Crawford claims Pacquiao ducked him, but the facts say otherwise. From Roach’s protection strategy to promotional politics, here is why Pacquiao has the stronger argument.
First off, it is a big call by him. Pacman fought everyone in his time and sure, so did Bud of the US, but he never fought Floyd did he.
Pacman did, he lost but at least he fought him.
Some notes on the Bud claim above;
- Pacquiao’s trainer Freddie Roach said he did not want the fight, purely to protect his aging fighter, not out of fear
- Pacquiao was 42 and ring-rusty while Crawford was in his physical prime
- When Pacquiao did return at 42 against Ugas, he lost and looked diminished — not the version Crawford would have faced
- The fight fell through when an investment group pulled out, not because Pacquiao refused to sign
- Pacquiao had already beaten elite welterweights like Thurman at age 40, proving he never ducked anyone
- Crawford himself admitted he still does not know exactly why the fight never happened
- Bob Arum was accused by Pacquiao’s side of “preserving” Crawford for business reasons
- Pacquiao was the bigger draw, so he had less reason to avoid the fight than Crawford did
- Crawford struggled for years to land big fights and was often avoided himself, weakening his ducking claim
- A prime Pacquiao with legendary speed and footwork would have troubled any fighter — which is why Roach advised caution, not cowardice
At the end of the day, the fight did not happen.
Pacman had been knocked out in his career to the likes of Juan Manuel Marquez of Mexico but that had been a huge right hand on the Filipino boxing legend at the time.
The Filipino eight division champion had a solid chin mostly, Bud surely had he fought him would have struggled to knock out the Filipino.
Check out our latest boxing news.