Who Has The Greater List Of Accomplishments?

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 21 Feb 2011, 21:21

Muhammad Ali, or Manny Pacquiao?

I think this is a great debate, & will stir some arguments & controversy. Remember, this isn't about who the better fighter was, or who has the bigger names per se --- just whose accomplishments do you think out-shine the others?

At this point, I think I would vote for Pacquiao, frankly. Once unthinkable.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 21 Feb 2011, 21:30

BarryWashington wrote:Accomplishments: Pacquiao

Resume (to this point): Ali

Accomplishments I have to slightly give it to Pacquiao, just for his ability to keep dominating at all the different weights. I think in an accomplishments sense it's not a fair comparison. Perhaps another close multiple weight fighter against Pacquiao could make for a more interesting discussion. Decent match-up nonetheless.

Yeah, resume, I wanted to get away from for this one. I didn't want to go down the strict road of Liston vs. Barrera, Foreman vs. Morales, Frazier vs. Marquez, etc. I think it's a tough argument there (Once you get into 2nd & 3rd-tier opposition the two have faced), & one which would side-track the bigger picture.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 22 Feb 2011, 22:41

Heavyweights can't continue jumping up to higher weight classes and winning new titles so they have to be judged differently.

Ali is 22-3 in title fights, Pacquiao is 11-1-2 (though some of his title fights were not for 'linear' titles) which is advantage Ali. Ali beat five Heavyweight Hall of Famers in Liston, Patterson, Frazier, Foreman and Norton (we'll ignore Archie and Foster) and Pacman has beaten four guaranteed future-Hall of Famers in Morales, Barrera, JMM and DLH. Cotto could also wind up getting in, and if he does that will be even. Ali was the #1 Heavyweight in the world for about three years in the 60s, was interrupted by the draft controversy, and was again #1 for about four years in the 70s. Pacquiao has been pound for pound king for about three years, since Mayweather's intellectual decline. So advantage Ali there as well. In terms of longevity the two are quite impressive, Ali holding titles from '64 to '78, Pacman from '98 to the present. Advantage Ali, for now.

Overall I'd still rank Ali higher. Aside, probably, from Duran, Leonard and a big maybe in Whitaker I would rank Pac the best fighter of the post-Ali era. The great advantage that Pacquiao has is that he's still only 32 and shows no signs of decline; if anything he just gets better in each fight. If he keeps winning the sky is the limit for Pacquiao. Ali scored his biggest wins at 32 but then went downhill and would only have two or three more big, undisputed wins from there. We'll see what Pac does from here on out, but things look good for him. Its premature to judge, Pac is still mid-career, but as of right now I'll vote Ali.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 23 Feb 2011, 00:14

I Feel Fine wrote:Heavyweights can't continue jumping up to higher weight classes and winning new titles so they have to be judged differently.

Ali is 22-3 in title fights, Pacquiao is 11-1-2 (though some of his title fights were not for 'linear' titles) which is advantage Ali. Ali beat five Heavyweight Hall of Famers in Liston, Patterson, Frazier, Foreman and Norton (we'll ignore Archie and Foster) and Pacman has beaten four guaranteed future-Hall of Famers in Morales, Barrera, JMM and DLH. Cotto could also wind up getting in, and if he does that will be even. Ali was the #1 Heavyweight in the world for about three years in the 60s, was interrupted by the draft controversy, and was again #1 for about four years in the 70s. Pacquiao has been pound for pound king for about three years, since Mayweather's intellectual decline. So advantage Ali there as well. In terms of longevity the two are quite impressive, Ali holding titles from '64 to '78, Pacman from '98 to the present. Advantage Ali, for now.

Overall I'd still rank Ali higher. Aside, probably, from Duran, Leonard and a big maybe in Whitaker I would rank Pac the best fighter of the post-Ali era. The great advantage that Pacquiao has is that he's still only 32 and shows no signs of decline; if anything he just gets better in each fight. If he keeps winning the sky is the limit for Pacquiao. Ali scored his biggest wins at 32 but then went downhill and would only have two or three more big, undisputed wins from there. We'll see what Pac does from here on out, but things look good for him. Its premature to judge, Pac is still mid-career, but as of right now I'll vote Ali.

I don't think Pacquiao is mid-career --- he's about to turn 33, has been fighting professionally since he was 17, & there have been whispers for a while now retirement isn't too far off, with or without Mayweather on his ledger. I would probably call Pacquiao the most accomplished of the post-Ali era, though not, IMO, the outright best fighter.

I can't really argue hammer-&-tong with someone for still ranking Ali above him. Not one single Pacquiao victory measures upto beating a prime Foreman, for instance. Here's my next question, & say as much noting how narrow the voting in this thread is --- what does Pacquiao need do for you, between here & the end, to eclipse Ali?

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 23 Feb 2011, 00:36

Well, yes, "mid" is the wrong word. Cross out "mid" and insert "potentially has many years left..." :) And, yeah, I was thinking more about this and I guess the thing about post-Ali is that it really should be... post-Ali. Career for career I rank Duran higher, but I really shouldn't be counting his pre-Ali vs. Berbick fights. In that case its clearly Pacquiao. Even Leonard's biggest wins, other than Hagler, came before that Berbick fight. The thing is that to me the "Ali-era" ends in '78 after Spinks II; but I suppose thats not really the most official way of looking at it, and even there you lose all of Duran's Lightweight title reign.

Anyway, clearly beating Mayweather is the most obvious thing Pacquiao could do to get close. I would come up with a more original answer, but Floyd will always be the elephant in the room. I still think Floyd would beat him, but who knows at this stage. I would also like to see him beat Marquez more clearly, but it doesn't seem that matchup will happen again. Certainly, as Destroyer mentioned, doing something insane like winning the Middleweight title against Martinez, who is #3 in most people's view P4P, would be something.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 24 Feb 2011, 20:49

Of the last 50 years, I could see the great Manny Pacquiao eclipsing the great Muhammad Ali. Ali lost in the biggest fight of his career against the great Joe Frazier. He never beat Frazier in his prime, lost all 3 fights with Ken Norton, and got schooled by Jimmy Young, and lost to a novice like Leon Spinks.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 24 Feb 2011, 22:34

Pacquao is already above Ali lb for lb. The guy is the only fighter (or one can argue, one of two) in history to win 4 lineal (legit) titles in 4 weight classes, and it would probably be 5 if the current welter champ was flagrantly ducking him. Ali was one of the two best heavyweights to ever fight and beat MORE top quality fighters, which makes it close, but I don't see how you could rank a heavyweight above a guy who was champ at 112 and is now beating up top welterweights . . .

Diamond WEAPON · Post by **Diamond WEAPON** » 25 Feb 2011, 01:46

dempseyfire wrote:Pacquao is already above Ali lb for lb. The guy is the only fighter (or one can argue, one of two) in history to win 4 lineal (legit) titles in 4 weight classes, and it would probably be 5 if the current welter champ was flagrantly ducking him. Ali was one of the two best heavyweights to ever fight and beat MORE top quality fighters, which makes it close, but I don't see how you could rank a heavyweight above a guy who was champ at 112 and is now beating up top welterweights . . .

Because you have to look at it with eyes wide open. Manny isn't 112 lbs. anymore. It's not like he's gone on some rampage destroying guys who always have size advantages over him. Manny was almost always the bigger guy in the ring until he reached Lightweight, which is in exact disproportion to guys he's compared to like Henry Armstrong, who didn't have the luxury of gaining 15+ lbs. before fighting guys he would outweigh by two weight classes the way Manny would. If you just look at his record blindly his accomplishments look a lot more shiny than when you actually decide to take a peek at the whole picture.

Ali didn't have the luxury of moving around divisions looking for faded big names to gain promotional/contractual advantages over. He had to fight anyone and everyone considered a challenger to his reign. Yes reign, something which Manny knows little about because he's never stayed in any one division long enough to prove outright superiority. With Manny it's always been implied but never outright proven without doubt. With Ali, it was ALWAYS proven, just like it was with Robinson, Hagler, Duran and all of the other guys who largely made their bones in just one or two divisions but absolutely cleaned them out of all of the supposed killers and proved their superiority in said division over and over again and without games being played with weight.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 25 Feb 2011, 03:14

Both have great careers.

I would say Pac but it's close either way.

SUGARRAYSMELEE · Post by **SUGARRAYSMELEE** » 26 Feb 2011, 22:43

I thought Pacquiao was 'the Greatest'. ;;-)

Ali, no doubt.