BoxRec

Its really hard to judge modern fighters. I was reading an old article on Ring Magazine that said that Lewis was a borderline hall of famer after the smoke cleared, it was obvious he was one. I think time will tell with Pacquiao. It's no doubt he's a hall of famer and all time great, but measuring him to the upper echelon of the greatest probably needs a complete career to measure by.

Wouldn't Pacquiao's inconsistancy have to hurt him a god bit. There is the loss to Morales as well as the controversial fights with Marquez. Pacquiao is facing good opponnents but he seems be lacking quite a bit in consistancy. Chavez fought a number of highly ranked opponents in his prime but showed a level of consistancy that Pacquiao has not matched.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Wouldn't Pacquiao's inconsistancy have to hurt him a god bit. There is the loss to Morales as well as the controversial fights with Marquez. Pacquiao is facing good opponnents but he seems be lacking quite a bit in consistancy. Chavez fought a number of highly ranked opponents in his prime but showed a level of consistancy that Pacquiao has not matched.

Chavez in his peak didn't fight the calibre of fighters Pacquao has faced . . .even Meldrick Taylor I wouldn't put in the class of Barrera, Morales and Marquez (and Chavez was well behind in that fight when it was stopped). You want to talk about bad decisions, the fight with Whitaker was a sham whereas many had Pacquao beating Marquez twice.

If he manages to navigate the waters of his next few fights, which may include the likes of Cotto, Mayweather, or Marquez again, and come out unscathed, then I would seriously have to give consideration to the idea of a top 25 ranking.

Morales lost to Zahir Raheem right after beating Pacquiao. This does not seem terribly impressive. Prior to the Whittaker fight, Chavez was extremely consistant for years against top opponents. Pacquiao has not shown consistency close to this.

With regards to Pacquiao facing better fighters that seems highly subjective. Fighters can only face the guys that are fighting when they are active.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:With regards to Pacquiao facing better fighters that seems highly subjective. Fighters can only face the guys that are fighting when they are active.

- Indeed, wins and loses are quite often quite subjective as well.

Manny has officially transcended boxing at this point in a fashion not seldom before. All ratings are quite subjective, and who should really bother with ratings other than a few imperious two dimensional housekeeper types needing orderliness in their world.

I would hold Pacquiao in much higher esteem if he had managed to beat Agapito Sanchez, had not lost to Morales and had decisively dealt with Marquez. I think this is perfectly reasonable.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:I would hold Pacquiao in much higher esteem if he had managed to beat Agapito Sanchez, had not lost to Morales and had decisively dealt with Marquez. I think this is perfectly reasonable.

Managed to beat Sanchez? That fight was stopped due to a headbutt clash . . .

I think Pacquao decisively beat Marquez in the first fight but its become popular to maintain the notion that Marquez was 'robbed' which is ridiculous . . .he was extremely lucky IMO to get a draw.

As for Cojimar's statement regarding consistency, of course quality of opponents matters. To write that off as "they faced who they faced in their time" means Tommy Burns is a top 5 AT heavyweight.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:I would hold Pacquiao in much higher esteem if he had managed to beat Agapito Sanchez, had not lost to Morales and had decisively dealt with Marquez. I think this is perfectly reasonable.

- 1 out of 3 ain't shabby in baseball.

Beating Sanchez was impossible with crooked officials. Sanchez barely threw a punch save a few low ones he was deducted points. He butted Manny open repeatedly which caused the premature end to the fight, at one point leaping in head first with both feet leaving the canvas. Can't beat a guy not only not wanting to fight, but is allowed flagrant fouls. How one judge saw the bout even and the other for Sanchez say more about rising account balances than it does about boxing acumen. Guy should've been DQed by the 4th or 5th.

Manny gave JMM a rematch and knocked him down 4x officially, 5x unoffcially and would be 2-0 save for a judge's admitted scoring error in the first fight. Decisive enough for me.

Yeah, he should've beat Morales first go round, so he lost a close fight and demolished him twice not long after, and this is a black mark?

Be more honest to admit Manny not your cup of tea than make excuses.

At first, it seems a stretch to rate Pac Man so high. The win over Ricky Hatton may be overblown by some people (Hatton is a stiff). And he has had a few bumps a long the road. However, he has so many other big wins it's getting hard to ignore. If he beats Mayweather I think you have to rate him in the Top 20.

Ambling Alp wrote:At first, it seems a stretch to rate Pac Man so high. The win over Ricky Hatton may be overblown by some people (Hatton is a stiff). And he has had a few bumps a long the road. However, he has so many other big wins it's getting hard to ignore. If he beats Mayweather I think you have to rate him in the Top 20.

- Manny is difficult to rate, but, no mistake, he is a true great.

Your dismissal of Hatton, however, stinks to high heaven. Hatton has been one of the premier fighters of the decade, handled some pretty good competition, only losing to the premier p4p names of the decade not named Roy Jones. He's also transcended boxing and I'm here to inform you, he's a first ballot HOFer.

I'd think someone who bothers enough to post his thoughts to a message boards would have a much higher regard of all the rest of the 99.99% of the fighters in history who are not as great as that rare 0.01% are.

Ricky Hatton isnt a stiff. Hes a world class fighter who has failed at the top elite level - that doesnt make him a stiff.

Tommy Burns was not very dominant in his own time so I don't see how he would rate in the top 5 by my criteria. Quality of opposition does matter but this is measured by whether a fighter faces and beats their best available contemporaries.

Hatton can't punch, can't box, has a questionable chin, little defense. He has won some WBS titles but has never beaten anyone worth mentioning. He lost very badly both times he fought an elite fighter. He may be the most overrated fighter in the last 20 years.

AMBLING ALP wrote, "Hatton can't punch, can't box, has a questionable chin, little defense." Then he wrote, "(Hatton is a stiff)."

If a boxer loses to Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr. he is a "stiff?"

We are all susceptible to the occasional overstatement. It appears Galt has discovered such a moment.

Obviously I think that Hatton is better than say a 4 round fighter. However, he didn't just lose to to Mayweather and Pacquiao. He was completely dominated in both fights. Since he has never fought anyone else remotely as good as those two, he hasn't proved himself to be that good. He is way overhyped.

I think you are forgetting Tszyu. Granted Tszyu is not as good as Mayweather or Paquiao but he was a solid fighter that deserves a mention. Although, I agree with the statement that Hatton was/is way overhyped. Just look at his fight vs Collazo. Paquiao is a top 25 alltime on my list and he is indeed a great fighter that deserves recognition.

Manny's win and the way he did it against Ricky Hatton bought Pacquiao legacy points.

Assuming that Hatton doesn't go on to actually beat someone really good (Tszyu was 35 and had 1 fight in the previous 2 and a half years when Hatton fought him), then Pacquiao's win over Hatton won't mean much years from now.
Pacquiao will be remembered as a great fighter; but it will be because of several other fights that he had.

Ambling Alp wrote:Assuming that Hatton doesn't go on to actually beat someone really good (Tszyu was 35 and had 1 fight in the previous 2 and a half years when Hatton fought him), then Pacquiao's win over Hatton won't mean much years from now.
Pacquiao will be remembered as a great fighter; but it will be because of several other fights that he had.

So beating a guy (Hatton) with a record of 45-1, with 32 knockouts doesn't impress you? In a previous post you called Hatton a "stiff." Hatton's last 10 opponents had a combined record of 344-28-7, Hatton's only previous loss was to Floyd Mayweather. There must be few fighters that you don't consider to be "stiffs."

Win/loss records can be very deceiving in boxing. You don't have to be that good to rack up a high winning % if you don't fight very good opponents.

For example, Peter McNeeely was 36-1 before he fought Tyson. McNeeley wasn't a good fighter, but racked up a high winning % by fighting weak opponents.
Boxing isn't like some other sports where everyone is playing similar schedules and win/loss records mean a lot more.

It also matters at what stage of a fighter's career a fighter is in when you fight him.
For example, Tszyu had a good win/loss % when Hatton fought him. If you just go by win/loss records, that seems like a big win. However, Tszyu was well past his best. Had Hatton beaten him when Tszyu was close to his prime, that would mean a lot more.

Hatton's last 10 opponents had a combined record of 344-28-7, Hatton's only previous loss was to Floyd Mayweather.

Those are not the type fighters who fought Peter McNeeley. Hatton didn't have a manufactured record.

Where was this proclamation that Hatton was over rated
before his loss to Pacquaio and...before his loss to Mayweather.

I must confess I was expecting the Pacman to win, but no
where nearly as dominantly and decisievly as he did...their
has to be something to a win like that.

Yes I thought Hatton was overrated before he got crushed by Pacquiao. That fight confirmed it. A lot of people were saying he was overrated before that. He hadn't beaten anyone that good and got beat very badly by Mayweather.

Before he fought Mayweather it was harder to say. You don't know for sure how a guy is until he fights the best. However, he didn't look that impressive in other fights.

Of course Hatton is better than McNeeley. I was just showing a point that win/loss records are often deceiving.
To a lesser degree Hatton did the same thing. (and many of Hatton's opponents piled up good winning %'s by fighting weak opponents. This is the norm in boxing, especially these days.)

Who is the best fighter that Hatton has beaten? An old, rusty Tszyu and who else?

How competitive was he against Mayweather ? How competitive was he against PacMan? Not all. It's not like he lost a close decision or got stopped in a back and forth fight. Mayweather toyed with him and PacMan knocked him in two rounds.
He hasn't fought anyone else remotely near their level. He is much closer in ability to Luis Collazo than he is to Mayweather and Pacquiao.