BoxRec

Posted: **18 Nov 2009, 11:53**

SticknMove wrote: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.

Not quite cherry-picked but there has been some ommissions from his record..... Mosley is the biggest crime. But why no Freitas fight at Super-Feather, why skip the Light-Welterweight ranks when Kostya Tszyu was champion and then side-stepping Margarito, Cotto and Williams at Welter and Light Middle for more lucrative but easier fights with DLH and Hatton. Money usually, and its hard to condemn him too much for opting to tackle DLH and Hatton with the fans they attract.

Shame Judah lost to Baldomir to dilute Mayweather's dominance of him.

Posted: **18 Nov 2009, 11:56**

Mosley was supposedly offered fights with Floyd twice, once in '99 and once in 2006 and turned both down. The first one I can understand because Shane was chasing fights with Oscar and Tito.

Posted: **18 Nov 2009, 12:02**

OK picking the most lucrative fights in this day and age of boxing is something we all have to expect. So cherry-picking maybe a bit harsh. But Pacman's trajectory through boxing has a bit more integrity in historical terms than PBFs imo. And a win by Pacman, if they meet, would be more significant than the other way round.

Posted: **18 Nov 2009, 12:24**

SticknMove wrote:OK picking the most lucrative fights in this day and age of boxing is something we all have to expect. So cherry-picking maybe a bit harsh. But Pacman's trajectory through boxing has a bit more integrity in historical terms than PBFs imo. And a win by Pacman, if they meet, would be more significant than the other way round.

Actually if Mayweather dominates Pacman, I think it makes the case for him being the greatest fighter of his generation much much stronger.

Posted: **18 Nov 2009, 12:33**

Terry D wrote:Scrub Cintron and Judah, they wouldn't even be that competitive!

I think Judah for 6 rounds and Cintro for power!

Posted: **18 Nov 2009, 12:35**

DG. wrote:
Terry D wrote:Scrub Cintron and Judah, they wouldn't even be that competitive!
I think Judah for 6 rounds and Cintro for power!

Cintrons power is only ever seen against low level fighters.

Posted: **18 Nov 2009, 12:37**

Only men on that list I'd give a chance are Mosley and Williams. William is fighting at middleweight now though.

Posted: **18 Nov 2009, 13:15**

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
SticknMove wrote:OK picking the most lucrative fights in this day and age of boxing is something we all have to expect. So cherry-picking maybe a bit harsh. But Pacman's trajectory through boxing has a bit more integrity in historical terms than PBFs imo. And a win by Pacman, if they meet, would be more significant than the other way round.
Actually if Mayweather dominates Pacman, I think it makes the case for him being the greatest fighter of his generation much much stronger.

Well yes of course PBF would be the best fighter of his generation if he dominates Pacman. But I just happen to think that there would more kudos toward a Pacman win than the other way round especially, as I say, in historical terms given the career path that Pacman has taken.

May be controversial but I happen to think that would be the case.

Posted: **18 Nov 2009, 13:23**

I can see where you're coming from.

Either man makes a case for the greatest fighter of their generation with a win.

Posted: **18 Nov 2009, 19:20**

If we are talking pacman at 147 .. I`d make Cintron, Margarito and def Williams favourites. Too big and powerfull.

Cotto was only half an inch taller than Pacman ... these guys are atleast 5" taller.

I think Pacman moves back down to lightweight or lt-welter if a mayweather fight doesn`t happen.

Posted: **19 Nov 2009, 07:06**

I'm not sure a defeat for Pac against Floyd would be that damning. I know that sounds odd but who is considered the better fighter Pryor or Arguello?

Posted: **19 Nov 2009, 07:27**

tonyevs wrote:If we are talking pacman at 147 .. I`d make Cintron, Margarito and def Williams favourites. Too big and powerfull.

Cotto was only half an inch taller than Pacman ... these guys are atleast 5" taller.

I think Pacman moves back down to lightweight or lt-welter if a mayweather fight doesn`t happen.

I think Pacman would outpoint Cintron, he's pretty slow and clumsy, Pacman would dart in and out and get out before Cintron could get set.

Margarito would be a tough one, but again, possible Pacman is just way too quick.

Williams - I think he would definitely have the assets to beat Pacquaio, long range punching, a great jab, and a good workrate.

Posted: **19 Nov 2009, 09:59**

I always thought at 130/135 Guzman would have given Pacquiao all he can handle.Guzman's career has been such a waste given his talent and ability.

With regards to where Pacquiao places on an all time list - I'm honest enough to admit I don't know enough about fighters of the past to place him as accurately as I would like. But in my humble opinion he's a way behind three greats of the past in Ray Robinson, Archie Moore and Henry Armstrong. Things are just so different nowadays - its hard to compare.

Take for example the recent weight concessions Paquiao's opponents have been giving him - whilst Robinson fought for the lightheavyweight championship of the world weighing under the middleweight limit and conceding no less than 15.5 pounds to his opponent. Could you ever imagine a fight such as this happening today? (unless its in the heavyweight division where there are no weight limits).

The 24hrs before weigh-ins nowadays further confuse the matter.

Posted: **19 Nov 2009, 10:04**

black panther wrote:I always thought at 130/135 Guzman would have given Pacquiao all he can handle.Guzman's career has been such a waste given his talent and ability.

I agree, thought Guzman Pac wouldve been great. Guzman has evolved into a poor mans mayweather hasnt he. his early career was fantastic "Little Tyson". Remember him on the Cardiff castle bill sending that bloke out on a stretcher? I have a programme from Hatton Magee and Guzman is listed in there as "A sports network World champion" (think he had an IBO title)- this is back when Warren managed / promoted him of course.

Posted: **19 Nov 2009, 10:37**

Wales wrote:
black panther wrote:I always thought at 130/135 Guzman would have given Pacquiao all he can handle.Guzman's career has been such a waste given his talent and ability.
I agree, thought Guzman Pac wouldve been great. Guzman has evolved into a poor mans mayweather hasnt he. his early career was fantastic "Little Tyson". Remember him on the Cardiff castle bill sending that bloke out on a stretcher? I have a programme from Hatton Magee and Guzman is listed in there as "A sports network World champion" (think he had an IBO title)- this is back when Warren managed / promoted him of course.

I remember that fight - it was for the vacant WBO 122lbs title - against an unbeaten but unknown argentine I think. He looked like a powerhouse then and not someone with "slick" skills like he does today. Still amazing to think this superbantam weight would have trouble making lightweight a couple of years down the line!

Posted: **19 Nov 2009, 10:39**

DG. wrote: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?

Nothing to with colour mate Only to do with talent.

Why is that?

Too slick?

Posted: **19 Nov 2009, 10:41**

quote="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?

Nothing to with colour mate

Only to do with talent.

Why is that?

Too slick?

[/quote][/quote]

Posted: **19 Nov 2009, 10:43**

Top Dog wrote:
DG. wrote: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?

Sorry mistake, never inserted my reply before sending It's nothing to do with colour mate, cant believe you even said that, unless your just goin fishing?

Nothing to with colour mate Only to do with talent.

Why is that?

Too slick?

Posted: **19 Nov 2009, 10:45**

WTF wont let me quote that with my reply for some reason! ANYWAY, It nothing to do with colour, hope your just on a fishing trip

Posted: **19 Nov 2009, 11:06**

[/quote]

Manny's big wins: Oscar, Cotto, Hatton, Marquez, Barrera and Morales.

Ray Robinson's big wins: Zivic, LaMotta, Henry Armstrong, Gavilan, Turpin, Graziano, Fullmer and Basilio.

Throw in some decent mid-level guys and both guys have nice resumes, but Ray's is better overall. Both also have some filler in there but, as explained once already, there was a reason why Ray took interim fights. You can't do like-for-like across the eras so you have to use commonsense, Jimmy tried to introduce you to it but you missed your cue.

Similarly, at this point Floyd has beaten the likes of Oscar, Marquez, Hatton, Corrales and Hernandez, winning a ton of alphabet belts in the process. Not bad for 40+ fights. However, by fight 30ish Ray Leonard had taken on, and defeated, Benitez, Duran, Kalule (an underrated win), Hearns and Hagler, winning the legitimate welterweight and middleweight crowns in the process. Those names piss on Floyd's run as Ray defeated at least two, maybe three, genuine all-timers.

Floyd and Manny are the top dogs of this era but they need one another to really step it up. If you put Manny top five then what happens next? Floyd beats him and becomes top three, arguably number one? That is nonsense. Floyd is a long way off the top spot of all time.

The Cotto win was good, but Miguel is not an all-timer, he is a big, strong boxer with solid skills and fundamentals who has looked on the wane in recent fights and had to trim a few extra lb off his frame. Try to get a wee bit of perspective, and maybe judge Manny and Floyd once they've fought once another, and retired.[/quote

Ok, lets look at the records then.

AS you say
Manny: Oscar, Cotto, Hatton, JMM, Barrera, Morales.

SRR: Zizic, Lamotta, Gavilan, Turpin, Graziano

You made me win the discussion there, cause ALL of SRR guys had a lot more loses than Mannys guys!!! Gavilan, 30 loses, Lamotta 19 loses, Graziano was beaten numerous times before SRR beat him.
Comparing the old fighters is like comparing Jessie Owens to Usain Bolt, night and day in fitness terms.

Manny would have beaten SRR and Gavilan, Graziano, etc etc etc I.M.O. OF COURSE

Posted: **19 Nov 2009, 11:09**

Top Dog wrote:
DG. wrote: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?

Nothing to with colour mate Only to do with talent.

Why is that?

Too slick?

Sort the quotes out!

He could have easily fought. Campbell or Guzman or even Holt - Bradley at lt welter.

Is a bit odd that he has no black fighters on his records, has he ever fought an African American?

Any one know?

Posted: **19 Nov 2009, 11:11**

Top Dog wrote:WTF wont let me quote that with my reply for some reason! ANYWAY, It nothing to do with colour, hope your just on a fishing trip

Is because you have no idea how to use the board!

I think it is odd the lack of black fighters in his resume.

Not a racial slir on Pac, just an observation.

Posted: **19 Nov 2009, 11:12**

guzman is just a reputation for me.

until he turns up and delivers in a big fight he's just a reputation.

he had the chance to fight campbell live on showtime and blew it.

no way does pac deserve stick for not fighting him.

Posted: **19 Nov 2009, 11:13**

Ezzard wrote:I'm not sure a defeat for Pac against Floyd would be that damning. I know that sounds odd but who is considered the better fighter Pryor or Arguello?

Yeah very true, or maybe Whitaker v Azumah Nelson. Nelson was a great fighter, but Pernell's slick style was just all wrong for him. And I'd slightly favour Mayweather over Pac, for the same reasons. Nelson v PacMan, what a fight that would have been. No way would Manny have just walked through Azumah..

Posted: **19 Nov 2009, 11:15**

Terry D wrote:Bradley and Holt aren't up to the challenge. Guzman, to be honest I'd thought he'd retired and he's been semi-retired for the past few years. Campbell, are you having a laugh?

holt don't deserve the fight.

someone like bradley would be a decent tune up fight for pac.

agreed that bradley wouldn't win though.

nate campbell don't deserve nothing off the back of that crybaby performance against bradley.

let him and guzman fight each other on an undercard or something. :>

BoxRec

Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?

Re: Pacman - all time list?