tear.
Mayweather was closer to his best than Pacquiao but it's silly that think there was no significant difference between him at 38 and when he was in his late 20s/early 30s.
The fight itself speaks volumes. Nobody thought it was a good fight.

- After BALCO Juan stoppage, Manny breezed thru Rios, Bradley, and Algeri, collectively 81-1-1 before the 2 week Backdated TUE Floydy fight. TUE got his hand injections, but Vegas denied Manny's shoulder injections. They were P4P ranked #1 and #3, and yeah, the fight was expected to disappoint those of us who know these things because TUE ran like a sissy in heat, and Bayliss, Bless him, see last Saturday's butchering the Benavidez/Plant fight, guided him through it.

Manny is 2-1-1 vs BALCO Juan and 2-1 vs Bradley. TUE never bothered to make contract weight when he fought the pissoir guzzling, rock tossing regular Juan who jumped 2 divisions for the fight, and wouldn't touch P4P Bradley with a ten foot pole.

Manny fought, beat, and KOed more P4P fighters in the history of Ring P4P than anyone, and consecutively P4P ranked longer than anyone with the most total ratings. Nobody is remotely close in spite of the Ring being biased against Arum fighters, yeah!!!

It's embarrassing to the average unstudied American. Manny was almost always during his heyday, fighting away from home, yet more beloved in Mexico and America than BALCO Juan, Bradley, and TUE, and thems the facts, Jack.

Now that you're sorted

[gilgamesh]

I guess I was never rooting for anyone here as by the time it happened I couldn't imagine any outcome except for a Floyd victory.

[Ambling Alp II]

That's nonsense. They were still better than anyone around.

They might have been considered the top welterweights by some people, but everyone knew they were past it there best, especially Pacquiao. He certainly wasn't nowhere near being #1 or #2 pound for pound fighter by then.
What in the world are you talking about?
Pacquiao had already been stopped by Marquez. Lost to Bradley, struggled with him the rematch.
Had not stopped anyone in six years.
He was 36 and had had been in a lot of tough fights and taken a lot of wear and tear.
Mayweather was closer to his best than Pacquiao but it's silly that think there was no significant difference between him at 38 and when he was in his late 20s/early 30s.
The fight itself speaks volumes. Nobody thought it was a good fight.

You biased weak mind always refuses to give credit to anything, that is boring for you. The fight was sh1t, but still Mayweather was the best p4p and would win anybody, who could step in to face him in that time. Pac was a one of the best around the WW too, despite being past prime. To point at the Bradley 'loss' is ridiculous. Pac was winning notable fights even after that. To say that the fight was meaningless is total rubbish.

That the fight was "shit" says a lot. Had they fought when they were in their primes, that wouldn't have happened. You can spin it anyway that you, but that fight doesn't mean much.

What does the win for Mayweather's All time ranking? Next to nothing. Had he beat Pacquaio several years earlier, it would meant a lot and would have been by far his biggest win.
Does the loss hurt Pacquiao's All time ranking? No. He was clearly past his best by then. Pointing out his recent losses is not ridiculous. They are facts that are further proof that he was declining. Was he completely shot? No. At best, he was 80% of what he once was.

You have to look at the stages of fighter's careers. you did the same with Lennox Lewis win over Holyfield. You rank that as a bigger win than Ali's wins over Frazier and Foreman. That's ridiculous. Holyfield wasn't anywhere near their level by then. You have to factor in the stages of fighter's careers.

If don't factor in the stage's of fighter's careers, you will come up some ridiculous conclusions.

[Ambling Alp II]

I guess I was never rooting for anyone here as by the time it happened I couldn't imagine any outcome except for a Floyd victory.

That is what most people who followed the sport thought at the time. Several years earlier, there was a lot of debate about who would win. Pacquiao was a very different fighter then.

[DrDuke]

They might have been considered the top welterweights by some people, but everyone knew they were past it there best, especially Pacquiao. He certainly wasn't nowhere near being #1 or #2 pound for pound fighter by then.
What in the world are you talking about?
Pacquiao had already been stopped by Marquez. Lost to Bradley, struggled with him the rematch.
Had not stopped anyone in six years.
He was 36 and had had been in a lot of tough fights and taken a lot of wear and tear.
Mayweather was closer to his best than Pacquiao but it's silly that think there was no significant difference between him at 38 and when he was in his late 20s/early 30s.
The fight itself speaks volumes. Nobody thought it was a good fight.

You biased weak mind always refuses to give credit to anything, that is boring for you. The fight was sh1t, but still Mayweather was the best p4p and would win anybody, who could step in to face him in that time. Pac was a one of the best around the WW too, despite being past prime. To point at the Bradley 'loss' is ridiculous. Pac was winning notable fights even after that. To say that the fight was meaningless is total rubbish.

That the fight was "shit" says a lot. Had they fought when they were in their primes, that wouldn't have happened. You can spin it anyway that you, but that fight doesn't mean much.

What does the win for Mayweather's All time ranking? Next to nothing. Had he beat Pacquaio several years earlier, it would meant a lot and would have been by far his biggest win.
Does the loss hurt Pacquiao's All time ranking? No. He was clearly past his best by then. Pointing out his recent losses is not ridiculous. They are facts that are further proof that he was declining. Was he completely shot? No. At best, he was 80% of what he once was.

You have to look at the stages of fighter's careers. you did the same with Lennox Lewis win over Holyfield. You rank that as a bigger win than Ali's wins over Frazier and Foreman. That's ridiculous. Holyfield wasn't anywhere near their level by then. You have to factor in the stages of fighter's careers.

If don't factor in the stage's of fighter's careers, you will come up some ridiculous conclusions.

So, Pac had 80% of him left, but the fight's meaning was close to nothing,

[Ambling Alp II]

Well yes, there is a huge difference between 80% and 100%.