BoxRec

SticknMove wrote:

Mattyp151 wrote:

SticknMove wrote: As I said in a earlier post, to be considered at the top of the P4P list it seems a top overseas world champ has to ply his trade in the U.S. with career defining fights over a period of time. It's about money producing the fights that people want to see and making them possible. Like it or not this is the reality.

Given that PBF hasn't proved himself the best LWW or WW in the world makes these P4P lists pointless. He is being judged on his talent alone.

Whereas Pacman has beaten 2 future HoFs (Barrera and Morales) by TKO and still has PBF and Winky ahead of him in the Ring magazine's P4P list. IMO this is a bias shown in favour of home grown American fighters.

What do you think a P4P list is? It's the most talented fighters. P4P you are the best fighter in the world, it's a completely subjective idea. So naturally, there will be disagreements.

Corrales is HOF bound, Floyd beat him by TKO. Castillo is HOF bound, Floyd beat him twice. Winning by KO or by decision doesn't dictate the severity of the win. A wide decision win can be as equally or more complete of a win.

Shit, Pepp didn't KO anyone, and he's considered one of the best fighters overall, and one of the three best defensive fighters ever.

You say the lists are pointless, then complain that Pacquiao isn't first? How does that make sense? If they were pointless, this debate wouldn't be brough up 65 times a month. And I personally believe that if Taylor beats Winky outright, there's a third name in the bunch.

The point I am making is that the list appears pointless when a guy ranked P4P no1 hasn't proved himself the best in his current weight category. PBF didn't achieve that at LWW and hasn't at WW so far. If he stepped up the divisions and beat the very best then it would be fair enough.

The case I make for Pacman is the fact that as a ex flyweight champ he moved up the weights, moved to the States and chased down the very best out there, which happened to be at SFW. The manner of the wins, against 2 exceptional fighters in Barrera and Morales, and the fact they had never been stopped before, suggests a very special fighter.

However the lists are compiled, it appears to some outside of the States, that more weight is given to Americans who beat other top Americans, with less regard shown to excellent imports who ply their trade there. Maybe I'm overstating the bias bit, but that's how it appears to me at times.

P4P transcends all weight classes, so it doesn't matter if Floyd took on a heavyweight (theoretically speaking of course). You can only fight 1 fight at a time. So, Floyd is now taking on the best at his weight class....however, does beating Baldomir explode his p4p status and lock him in any higher then where he is? No. No one single fight does that. It's an entire resume taken into consideration, and eventhough Pac's and JT's resumes of late have been outstanding and overshadow Floyd's like a skyscraper, their pasts before the last 2 or 3 years is lacking by comparison.

Remember, Mayweather has been fighting for title since 1998, JT since 2005. Manny has been since 98, but you have to look behind Thai fighters who have been known to grab a title and hold it hostage until beaten.

Innate lack of fighting spirit.

This is why I keep saying, make your P4P lists CURRENT.

lvlarc_uk wrote:This is why I keep saying, make your P4P lists CURRENT.

Is any Brit in the current top 10 pfp list? I'd hesitate to put Hatton in there after his most recent performance.

pundit wrote:

lvlarc_uk wrote:This is why I keep saying, make your P4P lists CURRENT.

Is any Brit in the current top 10 pfp list? I'd hesitate to put Hatton in there after his most recent performance.

Yes

http://www.thering-online.com/ringpages/ratings2.html

Is any Dane in there?

Didn't think so

Mattyp151 wrote:

SticknMove wrote:

Mattyp151 wrote: What do you think a P4P list is? It's the most talented fighters. P4P you are the best fighter in the world, it's a completely subjective idea. So naturally, there will be disagreements.

Corrales is HOF bound, Floyd beat him by TKO. Castillo is HOF bound, Floyd beat him twice. Winning by KO or by decision doesn't dictate the severity of the win. A wide decision win can be as equally or more complete of a win.

Shit, Pepp didn't KO anyone, and he's considered one of the best fighters overall, and one of the three best defensive fighters ever.

You say the lists are pointless, then complain that Pacquiao isn't first? How does that make sense? If they were pointless, this debate wouldn't be brough up 65 times a month. And I personally believe that if Taylor beats Winky outright, there's a third name in the bunch.

The point I am making is that the list appears pointless when a guy ranked P4P no1 hasn't proved himself the best in his current weight category. PBF didn't achieve that at LWW and hasn't at WW so far. If he stepped up the divisions and beat the very best then it would be fair enough.

The case I make for Pacman is the fact that as a ex flyweight champ he moved up the weights, moved to the States and chased down the very best out there, which happened to be at SFW. The manner of the wins, against 2 exceptional fighters in Barrera and Morales, and the fact they had never been stopped before, suggests a very special fighter.

However the lists are compiled, it appears to some outside of the States, that more weight is given to Americans who beat other top Americans, with less regard shown to excellent imports who ply their trade there. Maybe I'm overstating the bias bit, but that's how it appears to me at times.

P4P transcends all weight classes, so it doesn't matter if Floyd took on a heavyweight (theoretically speaking of course). You can only fight 1 fight at a time. So, Floyd is now taking on the best at his weight class....however, does beating Baldomir explode his p4p status and lock him in any higher then where he is? No. No one single fight does that. It's an entire resume taken into consideration, and eventhough Pac's and JT's resumes of late have been outstanding and overshadow Floyd's like a skyscraper, their pasts before the last 2 or 3 years is lacking by comparison.

Remember, Mayweather has been fighting for title since 1998, JT since 2005. Manny has been since 98, but you have to look behind Thai fighters who have been known to grab a title and hold it hostage until beaten.

But the flip side of what you're stating is that if Baldomir beats Mayweather then nothing changes because of the respect given to his entire resume and the fact it's only one fight.

Look we could go round in circles arguing the toss about who should be where in the list, but generally speaking the top 10 P4P is not far off the mark, with a few exceptions and readjustments based on people's opinions.

One way of looking at it, is that an outstanding heavyweight champion IS a pound for pound fighter - in his own way, these days. What I mean is, heavyweight can be anything from 200 to 300+. Most fights seem to take place in the 220-260 region.

Terence wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:

Terence wrote: So why were people described as pound for pound before the 1940's and before Louis' reign?

It came about because boxing fans, not content with what is on their plate, constantly want to compare fighters from different divisions, even though, physiologically, your weight dictates, often, how you fight.So they said: "Pound for pound this guy would beat that guy in skills." It really means skill for skill, I read it being applied before Ray complained he would never be better than Joe. It is a leveller, not a way of discouting heavies.

that way "skill for skill", not "pound for pound", would be more appropriate. Like it or not, the term has connotations of weight (sadly some ppl seem to think p4p as "punch for punch, ie pounding someone) - which persists to this day. It would be a nice little term if the little guys would get more of a mention, but sadly they don't.


For me, p4p rankings will always be suspect if outstanding boxers like Brian Mitchell and Veeraphol Sahaprom could go unrecognized; and that fellow greats like Mike McCallum and Azumah Nelson (with Mitchell and Dick Tiger the greatest Africans ever) could be absent from the lists for alarmingly long times.

I prefer stride for stride We won't quibble over fine print though. I'd rank a heavy if he was good enough, most are not. It was good for Lopez though!

I don't do a P4P. Over longevity, class, opponents faced, pedigree, divisions won, big wins, skills, talent etc I'd go for Barrera, he out-lasted his peers and yes Manny beat him head-for-head but P4P, if used, should transcend fight by fight form guides, for me MAB is the bext in the world right now. He has longevity and other attributes. How many have boxed at the top-level for as long? Toney has dipped into contention.

Longevity is also very important for me, but you have to consider recent form. It seems clear that Barrera is in decline now, and the most recent results should carry more weight that stuff he did 5 years ago.

Pacman has also been fighting at top level for quite some time now, and has incredible form, losing a close one and then battering Morales, destroying Barrera, beating Larios,

Toney seems to be declining, if he's getting tagged like that by Peter, then he's obviously on the slide. On skills alone he's top 10 material, but his form is dipping.

when it comes to longevity, a lot of outstanding fighters don't get their props until they've made god knows how many title defenses. these kind of fighters get posthumous recognition as greats after their careers are over, i.e. Brian Mitchell. Boxing experts, in short, should be more fvcking perceptive at the time.

As to British fighters. We never used to ahve a lot of p4p fighters. We are typified somewhat by nearly men like Graham, Hardy, Brodie, etc - very good fighters who ran out of luck and didn't recapture their form.

Sure, Naz was a deserved p4p: Bungu, Vasquez, Medina, Ingle, Johnson, Robbo etc is one of the best runs anyone has been on vs top level comp, until Barrera got him. I always hated Naz but I give him credit for what he did. When it counted the most, he fell short vs MAB.

Now we have Hatton and Calzaghe, who have been doing very well of recent. Hatton has won three world titles in as many fights; Calzaghe has trounced a guy everyone said would beat him. Both won Ring magazine recognition as actual champions.

Each man could be one fight away from getting near to #1. Imagine if Hatton beat Urango (bit underrated & very tough), Castillo, Mbaye (WBA champ), Harris (could soon be his mandatory if RH beats Urango) OR Witter (could be WBC champ) & then Mayweather? Obviously hypothetical, who's to say what successes & failures he will have...

If Calzaghe were to beat the winner between elite class Beyer & kessler, he would be a long reigning, fully unified world champion. That would be something and would be top 3 worthy.


But I don't think hatton really wants a lasting legacy. And I don't think that Calzaghe has a massive amount of get up & go - if he had he would've demanded to fight Ottke, instead of letting it slip away. That's what distinguishes Lewis from them. Lennox made a massive # of title defenses and went after everyone.

Manny is only what 27 though? He's been a champion since 1998 when he won the flyweight title, and he's been beating quality fighters way before he got to the Barrera fight.

I know Barrera is a quality operator, but I do wonder sometimes if he and Morales are not adjudged too much on their great fights with eachother. There's a lot of other quality operators out there now, who neither fighter has faced, and this includes Marquez, who for me is probably still the best guy out there. Pacman was given a sound boxing lesson, but let's not forget he almost stopped him in the 1st round, and in fact Marquez was lucky the referee didn't stop it, because I think most would have done. Few if any would have argued with a stoppage, and I wonder how Pacman would be regarded now were that the case.

SticknMove wrote:

Mattyp151 wrote:

SticknMove wrote:
The point I am making is that the list appears pointless when a guy ranked P4P no1 hasn't proved himself the best in his current weight category. PBF didn't achieve that at LWW and hasn't at WW so far. If he stepped up the divisions and beat the very best then it would be fair enough.

The case I make for Pacman is the fact that as a ex flyweight champ he moved up the weights, moved to the States and chased down the very best out there, which happened to be at SFW. The manner of the wins, against 2 exceptional fighters in Barrera and Morales, and the fact they had never been stopped before, suggests a very special fighter.

However the lists are compiled, it appears to some outside of the States, that more weight is given to Americans who beat other top Americans, with less regard shown to excellent imports who ply their trade there. Maybe I'm overstating the bias bit, but that's how it appears to me at times.

P4P transcends all weight classes, so it doesn't matter if Floyd took on a heavyweight (theoretically speaking of course). You can only fight 1 fight at a time. So, Floyd is now taking on the best at his weight class....however, does beating Baldomir explode his p4p status and lock him in any higher then where he is? No. No one single fight does that. It's an entire resume taken into consideration, and eventhough Pac's and JT's resumes of late have been outstanding and overshadow Floyd's like a skyscraper, their pasts before the last 2 or 3 years is lacking by comparison.

Remember, Mayweather has been fighting for title since 1998, JT since 2005. Manny has been since 98, but you have to look behind Thai fighters who have been known to grab a title and hold it hostage until beaten.

But the flip side of what you're stating is that if Baldomir beats Mayweather then nothing changes because of the respect given to his entire resume and the fact it's only one fight.

Look we could go round in circles arguing the toss about who should be where in the list, but generally speaking the top 10 P4P is not far off the mark, with a few exceptions and readjustments based on people's opinions.

A loss changes a ton of stuff. A loss to a guy not in the top 10 will destroy you, but beating guys outside the top ten won't jump you up overnight from 15 to 3.

Terence wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Manny is only what 27 though? He's been a champion since 1998 when he won the flyweight title, and he's been beating quality fighters way before he got to the Barrera fight.

I know Barrera is a quality operator, but I do wonder sometimes if he and Morales are not adjudged too much on their great fights with eachother. There's a lot of other quality operators out there now, who neither fighter has faced, and this includes Marquez, who for me is probably still the best guy out there. Pacman was given a sound boxing lesson, but let's not forget he almost stopped him in the 1st round, and in fact Marquez was lucky the referee didn't stop it, because I think most would have done. Few if any would have argued with a stoppage, and I wonder how Pacman would be regarded now were that the case.

Manny did hit Marquez when he was, technically down, for one knock-down, so he deserved the break and he gave Manny a kicking for long periods. It was far more decisive than a guy getting caught cold.

That is the thing, Manny is 27, if we put him right up there now where does he go? We could give him three years to be kind and see where he is at. He is in form, like Mayorga was a few years back and look how people wet their knickers over him!

Manny is lots better than Mayorga, who was feted for one win over Forrest, and then a very close second victory. Pacman has been doing the do for a lot longer against quality fighters, and has beaten Morales and Barrera in spectacular fashion....no comparison!

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Terence wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Manny is only what 27 though? He's been a champion since 1998 when he won the flyweight title, and he's been beating quality fighters way before he got to the Barrera fight.

I know Barrera is a quality operator, but I do wonder sometimes if he and Morales are not adjudged too much on their great fights with eachother. There's a lot of other quality operators out there now, who neither fighter has faced, and this includes Marquez, who for me is probably still the best guy out there. Pacman was given a sound boxing lesson, but let's not forget he almost stopped him in the 1st round, and in fact Marquez was lucky the referee didn't stop it, because I think most would have done. Few if any would have argued with a stoppage, and I wonder how Pacman would be regarded now were that the case.

Manny did hit Marquez when he was, technically down, for one knock-down, so he deserved the break and he gave Manny a kicking for long periods. It was far more decisive than a guy getting caught cold.

That is the thing, Manny is 27, if we put him right up there now where does he go? We could give him three years to be kind and see where he is at. He is in form, like Mayorga was a few years back and look how people wet their knickers over him!

Manny is lots better than Mayorga, who was feted for one win over Forrest, and then a very close second victory. Pacman has been doing the do for a lot longer against quality fighters, and has beaten Morales and Barrera in spectacular fashion....no comparison!

Manny has also been on the World title scene for nearly 8 years since he was about 20 years old. Mayorga wasn't much until he beat Forrest.

C'mon you can't not put Manny at the top because he's still only 27, god knows he's earned it. Just a testament to how much Pac has achieved.

If you think MAB is the best then that speaks volumes of where Manny should stand.

lvlarc_uk wrote:C'mon you can't not put Manny at the top because he's still only 27, god knows he's earned it. Just a testament to how much Pac has achieved.

If you think MAB is the best then that speaks volumes of where Manny should stand.

I can't see Manny below 2 at all. He's beaten the best, and his last two hiccups were either not his fault or he's made up for it. If he destroys Morales early this time, I can't see him on any list below 2.

Terence wrote:I think Manny really stepped up with that big win over Barrera, his previous expoits on world-level had kept him out of the top-level mix, for many. That one win prompted many to put Manny right up, as they had done with Mayorga, only for him to dip with the Marquez and Erik fights(first one). In that much they were similar in terms of how they were perceived P4P.

Manny got that big win over Erik and against Larios he was expected to win and did so. I'd still be inclined to give him a few more years or at least wait for the rubber match with Erik. If he is soundly out-boxed where does that leave him in terms of his, currently sky-high, P4P ranking? Where would it leave Erik?

I respect Marco for his length at the top.

Yes, but Barerra was battered senseless by Pacman, it wasn't even close, and he was never even in the fight. He also struggled with Juarez. Take away his performance against Morales, whose number he seems to have for making a tough fight, and why is he elite level again?

Pacman dropped Marquez 3 times, lost a close one to Morales, battered Barrera, Battered the life out of Morales, and beat Larios all in pretty quick order.

Pacman will probably be finished in 3 years, but that's due to his fighting style which relies on exceptional speed and aggression. Doesn't make him less of a fighter though.

Mattyp151 wrote:

lvlarc_uk wrote:C'mon you can't not put Manny at the top because he's still only 27, god knows he's earned it. Just a testament to how much Pac has achieved.

If you think MAB is the best then that speaks volumes of where Manny should stand.

I can't see Manny below 2 at all. He's beaten the best, and his last two hiccups were either not his fault or he's made up for it. If he destroys Morales early this time, I can't see him on any list below 2.

Should that not read "I can't see him on any list below 1"? Or are we still worshipping at Floyd Mayweather's 'style over substance' altar?

Taki... wrote:

Mattyp151 wrote:

lvlarc_uk wrote:C'mon you can't not put Manny at the top because he's still only 27, god knows he's earned it. Just a testament to how much Pac has achieved.

If you think MAB is the best then that speaks volumes of where Manny should stand.

I can't see Manny below 2 at all. He's beaten the best, and his last two hiccups were either not his fault or he's made up for it. If he destroys Morales early this time, I can't see him on any list below 2.

Should that not read "I can't see him on any list below 1"? Or are we still worshipping at Floyd Mayweather's 'style over substance' altar?

Or entire resume being taken into consideration over just the past 2 years?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Terence wrote:I think Manny really stepped up with that big win over Barrera, his previous expoits on world-level had kept him out of the top-level mix, for many. That one win prompted many to put Manny right up, as they had done with Mayorga, only for him to dip with the Marquez and Erik fights(first one). In that much they were similar in terms of how they were perceived P4P.

Manny got that big win over Erik and against Larios he was expected to win and did so. I'd still be inclined to give him a few more years or at least wait for the rubber match with Erik. If he is soundly out-boxed where does that leave him in terms of his, currently sky-high, P4P ranking? Where would it leave Erik?

I respect Marco for his length at the top.

Yes, but Barerra was battered senseless by Pacman, it wasn't even close, and he was never even in the fight. He also struggled with Juarez. Take away his performance against Morales, whose number he seems to have for making a tough fight, and why is he elite level again?

Pacman dropped Marquez 3 times, lost a close one to Morales, battered Barrera, Battered the life out of Morales, and beat Larios all in pretty quick order.

Pacman will probably be finished in 3 years, but that's due to his fighting style which relies on exceptional speed and aggression. Doesn't make him less of a fighter though.

You're not being fair on Barrera. Why is he elite level, not counting the series with a great fighter in Morales? Because: He outclassed good fighters like Agapito Sanchez, Daniel Jiminez, Robbie Peden. He stopped an elite fighter in Kennedy McKinney, in one of the best fights of the '90s. Boxed the ears off Naz, who was on an excellent winning streak. Won titles in three weights and rebounded from bad losses. Showed he was able to change his style after a bad phase in his career, and became a consummate boxer.

Mattyp151 wrote:

lvlarc_uk wrote:C'mon you can't not put Manny at the top because he's still only 27, god knows he's earned it. Just a testament to how much Pac has achieved.

If you think MAB is the best then that speaks volumes of where Manny should stand.

I can't see Manny below 2 at all.

Too right Matty.

Putting aside the debate about who should occupy the No1 spot, what would happen if, for example, PBF lost against Baldomir? Would Winky be elevated to the No1 spot by default?

Given that you think that Pacman is no lower than 2, then you must accept that this lends some credence to the feelings of some of us, that the list, at times, weighs too heavily toward American fighters. Winky, excellent smart boxer that he is, is never No1 P4P in my book. But he's there at No2 providing a buffer to preventing Pacman from attaining his deserved status if in the event PBF did lose.

I'm not saying that this is intentional bias or a conspiracy to always have a U.S. fighter as No1 P4P. But there would be a lot of people outside of the States screaming, justifibly or not, outright American bias.

SticknMove wrote:

Mattyp151 wrote:

lvlarc_uk wrote:C'mon you can't not put Manny at the top because he's still only 27, god knows he's earned it. Just a testament to how much Pac has achieved.

If you think MAB is the best then that speaks volumes of where Manny should stand.

I can't see Manny below 2 at all.

Too right Matty.

Putting aside the debate about who should occupy the No1 spot, what would happen if, for example, PBF lost against Baldomir? Would Winky be elevated to the No1 spot by default?

Given that you think that Pacman is no lower than 2, then you must accept that this lends some credence to the feelings of some of us, that the list, at times, weighs too heavily toward American fighters. Winky, excellent smart boxer that he is, is never No1 P4P in my book. But he's there at No2 providing a buffer to preventing Pacman from attaining his deserved status if in the event PBF did lose.

I'm not saying that this is intentional bias or a conspiracy to always have a U.S. fighter as No1 P4P. But there would be a lot of people outside of the States screaming, justifibly or not, outright American bias.

Manny would be the #1 if Floyd lost, if he beats Morales no question. Only way Winky is #1 is if both Manny and Floyd lose....that's the only way.

viciousmaussa wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Terence wrote:I think Manny really stepped up with that big win over Barrera, his previous expoits on world-level had kept him out of the top-level mix, for many. That one win prompted many to put Manny right up, as they had done with Mayorga, only for him to dip with the Marquez and Erik fights(first one). In that much they were similar in terms of how they were perceived P4P.

Manny got that big win over Erik and against Larios he was expected to win and did so. I'd still be inclined to give him a few more years or at least wait for the rubber match with Erik. If he is soundly out-boxed where does that leave him in terms of his, currently sky-high, P4P ranking? Where would it leave Erik?

I respect Marco for his length at the top.

Yes, but Barerra was battered senseless by Pacman, it wasn't even close, and he was never even in the fight. He also struggled with Juarez. Take away his performance against Morales, whose number he seems to have for making a tough fight, and why is he elite level again?

Pacman dropped Marquez 3 times, lost a close one to Morales, battered Barrera, Battered the life out of Morales, and beat Larios all in pretty quick order.

Pacman will probably be finished in 3 years, but that's due to his fighting style which relies on exceptional speed and aggression. Doesn't make him less of a fighter though.

You're not being fair on Barrera. Why is he elite level, not counting the series with a great fighter in Morales? Because: He outclassed good fighters like Agapito Sanchez, Daniel Jiminez, Robbie Peden. He stopped an elite fighter in Kennedy McKinney, in one of the best fights of the '90s. Boxed the ears off Naz, who was on an excellent winning streak. Won titles in three weights and rebounded from bad losses. Showed he was able to change his style after a bad phase in his career, and became a consummate boxer.

I'm not being unfair at all. Barrera is still a top 10, probably top 5 fighter off the top of my head, but on recent form, and with his earlier career, Pacman rates higher.

Pacman is a multi weight world champion, who has also bounced back from losses to reinvigorate his career. Earlier in his career he had losses at flyweight and Jr Bantamweight, he bounced back from the Morales loss to trounce him in the rematch, beat a good champ in Larios who was moving up to challenge him (as he challenged Barrera).

Barrera has a better level of competition overall, but he's been fighting at top level longer.

Pacman will drop down if he loses to Morales but right now, I think I have him as my top guy.

Very persuasive arguments as ever Terrence me old china, however.

Are you not confusing the P4P rankings, which are a mutable list of the current best fighters in the world, with the 'all time great' tag.

Now whilst it is indisputable that whatever happens from now on, Barrera is an all time great, as is Morales, Pacman has not quite yet earnt this status.

Manny was outboxed by Morales in their first fight, but he made adjustments in the second. I'm not sure that even if Morales manages to get back into the proper fighting shape mentally and physically, that he will be able to overcome Pacman.

Pacman started the better of the two as I remember, and Morales came on in the middle rounds and began to time Manny. Then Manny went back to working behind that short jab and the left hook to set things up, and down went Morales. I will not discount that it's possible that Morales took the fight a bit lightly, and skimped on training, he did look a bit soft, but also don't discount the possibility that Roach gave Manny the tools to break Morales down effectively.

Though Pac has done a lot in his career - especially at super bantam where he beat the excellent Ledwaba and reigned as the best 122 in te world - there is something missing. I'll give him credit for the Barrera & Morales wins. Two stoppages vs bigger, if older, men.

However, there are a lot of NATURAL super feathers. Pac has really been beating super bantams - up at super feather. Barrios & Guzman being but two proper super feathers that he could get beaten up by. Edwin Valero and Mosquera, begin a couple of others. As well as ex featherweights who are fighting well at 130, like Gairy St Clair & Cassius Baloyi. St Clair in particular took everything from Corrales, and made a real battle out of it even though he was dwarved and probably outweighed by 10+ pounds

Can Pacquiao beat these bigger men?

Pacman is looking for the biggest fighters out there, and unfortunately, many of the fighters in the lower divisions are very anonymous. This is part of the reason we see so many fighters getting left on the outside whilst the likes of Morales, Barrera, Pacman get all the exposure.

There's plenty of guys who haven't got a look in against Barrera or Morales either, it's not just Pacman who is guilty of that. Why was Barrera fighting washed up Tapia for instance?