BoxRec

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Whitaker's win over vazquez is far better than Pac's over margarito imo. Not saying it's the end of debate, but Pea has quite a few underrated wins like that. Nothing on Manny's ledger is underrated.

I disagree completely. Whitaker began --- & peaked --- at a much higher weight than Pacquiao. He should've been beating fellas at 168 to be compared to Pacquiao here, & even then, he'd IMO come up short.

Whitaker is indeed my favourite fighter whose career I watched unfold (from 1994-onward, but still) ever (even more than De La Hoya), & I would never pick Pacquiao to beat him head-to-head, but comparing resumes? Pacquiao smashes him, truly. Pacquiao has smashed damn near everyone of the last few decades.

Go back a mere two years, when Pacquiao was eeking out a decision over Marquez, & tell people Pacquiao was going to shut-out, stop & retire De La Hoya, blow out Hatton with one shot inside two rounds, & completely route Cotto & Margarito, all between 140 & 154lbs. I know you called the De La Hoya fight Saad (& I didn't, so due credit your way), but you have to admit, under the conditions I just prescribed, all & sundry would laugh their asses off at you, & there would not be a single exception --- not if you asked a million opinions.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:How quickly retro-grading takes effect.

When the extraordinary becomes routine, it loses all lustre.

Truth is, Pacquiao continues to do things virtually none in history could do.

Not sure I agree with this at all. I think guys like Langford, Walcott and Armstrong set the bar pretty high. If Pacquiao stayed at WW or JrMW and cleaned out the division, then I might reconsider.

You don't agree that of the thousands of champions & great fighters in history, only a relative few could do what Pacquiao has done? Go from Fly to Welter, & win the titles & beat the men he has?

I consider it pretty obviously exceptional --- you disagree?

Few of them had the opportunity to weigh 125 for Flyweight bouts and a promoter who had no problem cannibalizing his old stars for his new ones intermittently between anything Manny did outside of Top Rank.

Here we go..."pick apart a great resume" time

All the cynicism in the world, WEAPON (& I won't deny it has some place in Pacquiao's match-making...some) is not going to belittle a most extraordinary & exceptional career. "Exceptional" being the most important word. Most guys couldn't have done what Pacquiao's done if you tied their opponents' hands behind their back & made them wear a blindfold. He's a genuine, honest-to-God freak of nature.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Whitaker's win over vazquez is far better than Pac's over margarito imo. Not saying it's the end of debate, but Pea has quite a few underrated wins like that. Nothing on Manny's ledger is underrated.

I disagree completely. Whitaker began --- & peaked --- at a much higher weight than Pacquiao. He should've been beating fellas at 168 to be compared to Pacquiao here, & even then, he'd IMO come up short.

Whitaker is indeed my favourite fighter whose career I watched unfold (from 1994-onward, but still) ever (even more than De La Hoya), & I would never pick Pacquiao to beat him head-to-head, but comparing resumes? Pacquiao smashes him, truly. Pacquiao has smashed damn near everyone of the last few decades.

Go back a mere two years, when Pacquiao was eeking out a decision over Marquez, & tell people Pacquiao was going to shut-out, stop & retire De La Hoya, blow out Hatton with one shot inside two rounds, & completely route Cotto & Margarito, all between 140 & 154lbs. I know you called the De La Hoya fight Saad (& I didn't, so due credit your way), but you have to admit, under the conditions I just prescribed, all & sundry would laugh their asses off at you, & there would not be a single exception --- not if you asked a million opinions.

Which of Pac's wins are underrated? He most certainly gets plenty of credit for Oscar. Much more than he deserves imo. Hatton is a very polarizing figure, I've seen that win diminished by more than a few so that is a potential answer. But I was speaking more of people without an agenda.

Same day weigh ins can account for some if it, McClarnin went from Flyweight to Welterweight too, he just didn't have 8 divisions & 4 titlists and to choose from on his way.

It isn't crazy to rate Pac ahead of those guys, it is crazy to say it isn't even a discussion. I know you love Whitaker, perhaps you're going the extra mile not to biased. I don't know, but his resume most certainly isn't dwarfed by Pac's and I think manny has peaked recently, above Lightweight.

I'm not saying that I envisioned Pac as a Jr welter/Welter, I most certainly did not. I bet on him to stop Oscar because I knew DLH couldn't beat anyone as the skeleton he was going to be at 147. But you really never know how much weight a guy is cutting until you see what happens later.

You call McClellan the king of the boil down, I would counter that it's pacquiao. Either that or he is king of the juicers. Either way wont alter his standing for me, but it explains some of the astonishment at the Fly-Jr Middle hike for me. If there were same day weigh ins, he would have never had a fight at Fly. But he would be a Welter now.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Here we go..."pick apart a great resume" time

All the cynicism in the world, WEAPON (& I won't deny it has some place in Pacquiao's match-making...some) is not going to belittle a most extraordinary & exceptional career. "Exceptional" being the most important word. Most guys couldn't have done what Pacquiao's done if you tied their opponents' hands behind their back & made them wear a blindfold. He's a genuine, honest-to-God freak of nature.

LOL, nobody is doing that. Thomas Hearns has relevant wins from 147 to 190. I think you underrate him but I never accuse you of trying to pick apart his great resume.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Here we go..."pick apart a great resume" time

All the cynicism in the world, WEAPON (& I won't deny it has some place in Pacquiao's match-making...some) is not going to belittle a most extraordinary & exceptional career. "Exceptional" being the most important word. Most guys couldn't have done what Pacquiao's done if you tied their opponents' hands behind their back & made them wear a blindfold. He's a genuine, honest-to-God freak of nature.

G,I You HAVE to pick apart resumes when it comes to ranking guys in threads like this because if you don't then you risk overrating some wins and underrating others. Yes, Manny has done some amazing things but he was almost never much heavier than Mayweather at the same age. If Floyd was a maniacal drainer he'd have been a destroyer at 122 as well.

Not that it's a bad thing either, because I hold that the likes of Mayweather and Jones compare favorably to Leonard, Armstrong et al. as well. It's all about context, and the state of the game in which a given man is fighting.

Fair enough takes on behalf of both of you. You fellas rate Pacquiao where, all-time, BTW? Given it much thought?

I honestly feel him in the top-20 all-time pound-for-pounders --- but I will qualify that by saying I purely make such lists in the context of achievements, of which I obviously place a great deal of stock in Pacquiao's. I would say he drops a good distance if judged on head-to-head fighting. As stated, Whitaker, for one, is a guy I rate below Pacquiao career-wise, but I know in my heart Sweet Pea would find a way to defeat Pacman anywhere from 135-147lbs.

Just skimming this thread, I see Raylaw is the most generous to Pacquiao, saying we have to go back to the distant days of Armstrong. WEAPON is the least impressed, arguing one of Pacquiao's essential contemporaries, in Mayweather, has him beat in the context of the question.

That's a hell of a range! Just an observation of poles, BTW. Nothing more.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Just skimming this thread, I see Raylaw is the most generous to Pacquiao, saying we have to go back to the distant days of Armstrong. WEAPON is the least impressed, arguing one of Pacquiao's essential contemporaries, in Mayweather, has him beat in the context of the question.

That's a hell of a range! Just an observation of poles, BTW. Nothing more.

I never said Mayweather has him beat, or at least I didn't mean to, otherwise he's have to be above him P4P for me. But he's not as far behind Pacquiao as many like to believe, the Marquez win helps Floyd's case, as does the Mosley one considering how badly Mosley beat Margarito and how he was able to put a MW like Mora on the defensive for the full distance.

To me if you wanna play the "weight" game you have to do so with an even hand and there's proof out there that Mayweather did it far more frequently than Pacquiao ever did. The very fact that Pacman skipped over two weight classes entirely without any real progress is major evidence of it.

As far as all-time I really dislike rating current fighters unless they're way beyond their primes and show no signs of doing anything close to the elite level again. Every fight must be taken into account as well as how the defeated opponent does after the loss. If Margarito goes on to be a monster at 154 the win will obviously mean a lot more for Manny than it does currently, similar to how Hatton's loss to Pacman loses some luster in light of the coke-issues and retirement.

Jones' win over Tarver in the first fight stands as a pretty damn good achievement considering how Antonio has done up to today, and the win over Ruiz was a major one cosidering only Tua and Haye could do the same more impressively but with comparitively green and old versions of The Quiet Man respectively.

OK...so if Mayweather is roughly Pacquiao's equal in the context of the Q, who, then, do we need to hark back to in order to find Pacquiao's better, in your view? How far need we go?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:OK...so if Mayweather is roughly Pacquiao's equal in the context of the Q, who, then, do we need to hark back to in order to find Pacquiao's better, in your view? How far need we go?

I'm tempted to say Toney but his inconsistency hurts him. I'd go with Jones. Manny has room to pass him of course though.

Jones accomplished more than Pacquiao, in your view?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Jones accomplished more than Pacquiao, in your view?

Sure. Beat ATGs Toney and Hopkins, who are both like fuckin cockroaches even today as senior citizens, completely owned Light Heavyweight, beating virtually everyone who existed there for a number of years with total ease, dominated John Ruiz, who was a total bane on the Heavyweight division that only Toney managed to replicate somewhat (although it wound up as an NC), and managed to gut out a decision win over the rising tide of Antonio Tarver before getting his perch levelled by The Magic Man in the rematch.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Fair enough takes on behalf of both of you. You fellas rate Pacquiao where, all-time, BTW? Given it much thought?

I honestly feel him in the top-20 all-time pound-for-pounders --- but I will qualify that by saying I purely make such lists in the context of achievements, of which I obviously place a great deal of stock in Pacquiao's. I would say he drops a good distance if judged on head-to-head fighting. As stated, Whitaker, for one, is a guy I rate below Pacquiao career-wise, but I know in my heart Sweet Pea would find a way to defeat Pacman anywhere from 135-147lbs.

Top 20-25 sounds about right to me. I haven't done one in a while. I had him in the 35-50 tier before the hatton fight. That was the last time I did anything. That win and Cotto are certainly worthy of a bump and alltime lists are so grueling the difference between 18 & 42 can be 2 wins.

Hearns, leonard, Whitaker, Duran, Hagler & Hopkins are around that same range for me. With Duran obviously topping that list.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:OK...so if Mayweather is roughly Pacquiao's equal in the context of the Q, who, then, do we need to hark back to in order to find Pacquiao's better, in your view? How far need we go?

I'm tempted to say Toney but his inconsistency hurts him. I'd go with Jones. Manny has room to pass him of course though.

Toney? He is beyond overrated by many. Pac is in a different category than James.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:OK...so if Mayweather is roughly Pacquiao's equal in the context of the Q, who, then, do we need to hark back to in order to find Pacquiao's better, in your view? How far need we go?

I'm tempted to say Toney but his inconsistency hurts him. I'd go with Jones. Manny has room to pass him of course though.

Toney? He is beyond overrated by many. Pac is in a different category than James.

I'm inclined to agree. He had some nice highs though, but if pressed I'd probably toss Marquez over Toney, Barrera too.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Just skimming this thread, I see Raylaw is the most generous to Pacquiao, saying we have to go back to the distant days of Armstrong. WEAPON is the least impressed, arguing one of Pacquiao's essential contemporaries, in Mayweather, has him beat in the context of the question.

That's a hell of a range! Just an observation of poles, BTW. Nothing more.

I never said Mayweather has him beat, or at least I didn't mean to, otherwise he's have to be above him P4P for me. But he's not as far behind Pacquiao as many like to believe, the Marquez win helps Floyd's case, as does the Mosley one considering how badly Mosley beat Margarito and how he was able to put a MW like Mora on the defensive for the full distance.

To me if you wanna play the "weight" game you have to do so with an even hand and there's proof out there that Mayweather did it far more frequently than Pacquiao ever did. The very fact that Pacman skipped over two weight classes entirely without any real progress is major evidence of it.

As far as all-time I really dislike rating current fighters unless they're way beyond their primes and show no signs of doing anything close to the elite level again. Every fight must be taken into account as well as how the defeated opponent does after the loss. If Margarito goes on to be a monster at 154 the win will obviously mean a lot more for Manny than it does currently, similar to how Hatton's loss to Pacman loses some luster in light of the coke-issues and retirement.

Jones' win over Tarver in the first fight stands as a pretty damn good achievement considering how Antonio has done up to today, and the win over Ruiz was a major one cosidering only Tua and Haye could do the same more impressively but with comparitively green and old versions of The Quiet Man respectively.

Roy's win over Ruiz means utter shite historically. Ruiz is a bum who only stuck around the top of the HW division so long b/c that division had fallen so far in the toilet. Mickey Walker beat several heavyweights far better than Ruiz and did so weighing around 170 lbs. Ruiz could look good vs the other plodding slobs of the division but vs anyone with any speed or skill he looked just like the ordinary fighter he was. To suggerst that W is even in the league of a former flyweight champ beating former welterweight champs is so ludicrous to even be taken seriously . .

dempseyfire wrote:

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Just skimming this thread, I see Raylaw is the most generous to Pacquiao, saying we have to go back to the distant days of Armstrong. WEAPON is the least impressed, arguing one of Pacquiao's essential contemporaries, in Mayweather, has him beat in the context of the question.

That's a hell of a range! Just an observation of poles, BTW. Nothing more.

I never said Mayweather has him beat, or at least I didn't mean to, otherwise he's have to be above him P4P for me. But he's not as far behind Pacquiao as many like to believe, the Marquez win helps Floyd's case, as does the Mosley one considering how badly Mosley beat Margarito and how he was able to put a MW like Mora on the defensive for the full distance.

To me if you wanna play the "weight" game you have to do so with an even hand and there's proof out there that Mayweather did it far more frequently than Pacquiao ever did. The very fact that Pacman skipped over two weight classes entirely without any real progress is major evidence of it.

As far as all-time I really dislike rating current fighters unless they're way beyond their primes and show no signs of doing anything close to the elite level again. Every fight must be taken into account as well as how the defeated opponent does after the loss. If Margarito goes on to be a monster at 154 the win will obviously mean a lot more for Manny than it does currently, similar to how Hatton's loss to Pacman loses some luster in light of the coke-issues and retirement.

Jones' win over Tarver in the first fight stands as a pretty damn good achievement considering how Antonio has done up to today, and the win over Ruiz was a major one cosidering only Tua and Haye could do the same more impressively but with comparitively green and old versions of The Quiet Man respectively.

Roy's win over Ruiz means utter shite historically. Ruiz is a bum who only stuck around the top of the HW division so long b/c that division had fallen so far in the toilet. Mickey Walker beat several heavyweights far better than Ruiz and did so weighing around 170 lbs. Ruiz could look good vs the other plodding slobs of the division but vs anyone with any speed or skill he looked just like the ordinary fighter he was. To suggerst that W is even in the league of a former flyweight champ beating former welterweight champs is so ludicrous to even be taken seriously . .

It is. Margarito, Cotto, and especially Clottey fair no better historically than Ruiz does, especially not at the state they were in when Manny beat them as compared to when Roy beat Ruiz

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Whittaker was a fine fighter who stands next to anyone, but I don't think he achieved as much.

Jones looked great but has few stand out moments. Hopkins is much more deserving of a comparison.

Mayweather, Pac fight or not, has not matched Pac's career at all. A fine fighter but I don't think his CV is that close.

Brutally pains me to say it, but Mayweather's CV is under-rated --- everyone's forgotten what a committed fighter this was until his late-20's. He really hunted the belt-holders & best names out there for the entire first-half of his career. Obviously, the back-half has been another story, his motivations & match-making, while hardly terrible, have been more cynical, & he has now ducked just too many obvious names he should've shared a ring with, especially at his current weight.

That said, you'd have to be a stark-raving made, "Money" fan to compare his resume realistically with Pacquiao's. No chance of equalling it, not even with ten shut-out victories over Pacquiao at this stage.

Fair points and I didn't want to have a go at Floyd. Just believe his record is not as good as Pac's. If I had to do a combined top 5 fights based on opponents then all top 5 spots then Pac would have all of the top 5.

Jones is a moot point seeings as Hopkins and Holyfield had far better careers.

Ezzard wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Whittaker was a fine fighter who stands next to anyone, but I don't think he achieved as much.

Jones looked great but has few stand out moments. Hopkins is much more deserving of a comparison.

Mayweather, Pac fight or not, has not matched Pac's career at all. A fine fighter but I don't think his CV is that close.

Brutally pains me to say it, but Mayweather's CV is under-rated --- everyone's forgotten what a committed fighter this was until his late-20's. He really hunted the belt-holders & best names out there for the entire first-half of his career. Obviously, the back-half has been another story, his motivations & match-making, while hardly terrible, have been more cynical, & he has now ducked just too many obvious names he should've shared a ring with, especially at his current weight.

That said, you'd have to be a stark-raving made, "Money" fan to compare his resume realistically with Pacquiao's. No chance of equalling it, not even with ten shut-out victories over Pacquiao at this stage.

Fair points and I didn't want to have a go at Floyd. Just believe his record is not as good as Pac's. If I had to do a combined top 5 fights based on opponents then all top 5 spots then Pac would have all of the top 5.

Nobody (Current) has a record equal to Pacquiao's, that's for certain. Mayweather has no interest in trying.