1. Pacquiao was a natural 130 at the time? Not really.
He had struggled with that weight for years and was pretty huuuge for fighting at 130. Thats why he moved up.
More accurate would be to say he was a decent sized 135 fighter who could fight at 140 without being really that small for the weight.






2. The Oscar W really isnt great at all. He was shot and drained to hell. Everyone acknowledges this, even Freddie Roach.
This W is pretty much worth as much as Amir Khans W vs Barrera.

Oscar usually fights at 154 and rehydrates to between 160-170lbs.
For this fight he should have been around 160 at fights night.



With that said. Yes. Pacquiao really tested himself (beforehand) with the fight against Oscar.
There was no way of knowing Oscar would look like he did.

On the other hand. No one would reject a fight vs Oscar. The money and exposure is off the charts.

-

It is interesting to see the weight difference between Pacquiao and Floyd. Floyd usually weights considerably less than his opponents on fight night.





And for some of his biggest wins he gave up as much as Manny did vs for example Miguel Cotto;





Anyone have the tale of the tape picture for Floyd vs Genaro Hernandez? Dont have the fight on this computer.

Cool story bro. Why don't you let the experts decide what the Bayesian probabilities are?

Thanks for this post. I wonder how the Floyd haters/Manny nuthuggers will spin this.

dude id guess there are exactly 0 floyd haters on this site, just people are pissed off waiting for him to fight pac because there are very few other fights in boxing to get excited about.

IMO both are being ****s, pac should agree to drug testing and pbf should stfu sign for the fight and get it on.

I think Floyd should get more money and stop all the drug testing hand waving. Since he's already caved on his legitimate point ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$) it seems that drug testing is just ******edness.

And what is the deal with the weigh ins? Seems like loltarded BS to try to derive a history from weigh ins. Why don't we rely on market probability to determine who had chances to win/lose?

Oh wait. That would make Mayweather look like a bitch.

ok pokeriseasy maybe there are some Floyd haters

You are probably the only one in this thread that thinks anyone is trying to do that.
It is simply a response to the arguments like "Manny was a natural 130 fighter" and "Floyd always fight smaller guys" or "Mannys run at 140+ is so insane because he is giving up so much weight" aswell as just plain interesting to a lot of people. (probably not you)

What were the odds for Genaro Hernandez vs Floyd Mayweather?

Also. Who should floyd have fought where he wouldnt have "looked like a bitch"?

Hint: Floyd would have been a favourite vs every single fighter he could have fought since beating Corrales.
Again. Who should he have fought and why?

And please dont give me the expected response; Manny.

------

Btw, werent Manny in the -250 to -300 range for his fights vs Cotto and Hatton? Anyone know?

Like labamba said there is no fight Floyd could've made over the last 7 or 8 years that he would not have been a favorite in. People say he intentionally waited until now to fight Mosley, but he used to call Mosley out when he was at 130 and Mosley was at 135 it was Mosley who didn't want to make the fight back then. After a while Mosley started to lose and lost a lot of marketability, Mayweather fought him after he got his marketability back.

As you can tell from his nickname, Mayweather is about money first, legacy second. He wants to fight the guys that'll make him the most money, while fighting Margarito 3 years ago might've been his toughest fight it wasn't going to make him the most money so he decided to fight somebody like Hatton instead who was a good fighter and more importantly could make him the most money at the time. This is the first time Mayweather has appeared hesitant to fight in the biggest money fight there was available to him. Before this he always looked for the opponent that could make him the most money, which is why he stepped up in weight to fight Oscar. It's also the reason why his fight with Mosley was a non title bout due to the ridiculous sanction fees you have to pay in a title fight. Belts aren't important to Mayweather only money.

I thought it was interesting as well. I didn't realize it was a rebuttal to a single point rather than a thorough analysis of the difficulty of each fight.


Here you make the same mistake as I did above. Mosley was the same as all these other fighters that Mayweather has fought. It has been years since he fought an opponent with a reasonable chance of victory. Acting like Mosley was more difficult opposition than other recent fights is either ignorance or stupidity or both.

By ending your sentence the way you did it, it doesn't make you right, and it doesn't make whoever disagree with you "ingorant" or "stupid." Looking at previews for the fight one site posted predictions from 12 experts, all boxing writers and analyst, 2 of which picked Mosley to win. So you're saying you know boxing better than guys who make a living watching and analyzing boxing. Saying you do shows a level of ignorance on your behalf.

The biggest differnece between Mosley and any of his last 5 fights is none of the other guys had any hope of knocking Mayweather out, as seen in the 2nd round Mosley had the power to hurt Mayweather. Any other fighter at 147 with the exception of maybe Margarito and Cotto would've have gone down if they were hit with either of the 2 huge shots Mosley landed in that round let alone taking both and remaining in the pocket. The 2nd punch buckled Mayweather so bad his knee nearly touched the mat. Are you saying that any of his last 5 opponents not only had the power to buckle Mayweather twice, but also the speed to actually land a punch with that much power? This is why Mosley had a much better chance than any of his last 5 opponents.

Nobody could guess that Mosley would gas out the way he did. Everybody who thought Mayweather would win just assumed he would outclass Mosley, but when Mosley was fresh he clearly won the first 2 rounds. Against Magarito Mosley kept a high pace and was throwing bombs up until the fight was stopped and showed no signs of slowing down. Maybe that was his last great performance but people saying they knew at his age he would show it are just being results oriented. People thought Margarito was going to kill him because he was old but the exact opposite happened.

It's funny I remember watching a Mayweather interview when negotiations were still going on with Pacquiao and Mayweather said something to the affect that people say it doesn't matter that he beat Marquez so bad because he's so small, and then pointed out Pacquiao is the same size, and that beating Pacquiao wouldn't do as much for his legacy as it would do for Pacquiao if he lost since he's the undefeated fighter and Pacquiao has lost 3 times and that if he fights Mosley and beats him nobody is going to care because they'll just say Mosley is old. Seems like he knows no matter what "haters gonna hate."

Thremp you also didn't answer labamba's question about who should have Mayweather fought in the past besides Manny that would've not made him a "bitch" in your eyes.

A guy who is a writer doesn't know better than actual markets based on the probability of the event happening. So yes. In the same way I'm going to assume the value of Google is what the stock is actually priced at rather than what some tech blogger thinks it should be worth.

You seem to not understand basic economic concepts though. But that is fine.

PS: No one should "pick" the underdog to win. If those two men believed Mosley was a favorite, they're idiots. lol.

This is just a bunch of random words that mean nothing. The last paragraph is a failure of reading comprehension.

Well, yes. Floyd did fight Zab after he lost just like Pacquiao fought Morales and Clottey (among others) straight after a loss.

The thing about this however is that Floyd and Zab had agreed to fight after Zabs fight with Baldomir beforehand.
No one could have guessed Baldomir would actually win, and they went on with the fight regardless.
He also fought Baldomir in his next fight, which he (oddly enough) gets alot of crap about despite Baldomir being the lineal champ.

Zab was not a worse fighter from losing to Baldomir.
The thing about Zab is that he is soooo talented and athletically gifted. He is one of the best 6 round fighters p4p (or rather, he was) but always fades in the later rounds.

Oh well, just some random thoughts i had about that topic.

---

Thremp,

I am in no way a professional sportsbettor and am far from an expert on this, so this question is asked in as honest humble way possible. I am genuinely interested.

Could it be that the fact that Mosley has a pretty much non existent fanbase had anything to do with the odds for this fight?

De la Hoya, Hatton and Marquez all had huge followings that likely bet on their guy regardless of odds and therefore moving the lines.

Is this a factor at all or am i incorrect in this reasoning?

--

Also. Beforehand "everyone" said Floyd would never fight Mosley. That he was scared of him. That is a part of why people like to put him as an example of Floyd fighting the toughest guys out there.

Floyd actually do deserve some respect for this (in my eyes).
After all, Pacquiao and Freddie Roach admittedly didnt want anything to do with Mosley.

It could be a factor. It just just incredibly doubtful. In the same way that Apple could be overpriced because people love the iPad or iPhone or whatever. It just isn't reasonable to believe that this occurs on a regular basis to any significant degree. Even if you want to account for this effect, the amount of monies that would be needed to significantly alter the probability would be huge.

There are some issues with asymmetric betting populations. IE Why british sites have odds that are different than others when Hatton fights, but this can typically be weeded out by just looking at the largest and most liquid options.

LOL @ this whole response. I point out exact reasons why Mosley had a much better chance than anybody Mayweather has fought recently and thats your response, like I said just LOL. I see your one of those people who when they don't have a legitimate response you just do your best to make the other person look dumb while hiding the fact that you have no intelligent retort. But that is fine.

It's also extremely dumb and naive to say nobody should pick the underdog to win. This isn't poker or gambling where your goal is to make the most +EV play, it's a sport where there aren't concrete percentages to 100% predict winners between opponents that are fairly evenly matched. Wasn't Cleveland a big favorite over Boston, weren't the Colts a big favorite over the Saints? So I guess anybody who flat out thought Boston or New Orleans were the better teams in those games were "idiots."

I don't think you understand anything about predicting events. In all seriousness. All the stuff about Mosley is factored into his 25% chance of winning.

I agree with you here, I think for the most part Americans are good at betting with their heads and not their heart. When it comes to sports even the most diehard fan is realistic about their favorite team or favorite fighter's chances.

To take an example from MMA there is a video out there of Frankie Edgar's friends watching the scores being read after his fight against BJ Penn, the first scorecard reads 50-45 and immediately all of his friends think that means that judge gave the fight to Penn, one of his friends even says "that's bull****." These guys were obviously 100% in support of Edgar but even after watching the a close fight they were rational enough to know that it was more likely that Penn won every round than their boy had won every round. I think had Edgar been Brittish and it was a bunch of brittish friends they are so gong ho over their fighters they would've heard 50-45 and immediately believed Edgar had won.

Then how the **** do you write that crap about Mosley? Are you just trolling?

You seriously suck at debating. All you do is attempt to question my intelligence and throw out random numbers and don't make any point as to why you think that.


What? This doesn't make any sense at all. I agreed with the point that having a fan base will influence betting very minimally, it has abosolutely nothing do with Mosley. I'm saying Americans are logical when betting, for example in the De La Hoya/Mayweather fight, Oscar had way more fans than Mayweather but Mayweather was a huge favorite. The reason being even people who were fans of De La Hoya were realistic about his chances, and then even others just wouldn't bet on the fight because they couldn't bring themselves to bet against their favorite fighter. For the most part the American public is able to seperate who they WANT to win from who they THINK is going to win. I don't think Brittish fans are like this, who they want to win is who they generally think is going to win.

Not to keep bringing MMA into this thread but using MMA as an example when Dan Hardy fought GSP a Brittish MMA analysts actually picked Hardy to win despite even saying that Hardy only had a 30% chance of winning which in fact is way higher than his chances really were. If Hardy were American I doubt you would've been able to find any analyst willing to publicly pick him.

lol @ random number FFS. Are you completely ignorant or just mostly?

With every single post you make you just further prove my point that you have asbolutely no intelligent retort, so your only comeback is to go for personal attacks. I guess that makes you cool.

you really are great at debating, so great that im starting to agree with you that all British sports bettors are dumb.

The 25% is the market probability of Mosley to win. You don't realize this because you don't know much about probability or even care.

The market isn't always right bro. LOL at believing in 100% market efficiency. Classic. Very often in combat sports, the actual probability is way off.

how do you determine "actual probability"?

He who slow pays and spams 2p2 that others are scammers,

lol. u wrong.

Easy. You make it up. There is a 99.2733% chance of this being true.