Page 3 of 5
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 17 Nov 2009, 10:09
by Top Dog
jamesmcdonnell wrote:Top Dog wrote:Before anyone else comeS on giving it, Willie Pep etc blah blah, take a GOOD look at his record, he fought more journeyman than anyone else did in the world ever, man 90 percent of these guys were pure donkeys, if not more. If todays fighters had records like that we would rip them to bits Even Greb had lots of fighters who had tons more loses than wins, ROSE TINTED GLASSES FOR SURE. Back then if you had a smidgen of talent and fotness it went a long way, most of the guys back then were booth fighters I.M.O.
Fighters tended to have a lot more losses back then because they were less protected, and fought much more regularly - often at very short notice and without having seen their opponent.
It was so much harder to stay unbeaten back then.
SRR record is full of journeymen as well, plenty of them
Can you imagine what kind of record SRR would have had in todays era, probably something like 80-2-1. He would have fought nowhere near as often, been able to cherry pick, and would have been retired at 34 with tens of millions in the bank.
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 17 Nov 2009, 11:12
by jamesmcdonnell
Top Dog wrote:jamesmcdonnell wrote:Top Dog wrote:Before anyone else comeS on giving it, Willie Pep etc blah blah, take a GOOD look at his record, he fought more journeyman than anyone else did in the world ever, man 90 percent of these guys were pure donkeys, if not more. If todays fighters had records like that we would rip them to bits Even Greb had lots of fighters who had tons more loses than wins, ROSE TINTED GLASSES FOR SURE. Back then if you had a smidgen of talent and fotness it went a long way, most of the guys back then were booth fighters I.M.O.
Fighters tended to have a lot more losses back then because they were less protected, and fought much more regularly - often at very short notice and without having seen their opponent.
It was so much harder to stay unbeaten back then.
SRR record is full of journeymen as well, plenty of them
Can you imagine what kind of record SRR would have had in todays era, probably something like 80-2-1. He would have fought nowhere near as often, been able to cherry pick, and would have been retired at 34 with tens of millions in the bank.
Are you trying to tell me that SRR robinson is overrated?
If you are then really, it's not worth us even talking about boxing. Robinson had over 200 fights, there's bound to be some journeymen in there, otherwise he'd have had to have cleared out about four divisions of top contenders.
He beat plenty of future hall of famers as well - i wont bother listing them, really, you should know who he fought and beat.
Fighters had to fight and beat journeymen back then, it was how they earned a payday - Robinson fought 10 times or more a year through much of his career, you can't have ten punishing back to back fights with top contenders now can you.
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 17 Nov 2009, 11:34
by Ezzard
Totally agree with James above. Also, it was much better for the sport. Top fighters fighting on smaller promotions against not so well known opponents. It kept the fighters busy and in shape. It also helped to promote them and the sport to the public. It also gave lesser known fighters a decent pay day. Chavez did the same for a while.
These guys didn’t really have this notion of going unbeaten as is talked about so much today. They weren’t padding their records as some people accuse. They still went out and fought the best as often as they could. They also created these fantastic rivalries that really elevate the sport. I think rematches are one of the best things about boxing. The great times people remember in the not so distant past were Benn-Eubank-Watson-Collins… The rematches and the drama around the personalities made these such a big deal.
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 17 Nov 2009, 12:47
by WildWaylon
SRR was a legend, a very special fighter.
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 17 Nov 2009, 12:50
by Autobarn
pac certainly is a sensational fighter, & the best there is to offer TODAY. beating up these bigger men. beating so many other top fighters before that. he has earned the right to cash in, and as he moves up in weight, to more mainstream divisions, he makes more money. i believe he's done it vs depleted, drained fighters on the way out - in the last 3. i feel that cotto has been a listless fighter of questionable stamina albeit with a fine array of punches, for a while. but that was the choice of DLH and cotto to do the catchweight. full credit to pac. but i don't know how that ranks in terms of "all time greatness." i don't really care either. pac is in the driver's seat & it seems bigger men are desperate to fight pac even if it means weakening themselves and getting embarrassed by a former flyweight who was supposed to have peaked up at super bantam.
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 17 Nov 2009, 13:28
by jamesmcdonnell
Even if DLH, Hatton and Cotto were either shopworn or perhaps not that great in Hatton's case - the manner in which Pacquaio utterly dominated them, suggests to me that he is one hell of a fighter.
The only guy that's given him a real tussle in recent times is Marquez - and I suspect if they fought anywhere above 135, that wouldn't happen again.
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 17 Nov 2009, 14:17
by Autobarn
yep, marquez vs pac, especially the 2nd one. that is what i call boxing. it was brilliant and i felt that JMM won. but it was back and forth and very intense. marquez just isn't good above lightweight, whereas pac seems to keep his vitality & speed as he moves up. different fighters, but they had 2 great collisions.
it certainly is impressive for pac to have beaten 3 world class fighters who are welters/light welters and to keep adding world titles to his collection. in cotto's case, i think cotto was tight at 147 already, that he looked jaded v clottey, and that losing additional pounds would hurt him. but he chose to do it, he went for the smaller pac rather than, say, a top light middle for a 3rd title. i'm sure he made the right business decision, i;m sure his bank statement tells him he did the right thing, but i bet he regretted it when he was having the shiit smashed out of him during the fight - the 36 mins that were almost completely out of his control, out of his power.
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 17 Nov 2009, 14:51
by NazNaci1
And dont forget, Cotto has some great names on his resume, too.
Another guy with a 'dare to be great' attitude
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 17 Nov 2009, 17:20
by TerribleTerry
Terry D wrote:Toney fought non-title fights against journeymen. It is a way of keeping busy, or in Toney's case keeping the weight down.
Jorge Castro was the same - he fought regularly to stay in fighting shape.
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 17 Nov 2009, 17:32
by banjo
I guess the more you fight the sharper you remain.
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 18 Nov 2009, 06:36
by Ezzard
Come on guys, Hatton is a world class fighter who was unbeaten at 140. He'd spent 4 years fighting the world's best and nobody expected him to be bounced up and down like he was. Look what Pac did to a bigger, higher ranked (in p4p terms) fighter in Cotto...
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 18 Nov 2009, 08:20
by Poncey
If he beats Mayweather he might make my top 20. Just.
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 18 Nov 2009, 08:35
by tonyevs
Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:If he beats Mayweather he might make my top 20. Just.
Your a hard man to please
Who would you rate higher .. 10 of the 20 names would do
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 18 Nov 2009, 09:38
by jamesmcdonnell
It would be an interesting exercise to see who all of us would place above Pacquaio.
Using the criteria of this list, where would we place Pacman?
http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/50_greatest.htm
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 18 Nov 2009, 09:53
by Carbo
Why oh why oh why is mainstream appeal on there?
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 18 Nov 2009, 09:55
by jamesmcdonnell
Carbo wrote:
Why oh why oh why is mainstream appeal on there?
Well actually, I think historical impact is an important consideration - what mark did they make on the sport?
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 18 Nov 2009, 09:56
by Carbo
jamesmcdonnell wrote:Carbo wrote:
Why oh why oh why is mainstream appeal on there?
Well actually, I think historical impact is an important consideration - what mark did they make on the sport?
Agreed, but what has that got to do wtih mainstream appeal?
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 18 Nov 2009, 10:13
by Top Dog
Fighters tended to have a lot more losses back then because they were less protected, and fought much more regularly - often at very short notice and without having seen their opponent.
If you are then really, it's not worth us even talking about boxing. Robinson had over 200 fights, there's bound to be some journeymen in there, otherwise he'd have had to have cleared out about four divisions of top contenders.
He beat plenty of future hall of famers as well - i wont bother listing them, really, you should know who he fought and beat.
Fighters had to fight and beat journeymen back then, it was how they earned a payday - Robinson fought 10 times or more a year through much of his career, you can't have ten punishing back to back fights with top contenders now can you.[/quote]
Oh right, so fighting tons of journeymen to stay sharp makes you an all time great does it, give me a break, the guy WAS over-rated, by you. The average opponent back then was no better than a booth fighter mate. You obviously knowfuckall and are not worth talking to, how does it feel when it's back at you?
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 18 Nov 2009, 11:09
by DG.
There is an argument to say 'Pac who?'
JMM beats his TWICE if you ask me.
Cotto 'damaged goods?'
DLH 'weigjt drained past his best'
Hatton 'Never that good!!!
Where are the black fighters like Guzman?
Has pac not fouight any black opponents since 2002?
Why is that?
Too slick?
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 18 Nov 2009, 11:23
by jamesmcdonnell
So which 'black opponents' outside of mayweather, would you pick to beat him at Welterweight or below? Mosley perhaps? Possibly.
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 18 Nov 2009, 11:25
by jamesmcdonnell
Top Dog wrote:Fighters tended to have a lot more losses back then because they were less protected, and fought much more regularly - often at very short notice and without having seen their opponent.
If you are then really, it's not worth us even talking about boxing. Robinson had over 200 fights, there's bound to be some journeymen in there, otherwise he'd have had to have cleared out about four divisions of top contenders.
He beat plenty of future hall of famers as well - i wont bother listing them, really, you should know who he fought and beat.
Fighters had to fight and beat journeymen back then, it was how they earned a payday - Robinson fought 10 times or more a year through much of his career, you can't have ten punishing back to back fights with top contenders now can you.
Oh right, so fighting tons of journeymen to stay sharp makes you an all time great does it, give me a break, the guy WAS over-rated, by you. The average opponent back then was no better than a booth fighter mate. You obviously knowfuckall and are not worth talking to, how does it feel when it's back at you?
[/quote]
It feels hilarious to be honest, because you obviously know little or nothing about Ray robinsons record.
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 18 Nov 2009, 11:28
by jamesmcdonnell
Floyd or Manny will greatly enhance their legacy by beating their opponent.
I think each fighter is the best either has ever faced, in terms of threat.
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 18 Nov 2009, 11:36
by DG.
jamesmcdonnell wrote:So which 'black opponents' outside of mayweather, would you pick to beat him at Welterweight or below? Mosley perhaps? Possibly.
Welter/
Good fights.
PBF Skill - fast - defence - decent power - stamina - good chin.
Mosley - skills - fast and powerful - great chin and stamina.
Judah - Erratic and fast and very dangerous for 6 rounds!
Paul Williams - tall - throws lots of punches
Cintron - Big power.
Come on Pac - do not run from the black!
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 18 Nov 2009, 11:49
by DavidPayne
Manny Pacquiao has to enter the debate. Has to.
http://boxingwriter.co.uk/2009/11/18/ma ... her-floyd/
However, I think Floyd Mayweather will beat him with some comfort. He'll pick the holes Cotto did early and keep picking them regardless of how dull it could make the fight.
A sensational prospect, but comfortable win for Floyd.
And I hate to concede that because Pacman is so affable and dignified.
You cannot hold the defeats on historic fighters records against them, it was the nature of the time.
Re: Pacman - all time list?
Posted: 18 Nov 2009, 11:50
by SticknMove
Jeez I thought I was on the Current Scene Forum for a second.
If, and only if, Pacman beats PBF then a case may well be made for an all time top ten ranking. Not sure it works the other way round for PBF to be honest. Something to do with resume and achievement. PBF has cherrypicked too much in the latter stages of his career.
Both great fighters but a Pacman win would be more significant than a PBF win imo. Strange thing to say but I think it happens to be the case - certainly imo.