View Full Version : Manny Pacqiuao a Top 25 all time great??


Pages : [1] 2

IronDanHamza
04-21-2011, 08:30 PM
There is a discussion in NSB that suggests Manny Pacqiauo is one of the greatest fighters of all time, which for NSB isn't suprising.

But, as I was reading through the thread, good posters were suggesting Pacqiauo is a Top 25 ATG, even using terminology such as "unquestionable". As the thread continued I noticed Blackirish also felt the same way, that suprised me as BI is an excellent poster in my view.

Is it just me? Because personally, I do not see Manny Pacqiauo as a Top 25 ATG, and I find it very difficult to see an argument for him being ranked that highly.

Does anyone else feel this way? Or is it just me? Do you feel he should be ranked that highly?

*Regular posters in this section only please. 1. Because it has already been discussed amongst NSB posters and 2. Because I'm posters this in here because I'm curious what the History Sections view on this is.

Steak
04-21-2011, 09:04 PM
I dont necessarily believe Pacquiao is a guarenteed top 25 all time.

I just feel that you can make a very strong argument for him being rated above a few people that others regularly include in their top 25 all time p4p.

Walt Liquor
04-21-2011, 09:12 PM
shi t!!!!!!!! i just typed out 25 greater imo and lost the effn post.

I don't feel like typing it again!!!

pac is definitely in the top 50 though right now, and he can do some things in his last 3-4 fights to get there.

IronDanHamza
04-21-2011, 09:19 PM
shi t!!!!!!!! i just typed out 25 greater imo and lost the effn post.

I don't feel like typing it again!!!

pac is definitely in the top 50 though right now, and he can do some things in his last 3-4 fights to get there.

I wrote out 25 off the top of myhead that I felt are greater than Pac in the Kellerman thread in NSB.

I have him Top 50ish too. He could enhance that in his next few fighters, but the way his last year and a half has been, I don't see it.

Walt Liquor
04-21-2011, 09:28 PM
when you get to 25, you're getting to guys like Ike Williams, Gene Fullmer, Willis, Agnott....

tough to give it over guys fighting ATG's multiple times with serious contenders spread all over there resumes. more guys were boxing over other sports, they fought more, they were better tested against their contemporaries.

I don't hold a lot of stock in the "titles in different weight classes" thing. even winning a lineal title nowadays isn't anywhere near the same before as the lineal champs hardly defend their thrones against the best of their divisions nowadays. nor do they hold on to their lineal title for any length of time... they tend to take on one type of fighter, that would make them look good (JMM for example) wheras the great fighters of the past were for the most part fighting everyone that stepped up (sure there were fighters avoided because of race, personal hatred, corruption but nothing like the politics that go on nowadays)

Ziggy Stardust
04-21-2011, 09:29 PM
I really don't like giving exact rankings to guys who are still in their primes (which I think Manny is). He's an ATG for sure but too much can happen still in his career to lock down an exact place on the lists.....let's wait until he slides to past-it status before starting to dicker over where he belongs.

Poet

Walt Liquor
04-21-2011, 09:31 PM
I wrote out 25 off the top of myhead that I felt are greater than Pac in the Kellerman thread in NSB.

I have him Top 50ish too. He could enhance that in his next few fighters, but the way his last year and a half has been, I don't see it.

me too, these guys are killing me. i was all ready for floyd's "5 fight plan to fight the best" which was a joke and this whole "cold war" bullsh it as a way to make the most money fighting the weakest opponents manny and bob can get away with is really killiong me.

just trying to scoop up some names for their resumes

IronDanHamza
04-21-2011, 09:40 PM
I really don't like giving exact rankings to guys who are still in their primes (which I think Manny is). He's an ATG for sure but too much can happen still in his career to lock down an exact place on the lists.....let's wait until he slides to past-it status before starting to dicker over where he belongs.

Poet

I do agree. I don't tend to usually.

But as it's recycled to an irritating level in NSB I had no choice but to dwell on his career as it stands.

IronDanHamza
04-21-2011, 09:44 PM
me too, these guys are killing me. i was all ready for floyd's "5 fight plan to fight the best" which was a joke and this whole "cold war" bullsh it as a way to make the most money fighting the weakest opponents manny and bob can get away with is really killiong me.

just trying to scoop up some names for their resumes

Robinson
Greb
Langford
Charles
Armstrong
Moore
Wilde
Monzon
Ali
Louis
Pep
Whitaker
Gans
B.Leonard
R.Leoanrd
Gavilan
Arguello
Fitzsimmons
Griffith
Walker
Jofre
Napoles
Ketchel
Tunney
Mclarnin

That was the first 25 that came to my head that I listed. Who I feel are all greater than Manny Pacqiuao as it stands.

That's without; Duran, Ross, Walcott, and many others.

So yeah, I just can't see it, personally.

$BloodyNate$
04-21-2011, 09:46 PM
Honestly he'd top 50. He can be pretty damn close to top 25 if he beats Floyd IMO.

I honestly believe he could be top 15 maybe even top 10 if he beat Sergio at 154.

Scott9945
04-21-2011, 09:47 PM
Pacquiao is fighting at too high a level right now to even begin to place him in all time ratings. He could still go significantly up or down. JMO.

New England
04-21-2011, 09:49 PM
I'm going to give the lame answer and say it's too early to give him any real ranking on such a scale, danhamza


he could, after all, lose and be exposed.


maybe bob arum pulled one last heist and built him in to somehting he's not with clever matchmaking. he looks magnificent trashing overmatched fighters (some of whom have been hall of famers, many of whom have been past their best days, docked cotto two crucial lbs, josh clottey was a zombie, etc)



it will, obviously, come down to who is rating.


right now, dan, i'd say 25 sounds like a good ballpark
i'd drive for the 25 mark, and then we can chip and put out in either direction at least a decade or so down the line after he finishes out his last few fights


i want to let this whole deal play out. i want to see what sort of fights he takes, and obviously their outcomes.

if he even takes a fight with martinez at a fair weight his stock goes up in my book. the man was a flyweight world champion. if he somehow beats him he's bumped up another notch.

Quarry
04-22-2011, 04:01 AM
Robinson
Greb
Langford
Charles
Armstrong
Moore
Wilde
Monzon
Ali
Louis
Pep
Whitaker
Gans
B.Leonard
R.Leoanrd
Gavilan
Arguello
Fitzsimmons
Griffith
Walker
Jofre
Napoles
Ketchel
Tunney
Mclarnin

That was the first 25 that came to my head that I listed. Who I feel are all greater than Manny Pacqiuao as it stands.

That's without; Duran, Ross, Walcott, and many others.

So yeah, I just can't see it, personally.

this is just IMO so from your list above based on boxing achievements i would rank Pacquiao ahead of
Greb
Langford
Charles
Moore
Wilde
Monzon
Pep
Whitaker
Gans
B.Leonard
R.Leonard
Gavilan
Fitzsimmons
Griffith
Walker
Tunney
Jofre
Napoles
Ketchel
McLarnin
Duran
Walcott
Ross

8 world titles which could be 9 or more by the time he is finished in the sport, quality of opponents and his losing only one fight in 12yrs is really remarkable even in comparison to the great boxers listed above.

JAB5239
04-22-2011, 04:06 AM
this is just IMO so from your list above based on boxing achievements i would rank Pacquiao ahead of
Greb
Langford
Charles
Moore
Wilde
Monzon
Pep
Whitaker
Gans
B.Leonard
R.Leonard
Gavilan
Fitzsimmons
Griffith
Walker
Tunney
Jofre
Napoles
Ketchel
McLarnin
Duran
Walcott
Ross

8 world titles which could be 9 or more by the time he is finished in the sport, quality of opponents and his losing only one fight in 12yrs is really remarkable even in comparison to the great boxers listed above.

............:rofl:..............

jrosales13
04-22-2011, 04:18 AM
............:rofl:..............

I'm laughing harder than what Jab is after that silly post.

Quarry
04-22-2011, 04:20 AM
............:rofl:..............

maybe you can explain what any of those boxers achieved which surpasses what pacquiao has achieved

Steak
04-22-2011, 04:28 AM
maybe you can explain what any of those boxers achieved which surpasses what pacquiao has achieved
Well, for starters you put Pacquiao over Duran, which is...impossible. Duran fought top competition from 130 to 168lbs, just as big a range as Pacquiao. He also his more wins over top competition, as well as having the better wins, most notably his win over Leonard is better than any win Pacquiao has by far.

you can make an argument for Pacquiao being above some of the guys you mentioned but...having Pacquiao above guys like Moore, Whitaker, and Duran is pretty crazy.

JAB5239
04-22-2011, 04:36 AM
maybe you can explain what any of those boxers achieved which surpasses what pacquiao has achieved

Beating better competition trumps paper titles any day. I love Pac, he's great. But he's had the luxury of fighting in an era where there are 17 different weight classes that can provide up to 68 champions, and that doesn't include diamond belts, super champions, champions emeritus, interim champions etc., etc., etc.. When you compare that to 8 or 10 weight classes with one ONE champion in each it takes a lot of luster of those achievements.

Quarry
04-22-2011, 04:55 AM
Beating better competition trumps paper titles any day. I love Pac, he's great. But he's had the luxury of fighting in an era where there are 17 different weight classes that can provide up to 68 champions, and that doesn't include diamond belts, super champions, champions emeritus, interim champions etc., etc., etc.. When you compare that to 8 or 10 weight classes with one ONE champion in each it takes a lot of luster of those achievements.
with all due respect you have not answered my question. regardless of how this sport has evolved and moved on over the last 100yrs or so, what Pacquiao has achieved is the equivalent of Jimmy Wilde moving through the weights in 1914 beating such fighters as Abe Atell, Johnny Kilbane, Packey McFarland, Battling Nelson & Sam Langford. with Harry Greb (F.Mayweather) then refusing to accept the challenge from Wilde. you just cannot comprehend Jimmy Wilde being able to achieve such an incredible feat yet that is what Manny Pacquiao has achieved and more.

jrosales13
04-22-2011, 04:59 AM
with all due respect you have not answered my question. regardless of how this sport has evolved and moved on over the last 100yrs or so, what Pacquiao has achieved is the equivalent of Jimmy Wilde moving through the weights in 1914 beating such fighters as Abe Atell, Johnny Kilbane, Packey McFarland, Battling Nelson & Sam Langford. with Harry Greb (F.Mayweather) then refusing to accept the challenge from Wilde. you just cannot comprehend Jimmy Wilde being able to achieve such an incredible feat yet that is what Manny Pacquiao has achieved and more.

Meh....Pac is my favorite active fighter. But, like Black Irish said Duran did almost the same thing started at bantamweight ended at SMW. In the span of 3 decades and had better wins than Pac.

Jimmy McClarnin started near the flyweight limit went up all the way to WW. Dominated and KO'd better fighters than what Pac has faced.

To say that Pac accomplished more than those 2 and then include Greb and Langford 2 guys who have a case just as good as SRR to being considered the GOAT of all time is quite laughable.

JAB5239
04-22-2011, 05:08 AM
with all due respect you have not answered my question. regardless of how this sport has evolved and moved on over the last 100yrs or so, what Pacquiao has achieved is the equivalent of Jimmy Wilde moving through the weights in 1914 beating such fighters as Abe Atell, Johnny Kilbane, Packey McFarland, Battling Nelson & Sam Langford. with Harry Greb (F.Mayweather) then refusing to accept the challenge from Wilde. you just cannot comprehend Jimmy Wilde being able to achieve such an incredible feat yet that is what Manny Pacquiao has achieved and more.

Wow. I mean........wow! You just compared some of the greatest fighters in history to Sasakul, Ledwaba, Diaz, Hatton, Cotto and Margarito? :pat::lol1:

mickey malone
04-22-2011, 05:21 AM
Pacquiao's a match for anyone in history throughout the lower weight divisions and i believe if he stays in the game until he's 35, will achieve at least a top 25 ranking. He's pretty much knocking on that door right now.

Barn
04-22-2011, 06:44 AM
If he retired tomrrow I would have him at around 40.

If he beats Floyd About 35.

Spartacus Sully
04-22-2011, 06:50 AM
with all due respect you have not answered my question. regardless of how this sport has evolved and moved on over the last 100yrs or so, what Pacquiao has achieved is the equivalent of Jimmy Wilde moving through the weights in 1914 beating such fighters as Abe Atell, Johnny Kilbane, Packey McFarland, Battling Nelson & Sam Langford. with Harry Greb (F.Mayweather) then refusing to accept the challenge from Wilde. you just cannot comprehend Jimmy Wilde being able to achieve such an incredible feat yet that is what Manny Pacquiao has achieved and more.

Manny pacquiao 52(38 ko)-3-2

jimmy wilde 134(100 ko)-4-2

........

Quarry
04-22-2011, 06:51 AM
Meh....Pac is my favorite active fighter. But, like Black Irish said Duran did almost the same thing started at bantamweight ended at SMW. In the span of 3 decades and had better wins than Pac.

Jimmy McClarnin started near the flyweight limit went up all the way to WW. Dominated and KO'd better fighters than what Pac has faced.

To say that Pac accomplished more than those 2 and then include Greb and Langford 2 guys who have a case just as good as SRR to being considered the GOAT of all time is quite laughable.

i think it is you who the laugh is on. Duran was not a world champion at bantamweight etc. same goes for McLarnin and their dominance was no greater if any than what Pacquiao's is today with Manny being the premium No1 boxer in the sport which Duran & McLarnin was not at any time during their career's.

Spartacus Sully
04-22-2011, 06:57 AM
i think it is you who the laugh is on. Duran was not a world champion at bantamweight etc. same goes for McLarnin and their dominance was no greater if any than what Pacquiao's is today with Manny being the premium No1 boxer in the sport which Duran & McLarnin was not at any time during their career's.

manny went from 106- 145 ish = 39 lbs

duran went from 119 - 165 ish = 46 lbs

Quarry
04-22-2011, 07:14 AM
Wow. I mean........wow! You just compared some of the greatest fighters in history to Sasakul, Ledwaba, Diaz, Hatton, Cotto and Margarito? :pat::lol1:

This post show's your ignorance of this sport as well as your lack of knowledge, i have in no way compared some of the greatest fighters in history to the fighters who you have chosen, what i am saying is Manny Pacquiao is comparable if not better than those fighters you claim to be the best in history. Pacquiao has beaten the very best fighters in the weight divisions he has become champion, Sasakul 33-1, Ledwaba 33-1, Barrera 57-3, J.M.Marquez 42-2, Morales 47-2, Diaz 34-1, De La Hoya 39-5, Hatton 45-1, Cotto 34-1, Margarito 38-6 who weighed 172lbs on fight night which is an amazing 65lb heavier than what Pacquiao weighed when winning his first world title and is an achievement none of those greatest fighters in history which you listed achieved. At least seven of the men Pacquiao beat for world titles are destined for the HOF in the next 20yrs which shows just how incredible his boxing achievements have been compared to every other fighter in history, This Topic should not be asking if Manny Pacquiao is an ATG Top 25 fighter it should be is he a Top 5 fighter.

Quarry
04-22-2011, 07:18 AM
manny went from 106- 145 ish = 39 lbs

duran went from 119 - 165 ish = 46 lbs


Pacquiao world champion 112-154 =42lbs

Duran world champion 135-165 = 30lbs

Let's get the facts correct here.

Spartacus Sully
04-22-2011, 07:29 AM
Pacquiao world champion 112-154 =42lbs

Duran world champion 135-165 = 30lbs

Let's get the facts correct here.

no, i was pointing out the weight they started and the weight of their last bout.

the point is to show the range of weights they fought at i dont really care what titles they won and at what weights as the opposition they fought to get the titles is much more important.

i mean duran fought ken buchannan or something 43-1-0 for his first title while paciano fought saschkul or something at 33-1-0 for his first title

Tamis!
04-22-2011, 07:39 AM
I wouldn't ever be in a position to rank anyone in the ATGs, since I didn't cover boxing since time immemorial.

To the peeps who has their own ATG list, did you just rely on your stash of videos from the 1900's and go by it? Or you really old enough like zombie Bert Sugar to see it all unfold?

Coz my boy, Pancho Villa, for me is the greatest Flyweight of all time (sorry Jimmy Wilde and Finito Lopez fans), and to me Pac doesn't hold a candle to him, and Pancho's not even in the top 50 ATG.

It'll always be subjective.

Quarry
04-22-2011, 07:40 AM
no, i was pointing out the weight they started and the weight of their last bout.

the point is to show the range of weights they fought at i dont really care what titles they won and at what weights as the opposition they fought to get the titles is much more important.

i mean duran fought ken buchannan or something 43-1-0 for his first title while paciano fought saschkul or something at 33-1-0 for his first title

IMO if the Mayweather fight does not materialize within the next 2yrs Pacquiao will finish his career off fighting for the 165lb title and most likely succeed in winning it.

Spartacus Sully
04-22-2011, 07:42 AM
IMO if the Mayweather fight does not materialize within the next 2yrs Pacquiao will finish his career off fighting for the 165lb title and most likely succeed in winning it.

good for him, come back to this thread when it happens.

nullifygirls
04-22-2011, 08:14 AM
Bob Arum said that Manny is the greatest fighter he has ever seen, greater then Ali. Obviouslly, Arum is Manny's current promoter and therefore makes more money off of his fights then any other fighter, so he has a a pretty good financial incentive to proclaim Manny to be the greatest.

He is definitely an all time great right now, the question is where does he rank? His record is 52(38 KOs)-3-2. His record is actually somewhat deceiving, because he only lost 1 fight very close fight to Morales (115-113 on all 3 scorecards) since turning 21, and he knocked Morales out in 2 rematches. He has held belts in 8 different weight divisions. He has consistently fough the best fighters in every weight class he has competed in except for 135 (only had 1 fight there). He went a combined 5-1-1 against the 3 best fighters his size of his generation (Morales, Barrera, and Marquez) He destroyed Hatton to win Ring 140 pound title. Completely dominated Cotto, Margarito, Clottey, and De La Hoya at 147/150 and arguably won every round against those guys. And he is one of the most exciting fighters of his generation as well always going for the KO.

He is great, there can be no debate. How great is he though?

Spartacus Sully
04-22-2011, 08:21 AM
Bob Arum said that Manny is the greatest fighter he has ever seen, greater then Ali. Obviouslly, Arum is Manny's current promoter and therefore makes more money off of his fights then any other fighter, so he has a a pretty good financial incentive to proclaim Manny to be the greatest.

He is definitely an all time great right now, the question is where does he rank? His record is 52(38 KOs)-3-2. His record is actually somewhat deceiving, because he only lost 1 fight very close fight to Morales (115-113 on all 3 scorecards) since turning 21, and he knocked Morales out in 2 rematches. He has held belts in 8 different weight divisions. He has consistently fough the best fighters in every weight class he has competed in except for 135 (only had 1 fight there). He went a combined 5-1-1 against the 3 best fighters his size of his generation (Morales, Barrera, and Marquez) He destroyed Hatton to win Ring 140 pound title. Completely dominated Cotto, Margarito, Clottey, and De La Hoya at 147/150 and arguably won every round against those guys. And he is one of the most exciting fighters of his generation as well always going for the KO.

He is great, there can be no debate. How great is he though?

its been agreed here that he is at least in the top 50.

ranking a currently fighting fighter is like asking someone if they're happy....well im happy now but who knows tomorrow.

SplitSecond
04-22-2011, 08:30 AM
IMO if the Mayweather fight does not materialize within the next 2yrs Pacquiao will finish his career off fighting for the 165lb title and most likely succeed in winning it.

wtf is wrong wit you...

Ryannn
04-22-2011, 08:35 AM
Manny pacquiao 52(38 ko)-3-2

jimmy wilde 134(100 ko)-4-2

........

not saying pacquiao is greater than wilde...

but comparing records from different eras is a bad way of assessing how a fighter should be ranked.

if wilde was in this era, would he have 100++ fights in his career? doubt it.

its pretty unfair that we measure greatness by a standard that cannot be achieved by today's boxer, no matter how great they are.

now on the topic, i think it would be pretty much premature to rank pacquiao right now. wait till he's retired.

SBleeder
04-22-2011, 08:37 AM
this is just IMO so from your list above based on boxing achievements i would rank Pacquiao ahead of
Greb
Langford
Charles
Moore
Wilde
Monzon
Pep
Whitaker
Gans
B.Leonard
R.Leonard
Gavilan
Fitzsimmons
Griffith
Walker
Tunney
Jofre
Napoles
Ketchel
McLarnin
Duran
Walcott
Ross

8 world titles which could be 9 or more by the time he is finished in the sport, quality of opponents and his losing only one fight in 12yrs is really remarkable even in comparison to the great boxers listed above.

http://i336.photobucket.com/albums/n359/SasukeAndGogeta/emote_wut.gif

Let's break down the math. Pacquiao's won 8 "titles", out of 68 "titles" that exist between the four sanctioning bodies among the 17 weight classes. That comes out to about 12% of the belts there are to win.

To pick an example from above: Bob Fitzsimmons, in a far tougher era, held the undisputed middleweight, light heavyweight, and heavyweight championships- 37% of the titles that existed in the world at that time. To put it another way, Fitzsimmons held the modern equivalent of 12 different belts.

Spartacus Sully
04-22-2011, 08:42 AM
not saying pacquiao is greater than wilde...

but comparing records from different eras is a bad way of assessing how a fighter should be ranked.

if wilde was in this era, would he have 100++ fights in his career? doubt it.

its pretty unfair that we measure greatness by a standard that cannot be achieved by today's boxer, no matter how great they are.

now on the topic, i think it would be pretty much premature to rank pacquiao right now. wait till he's retired.

duran had 100+ i see no reason why wilde wouldnt....but mroe so its that he had 100+ with only 4 losses. if manny had 100+ fights i doubt he have only 4 losses.

New England
04-22-2011, 08:42 AM
I really don't like giving exact rankings to guys who are still in their primes (which I think Manny is). He's an ATG for sure but too much can happen still in his career to lock down an exact place on the lists.....let's wait until he slides to past-it status before starting to dicker over where he belongs.

Poet




once again, i'm ashamed about being in agreement with this guy
but he's right on with this one.


history is what we make it out to be after it has passed.
it's inherently subjective


we need time to develop subjectivity on pacquiao
right now we're too objective because we're watching his fights in the contemporary :sombrero:

to rate him historically, in terms of greatness in historical context, we must allow him to become history first.

Ryannn
04-22-2011, 09:04 AM
duran had 100+ i see no reason why wilde wouldnt....but mroe so its that he had 100+ with only 4 losses. if manny had 100+ fights i doubt he have only 4 losses.

yeah, exactly. duran had that much fight, so did chavez, but it still doesn't take away my point.

top fighters fight 3 times a year nowadays. they are pretty much constricted to that many fights.

i just find it unfair to subject fighters nowadays to a ridiculously impossible standards when the sport has changed so much.

pacquiao with his 50++ fights at this point in his career is considered a high number of fights nowadays.

its not really that cut and dry when assessing fighters all time.

i myself don't have an atg list, as i was not there when the whole thing unfolds as one poster said here. but lets be subjective on the matter.

Walt Liquor
04-22-2011, 09:26 AM
this is just IMO so from your list above based on boxing achievements i would rank Pacquiao ahead of
Greb
Langford
Charles
Moore
Wilde
Monzon
Pep
Whitaker
Gans
B.Leonard
R.Leonard
Gavilan
Fitzsimmons
Griffith
Walker
Tunney
Jofre
Napoles
Ketchel
McLarnin
Duran
Walcott
Ross

8 world titles which could be 9 or more by the time he is finished in the sport, quality of opponents and his losing only one fight in 12yrs is really remarkable even in comparison to the great boxers listed above.

HOLY SHI T BALLS!!!!

My boxingscene day is gonna get good if this is the first post I see!

Spartacus Sully
04-22-2011, 09:26 AM
yeah, exactly. duran had that much fight, so did chavez, but it still doesn't take away my point.

top fighters fight 3 times a year nowadays. they are pretty much constricted to that many fights.

i just find it unfair to subject fighters nowadays to a ridiculously impossible standards when the sport has changed so much.

pacquiao with his 50++ fights at this point in his career is considered a high number of fights nowadays.

its not really that cut and dry when assessing fighters all time.

i myself don't have an atg list, as i was not there when the whole thing unfolds as one poster said here. but lets be subjective on the matter.

im sure if the top fighters wanted to fight more they could. laziness and money are no excuse for not fighting as much as they did in the past.

today they dont want to risk loosing a fight with some one that isnt worth the money so they dont take any fight they can get they only take the big money fights, fighters of yester year didnt care if they were risking a chance at loosing a match they just wanted to fight.

Walt Liquor
04-22-2011, 09:28 AM
with all due respect you have not answered my question. regardless of how this sport has evolved and moved on over the last 100yrs or so, what Pacquiao has achieved is the equivalent of Jimmy Wilde moving through the weights in 1914 beating such fighters as Abe Atell, Johnny Kilbane, Packey McFarland, Battling Nelson & Sam Langford. with Harry Greb (F.Mayweather) then refusing to accept the challenge from Wilde. you just cannot comprehend Jimmy Wilde being able to achieve such an incredible feat yet that is what Manny Pacquiao has achieved and more.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Walt Liquor
04-22-2011, 09:30 AM
Pacquiao world champion 112-154 =42lbs

Duran world champion 135-165 = 30lbs

Let's get the facts correct here.

what weight class is 165?

Ryannn
04-22-2011, 10:25 AM
im sure if the top fighters wanted to fight more they could. laziness and money are no excuse for not fighting as much as they did in the past.

today they dont want to risk loosing a fight with some one that isnt worth the money so they dont take any fight they can get they only take the big money fights, fighters of yester year didnt care if they were risking a chance at loosing a match they just wanted to fight.

that may be true,

but it has become the norm. that's how it is nowadays. top fighters don't fight once month anymore.

its absolutely ridiculous to say guys like pacquiao has to have 100 fights to even be mentioned with boxers from the past, or to unify all belts for their title to count.

that is why making an all time list is ball crushingly hard. you don't just have to know what happened, you have to take into account the changes in the eras.

Spartacus Sully
04-22-2011, 10:33 AM
that may be true,

but it has become the norm. that's how it is nowadays. top fighters don't fight once month anymore.

its absolutely ridiculous to say guys like pacquiao has to have 100 fights to even be mentioned with boxers from the past, or to unify all belts for their title to count.

that is why making an all time list is ball crushingly hard. you don't just have to know what happened, you have to take into account the changes in the eras.

and lets say pac did fight 100+ times would he have less then 4 losses or more then 100 kos?

it really dosnt matter that he fought 134 times what matters is that he fought 134 times and only lost 4 times.

pacquia0
04-22-2011, 11:04 AM
Yes.

#1 112lbs Sasakul
#3 122lbs Ledwaba. The #1 guy was MAB.
#1 126lbs MAB, JMM
#1 130lbs JMM, Top 5 Morales and MAB
#2 135lbs Diaz
#1 140lbs Hatton
#2 147lbs Cotto, Top 5 Clottey and Mosley(if he wins)

Hes fought the best at every weight class so he cannot be accused of paper titles. His title at 154lbs is the only one which is paper. Margarito is still a good win though considering he was the #1 WW before his loss to Mosley. At 122lbs he might as well be considered a true champ as MAB moved up and pac beat him and the #2 guy Ayala lost in his next fight. At 135lbs the best fighter was Juan Diaz. However david Diaz was Top rank making the fight easier to make and after beating Diaz, De La Hoya called Pac out. Most thought Pac had no chance in that fight. At 147lbs in 2009 the top 5 guys were Cotto, Clottey, Mosley and Margarito.

Hes easily top 25 and probably top 5.

Barn
04-22-2011, 11:09 AM
Yes.

#1 112lbs Sasakul
#3 122lbs Ledwaba. The #1 guy was MAB.
#1 126lbs MAB, JMM
#1 130lbs JMM, Top 5 Morales and MAB
#2 135lbs Diaz
#1 140lbs Hatton
#2 147lbs Cotto, Top 5 Clottey and Mosley(if he wins)

Hes fought the best at every weight class so he cannot be accused of paper titles. His title at 154lbs is the only one which is paper. Margarito is still a good win though considering he was the #1 WW before his loss to Mosley. At 122lbs he might as well be considered a true champ as MAB moved up and pac beat him and the #2 guy Ayala lost in his next fight. At 135lbs the best fighter was Juan Diaz. However david Diaz was Top rank making the fight easier to make and after beating Diaz, De La Hoya called Pac out. Most thought Pac had no chance in that fight. At 147lbs in 2009 the top 5 guys were Cotto, Clottey, Mosley and Margarito.

Hes easily top 25 and probably top 5.

You owe me a new pair of underwear I think I just pissed myself.

IronDanHamza
04-22-2011, 11:14 AM
Yes.

#1 112lbs Sasakul
#3 122lbs Ledwaba. The #1 guy was MAB.
#1 126lbs MAB, JMM
#1 130lbs JMM, Top 5 Morales and MAB
#2 135lbs Diaz
#1 140lbs Hatton
#2 147lbs Cotto, Top 5 Clottey and Mosley(if he wins)

Hes fought the best at every weight class so he cannot be accused of paper titles. His title at 154lbs is the only one which is paper. Margarito is still a good win though considering he was the #1 WW before his loss to Mosley. At 122lbs he might as well be considered a true champ as MAB moved up and pac beat him and the #2 guy Ayala lost in his next fight. At 135lbs the best fighter was Juan Diaz. However david Diaz was Top rank making the fight easier to make and after beating Diaz, De La Hoya called Pac out. Most thought Pac had no chance in that fight. At 147lbs in 2009 the top 5 guys were Cotto, Clottey, Mosley and Margarito.

Hes easily top 25 and probably top 5.

How is that? He only has 4 Lineal Titles out of 8 weight classes.

He didn't get THE best at 122, 135, 147 or 154.

Regardless to the fact Barrera once was the man at 122, he didn't fight him there thus didn't fight the best there.

In 2009 they were. But, he didn't fight them all in 2009, did he?

IronDanHamza
04-22-2011, 11:19 AM
It seems alot of people are using the 'others era's has more fights' thus it isn't fair.

That's right, it isn't fair, but unfortunately, that's just how it is. If Harry Greb has hundreds of wins beating numerous HOF'ers then how is Pacqiauo going to be ranked above him? There's just no way.

And even then, even the people without hundreds of fights they are still plenty of fighters who have better resume's than Pacqiauo. Take Ray Leonard for example, very difficult to argue Pacqiuao is greater than Ray Leonard.

As it stand's, I just can't see how he is Top 25. I can't see it.

IronDanHamza
04-22-2011, 11:24 AM
If he retired tomrrow I would have him at around 40.

If he beats Floyd About 35.

I agree, maybe a tad lower until he were to fight Floyd and beat him.

pacquia0
04-22-2011, 11:41 AM
How is that? He only has 4 Lineal Titles out of 8 weight classes.

He didn't get THE best at 122, 135, 147 or 154.

Regardless to the fact Barrera once was the man at 122, he didn't fight him there thus didn't fight the best there.

In 2009 they were. But, he didn't fight them all in 2009, did he?

Who should Pacquiao fight at 122lbs then? He beats the #3 guy then the #2 guy loses in his next fight and the #1 guy moves up in weight(who he later beats).

Pacquiao beat David Diaz the #2 guy. He gets offered a fight with De La Hoya. You cant criticize him for taking a fight where he is the underdog instead of a fight against juan diaz where he would be a hevay favourite.

At 147 hes beaten Clottey, Cotto and will beat Mosley. He has to be considered the champ at this weight when he does that. Mayweather is on vacation, not Pacquiaos fault. Cotto was #2 when they fought. Clottey and Mosley are top 5.

You owe me a new pair of underwear I think I just pissed myself.

Explain why Joe Frazier and Hagler are greater than Pacquiao?

Spartacus Sully
04-22-2011, 11:45 AM
Explain why Joe Frazier and Hagler are greater than Pacquiao?

why?

heres the list posted earlier of 25+ people no hagler no fraizer.
srr
louis
ali
Greb
Langford
Charles
Moore
Wilde
Monzon
Pep
Whitaker
Gans
B.Leonard
R.Leonard
Gavilan
Fitzsimmons
Griffith
Walker
Tunney
Jofre
Napoles
Ketchel
McLarnin
Duran
Walcott
Ross

Barn
04-22-2011, 11:51 AM
Who should Pacquiao fight at 122lbs then? He beats the #3 guy then the #2 guy loses in his next fight and the #1 guy moves up in weight(who he later beats).

Pacquiao beat David Diaz the #2 guy. He gets offered a fight with De La Hoya. You cant criticize him for taking a fight where he is the underdog instead of a fight against juan diaz where he would be a hevay favourite.

At 147 hes beaten Clottey, Cotto and will beat Mosley. He has to be considered the champ at this weight when he does that. Mayweather is on vacation, not Pacquiaos fault. Cotto was #2 when they fought. Clottey and Mosley are top 5.



Explain why Joe Frazier and Hagler are greater than Pacquiao?
If you can pick out a quote where I said Frazier was greater than Pacquiao.

Dominance > Alphabet Soop.

pacquia0
04-22-2011, 12:03 PM
If you can pick out a quote where I said Frazier was greater than Pacquiao.

Dominance > Alphabet Soop.

I understand your point but I disagree that Pacquiaos achievements are alphabet soup. Do you not see the fact that hes fought and beat top 3 guys in 7 weight classes.

#1 112lbs Sasakul
#3 122lbs Ledwaba. The #1 guy was MAB.
#1 126lbs MAB, JMM
#1 130lbs JMM, Top 5 Morales and MAB
#2 135lbs Diaz
#1 140lbs Hatton
#2 147lbs Cotto, Top 5 Clottey and Mosley(if he wins)

Name the people Pac should have fought instead ?

Hagler has the best single win in Hearns but I would argue Pacs opponents across 8 weight classes are better than Haglers. Then seen as though this is in a P4P list you give extra credit to Pac for beating bigger opponents.

IronDanHamza
04-22-2011, 12:12 PM
Who should Pacquiao fight at 122lbs then? He beats the #3 guy then the #2 guy loses in his next fight and the #1 guy moves up in weight(who he later beats).

Pacquiao beat David Diaz the #2 guy. He gets offered a fight with De La Hoya. You cant criticize him for taking a fight where he is the underdog instead of a fight against juan diaz where he would be a hevay favourite.

At 147 hes beaten Clottey, Cotto and will beat Mosley. He has to be considered the champ at this weight when he does that. Mayweather is on vacation, not Pacquiaos fault. Cotto was #2 when they fought. Clottey and Mosley are top 5.

I don't knock Pacqiuao for fighting Lebadwa. For that stage of his career it was a good win. But, you can't claim he fought the best in that division because he simply didn't, regardless to the fact he beat Barrera at a later date.

Again, I don't criticize him for taking the De La Hoya fight. But, you can't claim the fought the best at 135 when he simply didn't.

No he won't be considered the man at 147 Lb's after that because he won't have beaten the #2 guy. Mosley was the Lineal Champion when he fought Cotto, had he fought Mosley over Cotto he would be considered the 'Man' at 147, but, he didn't, so he's not.

At 147 he has beaten Cotto #3, Clottey #4 and soon to be Mosley #4 currently will be #3 by the time they fight. That is not beating the best in your division.

So yeah, as incredible as his resume is. He hasn't fought the best in every division he has been in.

Barn
04-22-2011, 12:14 PM
You give Hagler extra credit for dominating and making 14 title defences and beating anyone in the division at that time even pre-champ.

If Pacquiao beats Floyd he is drawing with Hagler or a little in front.
He wont though.

IronDanHamza
04-22-2011, 12:17 PM
I understand your point but I disagree that Pacquiaos achievements are alphabet soup. Do you not see the fact that hes fought and beat top 3 guys in 7 weight classes.

#1 112lbs Sasakul
#3 122lbs Ledwaba. The #1 guy was MAB.
#1 126lbs MAB, JMM
#1 130lbs JMM, Top 5 Morales and MAB
#2 135lbs Diaz
#1 140lbs Hatton
#2 147lbs Cotto, Top 5 Clottey and Mosley(if he wins)

Name the people Pac should have fought instead ?

Hagler has the best single win in Hearns but I would argue Pacs opponents across 8 weight classes are better than Haglers. Then seen as though this is in a P4P list you give extra credit to Pac for beating bigger opponents.

He didn't beat Marquez at 126.

Diaz was #2 including the Lineal Champion thus #3.

You're counting the 3rd Barrera fight, which is silly.

His achievements aren't 'alphabet soup' but 4 out of his 8 weight classes, half of them were paper titles, that's the facts.

I personally felt Marquez beat him at 130 also but that's a matter of opinion and it was a close fight.

IronDanHamza
04-22-2011, 12:20 PM
Name the people Pac should have fought instead ?.

Maybe Guzman at 130?

Casamayor at 135?

Mosley instead of Cotto in 2009?

He could have fought some better guys.

Not that it matters, really.

He would have more Lineages had he fougt those guys but I wouldn't of enhanced his legacy too muc, IMO.

pacquia0
04-22-2011, 01:15 PM
I don't knock Pacqiuao for fighting Lebadwa. For that stage of his career it was a good win. But, you can't claim he fought the best in that division because he simply didn't, regardless to the fact he beat Barrera at a later date.

Again, I don't criticize him for taking the De La Hoya fight. But, you can't claim the fought the best at 135 when he simply didn't.

No he won't be considered the man at 147 Lb's after that because he won't have beaten the #2 guy. Mosley was the Lineal Champion when he fought Cotto, had he fought Mosley over Cotto he would be considered the 'Man' at 147, but, he didn't, so he's not.

At 147 he has beaten Cotto #3, Clottey #4 and soon to be Mosley #4 currently will be #3 by the time they fight. That is not beating the best in your division.

So yeah, as incredible as his resume is. He hasn't fought the best in every division he has been in.

Ledwaba was the #3 guy though. Pacquiao wasnt the undisputed best at this weight but when MAB moved up he was the best fighter at that weight.

David Diaz was the WBC champion and was the 2nd best in the division. Pacquiao would of beaten Juan Diaz with ease. Taking the fight with De La Hoya was the best move legacy and financial wise. You think Golden boy would allow Diaz to fight Pac after he rejects a fight with Oscar? Juan Diaz was going to get fed to JMM.

Cotto was with Top rank and the #2 guy in the division. Its not clear cut that Mosley is the best fighter in the division given that Cotto beat him. Cotto is also a bigger draw. Who should Pacquiao fight to be considered the best at 147? Mayweather isnt interested in fighting him. He would of beaten the best fighters at WW regardless of ranking.

You give Hagler extra credit for dominating and making 14 title defences and beating anyone in the division at that time even pre-champ.

If Pacquiao beats Floyd he is drawing with Hagler or a little in front.
He wont though.

Pacquiao fighting top competition across 7 weight classes requires more ability than dominating 1 weight class. If Hagler had beat Qawi or Spinks would that not be significantly better than a title defence ?

Pacquiao has beaten more ATGs and HOfers than Hagler.

He didn't beat Marquez at 126.

Diaz was #2 including the Lineal Champion thus #3.

You're counting the 3rd Barrera fight, which is silly.

His achievements aren't 'alphabet soup' but 4 out of his 8 weight classes, half of them were paper titles, that's the facts.

I personally felt Marquez beat him at 130 also but that's a matter of opinion and it was a close fight.

A scoring error about the KDs in the 1st round is what prevented him getting a decison over JMM. The Judge admitted to this mistake afterwards.

MAB was still a top fighter in that weight class. He was coming of a disputed loss to JMM.

There not paper titles, you have to consider the circumstances. Like I said before the only paper title is the one at 154.

Maybe Guzman at 130?

Casamayor at 135?

Mosley instead of Cotto in 2009?

He could have fought some better guys.

Not that it matters, really.

He would have more Lineages had he fougt those guys but I wouldn't of enhanced his legacy too muc, IMO.

Guzman fight could not be made due to Golden Boy/Top rank contractual dispute.

Casamayor was shot coming of a disputed win. David Diaz was a better fighter at this point in time.

So you criticise his opposition yet then say his standing wouldnt improve if he fought those guys.

His legacy like I said is built on beating top competition(top 3) across numerous weight classes. Imagine Pacquiao beat all this top 3 competition in 1 weight class. Hed be considered the GOAT at that class having beaten numerous ATGs and HOFers. You have to give credit to Pac for beating bigger opponents seen as though this is a P4P list.

When Pac was a 130lber. Did you think he could beat Hatton, Margarito, Mosley, De La Hoya and Cotto ? If you did then people would have considered you crazy.

jrosales13
04-22-2011, 01:29 PM
A scoring error about the KDs in the 1st round is what prevented him getting a decison over JMM. The Judge admitted to this mistake afterwards.

Well you can also say a ref error is what prevented JMM to get the win. Since Pac HIT JMM while he was down(3rd knockdown). The ref should have taken 2 points away from Pac or even DQ'd him.

MAB was still a top fighter in that weight class. He was coming of a disputed loss to JMM.

No he was not, lets not forget how MAB looked against Juarez.

Guzman fight could not be made due to Golden Boy/Top rank contractual dispute.

Really? around the same time when the Guzman fight could of happened. He fought a useless rematch with MAB and fought a rematch with JMM(best fight that could have been made at the time)

Point is, that both of those fighters were with Golden boy. So lets bring a new excuse on why the Guzman fight didn't happen.

Casamayor was shot coming of a disputed win. David Diaz was a better fighter at this point in time.

A disputed win? He was coming off KO'ing Katsidis in a hell of a fight. There was nothing disputed about that win. No Diaz was not better than him at the time. Diaz had not had a win better than the Katsidis win that Casa was coming off of.

Campbell was also better than David, so was Juan.

Barn
04-22-2011, 01:29 PM
Pacquiao fighting top competition across 7 weight classes requires more ability than dominating 1 weight class. If Hagler had beat Qawi or Spinks would that not be significantly better than a title defence ?


Of course but, it wasnt a title defence it was 14. Anyway Pacquiao hasn't moved up and beat someone the stature of Spinks anyway so I have no idea why you metioned him.

Does that mean Pacquiao is greater than SRR who only beat ATG's in 3 weight classes?

IronDanHamza
04-22-2011, 01:39 PM
Ledwaba was the #3 guy though. Pacquiao wasnt the undisputed best at this weight but when MAB moved up he was the best fighter at that weight.

David Diaz was the WBC champion and was the 2nd best in the division. Pacquiao would of beaten Juan Diaz with ease. Taking the fight with De La Hoya was the best move legacy and financial wise. You think Golden boy would allow Diaz to fight Pac after he rejects a fight with Oscar? Juan Diaz was going to get fed to JMM.

Cotto was with Top rank and the #2 guy in the division. Its not clear cut that Mosley is the best fighter in the division given that Cotto beat him. Cotto is also a bigger draw. Who should Pacquiao fight to be considered the best at 147? Mayweather isnt interested in fighting him. He would of beaten the best fighters at WW regardless of ranking.


Pacquiao fighting top competition across 7 weight classes requires more ability than dominating 1 weight class. If Hagler had beat Qawi or Spinks would that not be significantly better than a title defence ?

Pacquiao has beaten more ATGs and HOfers than Hagler.



A scoring error about the KDs in the 1st round is what prevented him getting a decison over JMM. The Judge admitted to this mistake afterwards.

MAB was still a top fighter in that weight class. He was coming of a disputed loss to JMM.

There not paper titles, you have to consider the circumstances. Like I said before the only paper title is the one at 154.



Guzman fight could not be made due to Golden Boy/Top rank contractual dispute.

Casamayor was shot coming of a disputed win. David Diaz was a better fighter at this point in time.

So you criticise his opposition yet then say his standing wouldnt improve if he fought those guys.

His legacy like I said is built on beating top competition(top 3) across numerous weight classes. Imagine Pacquiao beat all this top 3 competition in 1 weight class. Hed be considered the GOAT at that class having beaten numerous ATGs and HOFers. You have to give credit to Pac for beating bigger opponents seen as though this is a P4P list.

When Pac was a 130lber. Did you think he could beat Hatton, Margarito, Mosley, De La Hoya and Cotto ? If you did then people would have considered you crazy.

I'm not responding to your points specifically because although you make alot of valid points which I agree with you're also refuses to see the fact that he only has 4 Lineal Titles, the rest are paper titles, and that's just a fact.

Yeah, that's very he possible that he could have beaten those fighters with ease, but the fact is he didn't. We can't give credit to someone for probably being able to beat them.

You asked who he could have fought, I gave you a list of fighters he could have fought.

The point is, Pacqiuao didn't fight 'the best' in every weight class he was in, and that's just how it is. He's still an unquestionable ATG an amazing fighter.

Ryannn
04-22-2011, 03:39 PM
I'm not responding to your points specifically because although you make alot of valid points which I agree with you're also refuses to see the fact that he only has 4 Lineal Titles, the rest are paper titles, and that's just a fact.

Yeah, that's very he possible that he could have beaten those fighters with ease, but the fact is he didn't. We can't give credit to someone for probably being able to beat them.

You asked who he could have fought, I gave you a list of fighters he could have fought.

The point is, Pacqiuao didn't fight 'the best' in every weight class he was in, and that's just how it is. He's still an unquestionable ATG an amazing fighter.

you are looking at 4 lineal titles as if that's a "sub par thing".

we are judging fighters nowadays by old school standards. that way, no boxer now or in the future would ever come close to fighters from the past.

it isn't necessary just about pacquiao. the next generation of fighters will be restricted to the era they are in, and in that case will never be included as one of the greats no matter how much they accomplish. i don't know if it is the best way to go about this so called "list"

Walt Liquor
04-22-2011, 03:40 PM
Ledwaba was the #3 guy though. Pacquiao wasnt the undisputed best at this weight but when MAB moved up he was the best fighter at that weight.

David Diaz was the WBC champion and was the 2nd best in the division. Pacquiao would of beaten Juan Diaz with ease. Taking the fight with De La Hoya was the best move legacy and financial wise. You think Golden boy would allow Diaz to fight Pac after he rejects a fight with Oscar? Juan Diaz was going to get fed to JMM.

Cotto was with Top rank and the #2 guy in the division. Its not clear cut that Mosley is the best fighter in the division given that Cotto beat him. Cotto is also a bigger draw. Who should Pacquiao fight to be considered the best at 147? Mayweather isnt interested in fighting him. He would of beaten the best fighters at WW regardless of ranking.



Pacquiao fighting top competition across 7 weight classes requires more ability than dominating 1 weight class. If Hagler had beat Qawi or Spinks would that not be significantly better than a title defence ?

Pacquiao has beaten more ATGs and HOfers than Hagler.



A scoring error about the KDs in the 1st round is what prevented him getting a decison over JMM. The Judge admitted to this mistake afterwards.

MAB was still a top fighter in that weight class. He was coming of a disputed loss to JMM.

There not paper titles, you have to consider the circumstances. Like I said before the only paper title is the one at 154.



Guzman fight could not be made due to Golden Boy/Top rank contractual dispute.

Casamayor was shot coming of a disputed win. David Diaz was a better fighter at this point in time.

So you criticise his opposition yet then say his standing wouldnt improve if he fought those guys.

His legacy like I said is built on beating top competition(top 3) across numerous weight classes. Imagine Pacquiao beat all this top 3 competition in 1 weight class. Hed be considered the GOAT at that class having beaten numerous ATGs and HOFers. You have to give credit to Pac for beating bigger opponents seen as though this is a P4P list.

When Pac was a 130lber. Did you think he could beat Hatton, Margarito, Mosley, De La Hoya and Cotto ? If you did then people would have considered you crazy.

wow, you sound like a floyd fan.

$BloodyNate$
04-22-2011, 05:01 PM
If he were to beat Floyd and then Sergio would that put him close to a top 15 top 10 ranking? People are stupid if they think he's going to go up and beat Ward. He probably will never even fight Sergio. We'll see Cotto 2 before that fight.

But if he did beat Floyd & Sergio, thats 2 of the best fighters of the last 15 years. If not, what do you have to do to get a top 15-10 ranking these days?

Ziggy Stardust
04-22-2011, 05:12 PM
If not, what do you have to do to get a top 15-10 ranking these days?

The same thing you've always had to do: Prove you're better than someone who's already ranked in the top 10-15. Simple :)

Poet

$BloodyNate$
04-22-2011, 06:44 PM
The same thing you've always had to do: Prove you're better than someone who's already ranked in the top 10-15. Simple :)

Poet

I'm not a big manny fan, Im more of a marquez guy myself ha, but I don't mind watching him fight because he is making history evn if he does bend some of the rules alittle ha. That's not cool but he's still doing crazy ass things. Going from 107 all the way to as far as 150 pounds.

These lists are all very crazy since you can jusitfy them in almost any order because their are like mad several people that you could say may belong in the top 10-25. He ain't retired yet and probably won't fight Sergio so at the end of the day i don't wanna get too far ahead of myself. But i think I don't think it's crazy to maybe think one day I think the boxing historians should at least have a meeting and appeal about him haha

studentofthegam
04-22-2011, 08:15 PM
I really don't like giving exact rankings to guys who are still in their primes (which I think Manny is). He's an ATG for sure but too much can happen still in his career to lock down an exact place on the lists.....let's wait until he slides to past-it status before starting to dicker over where he belongs.

PoetYou are so full its a shame. I said almost the exact same thing about you in a thread about Pac. Would it have killed you to say "Yes Im bias towards older fighters"? But today hes an ATG over all but being an ATG puncher is out of the question? Hmmm. Id like to hear how its possible considering he's definitely not an ATG technician nor a defensive wiz. How is he winning?


Beating better competition trumps paper titles any day. I love Pac, he's great. But he's had the luxury of fighting in an era where there are 17 different weight classes that can provide up to 68 champions, and that doesn't include diamond belts, super champions, champions emeritus, interim champions etc., etc., etc.. When you compare that to 8 or 10 weight classes with one ONE champion in each it takes a lot of luster of those achievements. I think conquering 8 divisions pretty much nullifies the age of extra divisions we're in. Thats unless you can name any 140lbers that he should have fought before going to WW.

Meh....Pac is my favorite active fighter. But, like Black Irish said Duran did almost the same thing started at bantamweight ended at SMW. In the span of 3 decades and had better wins than Pac.

Jimmy McClarnin started near the flyweight limit went up all the way to WW. Dominated and KO'd better fighters than what Pac has faced.

To say that Pac accomplished more than those 2 and then include Greb and Langford 2 guys who have a case just as good as SRR to being considered the GOAT of all time is quite laughable.If he's your favorite fighter then you should give him a bit more credit. He cant fight those guys for their spot and he's beaten just about all of the most recent ATG's within each division he's touched (minus one:boxing:). Even considering past ATG's there isnt one that you can say definitely beats Manny when mentally matched head to head. Lets face it he's 32-33 yrs old and coming to the end of his career so whats the hold up in tagging his career with a proper number slot. I think his career rivals anyone's past and present but its just a matter of taste.

JK1700
04-22-2011, 09:03 PM
He's not a Top 25 ATG. Absolutley not.

IronDanHamza
04-22-2011, 09:10 PM
you are looking at 4 lineal titles as if that's a "sub par thing".

we are judging fighters nowadays by old school standards. that way, no boxer now or in the future would ever come close to fighters from the past.

it isn't necessary just about pacquiao. the next generation of fighters will be restricted to the era they are in, and in that case will never be included as one of the greats no matter how much they accomplish. i don't know if it is the best way to go about this so called "list"

I'm actually not. I have said time and time again on this forum Manny Pacqiauo is a special fighter, a special breed. An amazing, amazing fighter who did something I never believed he would do and win a legit title at WW.

A handful of people think by be saying he isn't a top 25 ATG is an insult to Manny. It's not, it's a compliment. This sport has over 100 years of prestigious history, being amongst the Top 50 of that is a HUGE compliment, for anyone.

Maybe I'm being old fashioned. But I just don't see Manny Pacqiauo being a Top 25 ATG right now. His legacy, although exceptional, just doesn't match up to the likes of many many great champions. IMO.

IronDanHamza
04-22-2011, 09:14 PM
If he were to beat Floyd and then Sergio would that put him close to a top 15 top 10 ranking? People are stupid if they think he's going to go up and beat Ward. He probably will never even fight Sergio. We'll see Cotto 2 before that fight.

But if he did beat Floyd & Sergio, thats 2 of the best fighters of the last 15 years. If not, what do you have to do to get a top 15-10 ranking these days?

If he were to beat Floyd Mayweather and Sergio Martinez in impressive fashion I may consider him a Top 20 ATG.

And how is Sergio Martinez one of the best fghters of the past 15 years?

Steak
04-22-2011, 09:21 PM
'lineal championships' is just a stat, and it can be pretty damn misleading. Im not suggesting that its something to scoff at, but a win over the #1 guy in the division can easily be a better win than beating the lineal champ. ie Darius Michaebkajfkhd was technically the lineal champ, but a win over Roy would have obviously been much more impressive.

the fact of the matter is Pacquiao has eh about 12 or 13 wins over top competition. not bad at all, in fact its excellent considering the quality of the wins+the fact he was able to move up in weight. but a LOT of the top 25 guys all time have over 20, hell guys like Moore and Robinson have even over 30.

Going up in weight isnt actually as difficult as people suggest, with the day after weigh ins. Theres a reason that Pacquiao only had two wins at his two lowest weight classes, and was so fragile at the weight. He killed himself to make weight, which is something fighters in the same day weigh in era just couldnt afford to do.

that being said, you can make a fair argument for Pacquiao being above some guys that others put in their top 25 p4p.

Ziggy Stardust
04-22-2011, 09:22 PM
This sport has over 100 years of prestigious history, being amongst the Top 50 of that is a HUGE compliment, for anyone.

Hell, being top-100 is a hell of a compliment.

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
04-22-2011, 09:25 PM
'lineal championships' is just a stat, and it can be pretty damn misleading. Im not suggesting that its something to scoff at, but a win over the #1 guy in the division can easily be a better win than beating the lineal champ. ie Darius Michaebkajfkhd was technically the lineal champ, but a win over Roy would have obviously been much more impressive.

the fact of the matter is Pacquiao has eh about 12 or 13 wins over top competition. not bad at all, in fact its excellent considering the quality of the wins+the fact he was able to move up in weight. but a LOT of the top 25 guys all time have over 20, hell guys like Moore and Robinson have even over 30.

Going up in weight isnt actually as difficult as people suggest, with the day after weigh ins. Theres a reason that Pacquiao only had two wins at his two lowest weight classes, and was so fragile at the weight. He killed himself to make weight, which is something fighters in the same day weigh in era just couldnt afford to do.

that being said, you can make a fair argument for Pacquiao being above some guys that others put in their top 25 p4p.

Case in point: Shannon Briggs was the "lineal" Heavyweight Champion when Lennox fought him.

Pacquiao was pretty much a teenager at his lowest weight class if I remember rightly.

Poet

jrosales13
04-22-2011, 09:29 PM
Case in point: Shannon Briggs was the "lineal" Heavyweight Champion when Lennox fought him.

Pacquiao was pretty much a teenager at his lowest weight class if I remember rightly.

Poet

Carlos F'ing Baldomir was a lineal champ

:rofl:

New England
04-22-2011, 09:34 PM
Carlos F'ing Baldomir was a lineal champ

:rofl:



beat me to it.


cory spinks was the undisputed WW champion as well

and he was a hop and skip away from winning the lineal title at MW as well against jermain taylor.
:usa2:
only in america

Scott9945
04-22-2011, 09:36 PM
He's not a Top 25 ATG. Absolutley not.

And there is nothing he can do to change that?

bojangles1987
04-22-2011, 09:53 PM
I'd say he is definitely top 40. Even if you don't think he has the resume for that, his skills and raw talent would have me putting him over fighters who have better resumes but not far better.

IronDanHamza
04-22-2011, 10:00 PM
'lineal championships' is just a stat, and it can be pretty damn misleading. Im not suggesting that its something to scoff at, but a win over the #1 guy in the division can easily be a better win than beating the lineal champ. ie Darius Michaebkajfkhd was technically the lineal champ, but a win over Roy would have obviously been much more impressive.

the fact of the matter is Pacquiao has eh about 12 or 13 wins over top competition. not bad at all, in fact its excellent considering the quality of the wins+the fact he was able to move up in weight. but a LOT of the top 25 guys all time have over 20, hell guys like Moore and Robinson have even over 30.

Going up in weight isnt actually as difficult as people suggest, with the day after weigh ins. Theres a reason that Pacquiao only had two wins at his two lowest weight classes, and was so fragile at the weight. He killed himself to make weight, which is something fighters in the same day weigh in era just couldnt afford to do.

that being said, you can make a fair argument for Pacquiao being above some guys that others put in their top 25 p4p.

Isn't that also misleading, though?

Floyd Mayweather has over 10 wins over top 5 fighters in the weight class he fought them in at the time he fought them. Across 5 weight classes.

Yet is he a top 25 ATG? Not even remotely close.

Would you consider Mayweather to be ranked higher than Jofre by the same logic you rank Pacqiuao over Jofre?

I'm just saying. "Top ranked comp" can also be misleading.

IronDanHamza
04-22-2011, 10:02 PM
Hell, being top-100 is a hell of a compliment.

Poet

Precisely.

I don't think some people understand how good you have to be to considered a Top 25 ATG.

Atleast in my book.

crold1
04-22-2011, 10:26 PM
'lineal championships' is just a stat, and it can be pretty damn misleading. Im not suggesting that its something to scoff at, but a win over the #1 guy in the division can easily be a better win than beating the lineal champ. ie Darius Michaebkajfkhd was technically the lineal champ, but a win over Roy would have obviously been much more impressive.

the fact of the matter is Pacquiao has eh about 12 or 13 wins over top competition. not bad at all, in fact its excellent considering the quality of the wins+the fact he was able to move up in weight. but a LOT of the top 25 guys all time have over 20, hell guys like Moore and Robinson have even over 30.

Going up in weight isnt actually as difficult as people suggest, with the day after weigh ins. Theres a reason that Pacquiao only had two wins at his two lowest weight classes, and was so fragile at the weight. He killed himself to make weight, which is something fighters in the same day weigh in era just couldnt afford to do.

that being said, you can make a fair argument for Pacquiao being above some guys that others put in their top 25 p4p.

What makes Pac's 4 lineal titles so impressive is that they are more than a paper stat in an era full of them. Each of the men he beat to claim a lineal throne (three actual lines and a vacant 130) was considered THE guy to beat at that moment. Considering the depth and history at 130 and 140, those are an impressive pair to pick up along with Fly and Feather.

The answer is probably yes regardless but if Pac beats May before it doesn't matter anymore, the thought that he would ever be rated outside of most notable top 10-20's a decade or so from now is fairly laughable.

$BloodyNate$
04-22-2011, 11:21 PM
If he were to beat Floyd Mayweather and Sergio Martinez in impressive fashion I may consider him a Top 20 ATG.

And how is Sergio Martinez one of the best fghters of the past 15 years?

True that.

Sergio is the best middleweight in the world today. Top 5 P4P fighter right now. In last 2 years alone destroyed Kelly Pavlik and brutally KO'd Paul Williams are probably the 2 best middleweights in the world besides Sergio. I think if Pacman got by him that's a hell of an accomplishment. I'd say Sergio probably give Trinidad, Winky and Hopkins some problems if they were to go H2H prime against prime. Not win but I could see him putting up a good fight.

IronDanHamza
04-22-2011, 11:28 PM
True that.

Sergio is the best middleweight in the world today. Top 5 P4P fighter right now. In last 2 years alone destroyed Kelly Pavlik and brutally KO'd Paul Williams are probably the 2 best middleweights in the world besides Sergio. I think if Pacman got by him that's a hell of an accomplishment. I'd say Sergio probably give Trinidad, Winky and Hopkins some problems if they were to go H2H prime against prime. Not win but I could see him putting up a good fight.

They were both very impressive wins which makes him #3 on my current P4P list.

However, other than those 2 wins his resume is pretty empty, to be honest.

There really is no reasonable argument what so ever for Sergio Martinez being one of the best fighters of the last 15 years. I mean, in the last 15 years there has been alot of good fighters, HOF'ers. If Sergio were to retire today I highly doubt he would ever come close to being inducted into the HOF and if he did I would disagree with it whole heartly.

That doesn't change the fact that if Pac were to beat him it would be a remarkable accomplishment but in all honestly I highly doubt Pac will fight Sergio Martinez.

Sam Donald
04-23-2011, 06:03 AM
Pacs top 10/15 .. you got cats like jimmy wilde and jose napoles but why?

Everybody knows pacs one of the best that ever lived

if he fought 50 60 years ago u would rank him number 1

its just that hes fighting today and not appreciated!

Chups
04-23-2011, 07:47 AM
4 lineal titles (Almost unbreakable)
3 fighters of the year (only 4 others has achieved this)
2000-2009 Fighter of the decade (Only 6 other fighters have achieved this)
Has beaten 6 HOF. (after he beats Mosley)
Flyweight titlist to Junior Middleweight titlist

Barn
04-23-2011, 07:57 AM
4 lineal titles (Almost unbreakable)
3 fighters of the year (only 4 others has achieved this)
2000-2009 Fighter of the decade (Only 6 other fighters have achieved this)
Has beaten 6 HOF. (after he beats Mosley)
Flyweight titlist to Junior Middleweight titlist
6HOF, people like Harry Greb have beaten 18.

Barn
04-23-2011, 07:58 AM
Pacs top 10/15 .. you got cats like jimmy wilde and jose napoles but why?

Everybody knows pacs one of the best that ever lived

if he fought 50 60 years ago u would rank him number 1

its just that hes fighting today and not appreciated!
Jimmy Wilde fought people that were a Stone and a half heavier almost every fight and still dominated them.

Barn
04-23-2011, 08:03 AM
Isn't that also misleading, though?

Floyd Mayweather has over 10 wins over top 5 fighters in the weight class he fought them in at the time he fought them. Across 5 weight classes.

Yet is he a top 25 ATG? Not even remotely close.

Would you consider Mayweather to be ranked higher than Jofre by the same logic you rank Pacqiuao over Jofre?

I'm just saying. "Top ranked comp" can also be misleading.
If he moves up to MW gets a win over the likes of Sergio, beats Floyd Mayweather, maybe sticks around for a few defences, then we can start talking Top 20.

What you guys don't realise, people like Barney Ross.

Barney Ross, beat McLarlinx2 and Canzonerix2 both were the Floyd equivalent of that era.

See what I'm getting at, yes his weightclass jump is superb and warrants him around 35 at the moment but, he needs that BIG win in Mayweather to Get Top 30 and if he moves up to middle and beats Sergio we can start talking about, Top 25 possibly higher depending on how he deos it.

Bull24
04-23-2011, 08:07 AM
6HOF, people like Harry Greb have beaten 18.

Many of the people Pacquiao beat are going to the HOF, they are not elgible because many of them are still fighting.

Barn
04-23-2011, 08:10 AM
Many of the people Pacquiao beat are going to the HOF, they are not elgible because many of them are still fighting.
He still wont reach 18 AND beat them on numerous occasions.

SCtrojansbaby
04-23-2011, 09:32 AM
If you don't have Pacquiao as a top 15 modern boxer then you really should stop watching posting or even thinking about boxing.

As for people comparing his to prehistoric boxers like Harry Greb or Ray Robinson all I can do is laugh. Pre historic boxing and modern boxing are hardly even the same sport.

JAB5239
04-23-2011, 10:28 AM
If you don't have Pacquiao as a top 15 modern boxer then you really should stop watching posting or even thinking about boxing.

As for people comparing his to prehistoric boxers like Harry Greb or Ray Robinson all I can do is laugh. Pre historic boxing and modern boxing are hardly even the same sport.

When you really don't know much about the history of the sport this is the outlook you get. Pac is a great fighter, but cleaning out a division or 2 or 3, when there are only 10 divisions and 1 title is far more impressive than what Pac has done.Manny is top 35 with room to move up. Had he unified all his championships THEN we could be talking top 15 or better.

IronDanHamza
04-23-2011, 10:46 AM
If he moves up to MW gets a win over the likes of Sergio, beats Floyd Mayweather, maybe sticks around for a few defences, then we can start talking Top 20.

What you guys don't realise, people like Barney Ross.

Barney Ross, beat McLarlinx2 and Canzonerix2 both were the Floyd equivalent of that era.

See what I'm getting at, yes his weightclass jump is superb and warrants him around 35 at the moment but, he needs that BIG win in Mayweather to Get Top 30 and if he moves up to middle and beats Sergio we can start talking about, Top 25 possibly higher depending on how he deos it.

Are you referring to the NSB guys who have decided to join with this thread becasue it's about Pacqiuao or the History section regular's?

Because we know about Barney lol, he's in that list of 25 people I named off the top of my head aswell.

I'm in agreement with pretty much all of your post :fing02:

IronDanHamza
04-23-2011, 10:58 AM
When you really don't know much about the history of the sport this is the outlook you get. Pac is a great fighter, but cleaning out a division or 2 or 3, when there are only 10 divisions and 1 title is far more impressive than what Pac has done.Manny is top 35 with room to move up. Had he unified all his championships THEN we could be talking top 15 or better.

I agree except I have him maybe a few spaces lower at the moment personally.

If he were to beat Floyd Mayweather in impressive fashion it would ehnance his legacy by quite alot IMO.

New England
04-23-2011, 11:07 AM
When you really don't know much about the history of the sport this is the outlook you get. Pac is a great fighter, but cleaning out a division or 2 or 3, when there are only 10 divisions and 1 title is far more impressive than what Pac has done.Manny is top 35 with room to move up. Had he unified all his championships THEN we could be talking top 15 or better.



i certainly agree more with your location of manny pacquiao among the great fighters than to place him, at this point in his career (the guy is still in his freakin prime) in the top ten or fifteen as said poster has suggested


in the defense of pacquiao (and for the sake of argument,) manny didn't have a wealth of big name contenders and other beltholders against whom he could make money and further cement a legacy

his move up to WW, without long stops in between, came largely from economic opportunity.

he moved back down to 140 to fight ricky hatton (lineal champ, you dont need me to tell you that,) and never returned to defend his titles because 140 was largely dead at the time

had he returned to 140 in today's climate for a ricky hatton (one of the biggest draws in boxing who moved an army of fans across an ocean to las vegas) he'd likely have made a defense or two against big fighters like khan and marquez (if TR fighters and GBP fighters would actually fight... imagine that...)



we cant give manny uneccessary flack for not remaining in divisions that might not have made financial sense, or greatly enhanced his resume


all that being said, if he wants to make a better impression with his next few fights than he's been making with the last couple, he should start taking real fights, and not no hopers

New England
04-23-2011, 11:10 AM
I agree except I have him maybe a few spaces lower at the moment personally.

If he were to beat Floyd Mayweather in impressive fashion it would ehnance his legacy by quite alot IMO.




agreed. if the best floyd mayweather we've ever seen shows up and manny knocks him out i will
A: be shocked
B : start thinking about giving some serious, top tier historic credit for his accomplishments

unfortunately, there's been a lot going on with floyd (inactivity, his brain exploding and creating a string of awful decisions poking security guards and hitting women)

the win is going to be easier to poke holes into than it might have been if floyd wasnt floyd.
or if it had happened when i twas first proposed

IronDanHamza
04-23-2011, 11:40 AM
agreed. if the best floyd mayweather we've ever seen shows up and manny knocks him out i will
A: be shocked
B : start thinking about giving some serious, top tier historic credit for his accomplishments

unfortunately, there's been a lot going on with floyd (inactivity, his brain exploding and creating a string of awful decisions poking security guards and hitting women)

the win is going to be easier to poke holes into than it might have been if floyd wasnt floyd.
or if it had happened when i twas first proposed

Personally, I can't see Manny Pacqiuao beating Floyd Mayweather.

But if Manny were to prove me wrong and win, in impressive fashion. Man, it would be incredible and I agree I would be utterly shocked. Something I haven't been with Manny since he beat Barrera from pillar to post.

So yeah, beating Floyd would really enhance his legacy for me.

I agree it will be if he comes back and has a tune up and looks good or as good as he has then I can't see there being any room for excuses.

SCtrojansbaby
04-23-2011, 12:41 PM
When you really don't know much about the history of the sport this is the outlook you get. Pac is a great fighter, but cleaning out a division or 2 or 3, when there are only 10 divisions and 1 title is far more impressive than what Pac has done.Manny is top 35 with room to move up. Had he unified all his championships THEN we could be talking top 15 or better.


It only takes common sense to realize comparing guys who fought anywhere from 6-12x a year to guys who fights 2 maybe 3 or 4x a year is dumb. if Pacquiao fought 8x a year like Barney Ross he probable would have unified a ton of belts who cares that isn't the sport of boxing and hasn't been for 40 years.

Pinoy4ever
04-23-2011, 12:56 PM
I think Manny Pacquiao is in the top 25 of best fighters in our time but of all time I don't see Manny or Floyd Jr could be in that catagory cause back in the days fighters fought almost everyday and they all fought each other not like 2day with all the politics and money.

Barn
04-23-2011, 01:51 PM
Are you referring to the NSB guys who have decided to join with this thread becasue it's about Pacqiuao or the History section regular's?

Because we know about Barney lol, he's in that list of 25 people I named off the top of my head aswell.

I'm in agreement with pretty much all of your post :fing02:
Of course the people in NSB.

Barney Ross who's 21 on my list I believe had wins of Jimmy McLarlin and Canzoneri who are Floyd equivalent and people are saying retarded **** like "He beat ATG Margarito."

Barn
04-23-2011, 01:51 PM
Personally, I can't see Manny Pacqiuao beating Floyd Mayweather.

But if Manny were to prove me wrong and win, in impressive fashion. Man, it would be incredible and I agree I would be utterly shocked. Something I haven't been with Manny since he beat Barrera from pillar to post.

So yeah, beating Floyd would really enhance his legacy for me.

I agree it will be if he comes back and has a tune up and looks good or as good as he has then I can't see there being any room for excuses.
I have Floyd winning a UD.

SBleeder
04-23-2011, 02:57 PM
LOL what is retarded is comparing a boxer from the 30s who you have probable only seen highlights of on youtube to a boxer from the year 2011.

Seeing as how fighters from the thirties were a heck of a lot better than the fighters from today, I'd tend to agree with you.

Ziggy Stardust
04-23-2011, 02:57 PM
LOL what is retarded is comparing a boxer from the 30s who you have probable only seen highlights of on youtube to a boxer from the year 2011.

What's retarded is someone who kneejerk assumes that "latest" = "greatest" :geek9:

Barn
04-23-2011, 03:07 PM
LOL what is retarded is comparing a boxer from the 30s who you have probable only seen highlights of on youtube to a boxer from the year 2011.
What's retarded is you. I'm not being irrational in saying at the moment Pac is around 35 on an ATG list. Yes he is a phenomenal fighter and an ATG there is no disputing that but, his achievements don't stack up to other champions.

SCtrojansbaby
04-23-2011, 03:53 PM
What's retarded is you. I'm not being irrational in saying at the moment Pac is around 35 on an ATG list. Yes he is a phenomenal fighter and an ATG there is no disputing that but, his achievements don't stack up to other champions.


Well obviously its easy to rack up achievements 4-5x as many fights

SplitSecond
04-23-2011, 04:08 PM
Robinson
Greb
Langford
Charles
Armstrong
Moore
Wilde
Monzon
Ali
Louis
Pep
Whitaker
Gans
B.Leonard
R.Leoanrd
Gavilan
Arguello
Fitzsimmons
Griffith
Walker
Jofre
Napoles
Ketchel
Tunney
Mclarnin

That was the first 25 that came to my head that I listed. Who I feel are all greater than Manny Pacqiuao as it stands.

That's without; Duran, Ross, Walcott, and many others.

So yeah, I just can't see it, personally.

can you post the great wins that ranked these guys so high, i dont care much for the older guys or atg lists for that matter

but who did whitaker beat that gets him so high yet pacquiao has no chance ?

not to say i think pacquiao is that high on the atg list, i dont care about atg lists and i do think whitaker should be higher cuz he fought some other considered "atg's", but pacquiao has come a long way too, should'nt be that far behind whitaker should he?, just curious

JAB5239
04-23-2011, 05:06 PM
It only takes common sense to realize comparing guys who fought anywhere from 6-12x a year to guys who fights 2 maybe 3 or 4x a year is dumb. if Pacquiao fought 8x a year like Barney Ross he probable would have unified a ton of belts who cares that isn't the sport of boxing and hasn't been for 40 years.

It only takes common sense to realize it was his choice not to fight as many times or unify any divisions. Picking money fights instead of trying to unify is his choice. If you want to be better than the next guy you have to surpass his feats. That is the bottom line. And fighting all the best comp is far more impressive than skipping around 17 divisions picking up paper titles.

SCtrojansbaby
04-23-2011, 05:10 PM
It only takes common sense to realize it was his choice not to fight as many times or unify any divisions. Picking money fights instead of trying to unify is his choice. If you want to be better than the next guy you have to surpass his feats. That is the bottom line. And fighting all the best comp is far more impressive than skipping around 17 divisions picking up paper titles.


lol got news for you that is modern boxing NOBODY fights 10x a year like Barney Ross or Sugar Ray Robinson. That is why if you had common sense you would realize that its dumb to compare them.

Barn
04-23-2011, 05:11 PM
lol got news for you that is modern boxing NOBODY fights 10x a year like Barney Ross or Sugar Ray Robinson. That is why if you had common sense you would realize that its dumb to compare them.
Why do you always refer to them as "****ty" then.

joseph5620
04-23-2011, 05:32 PM
If you don't have Pacquiao as a top 15 modern boxer then you really should stop watching posting or even thinking about boxing.
As for people comparing his to prehistoric boxers like Harry Greb or Ray Robinson all I can do is laugh. Pre historic boxing and modern boxing are hardly even the same sport.

You should have stopped posting a long time ago. Especially after you claimed Virgil Hill and Jose Luis Ramirez were better fighters than Pernell Whitaker. Of course you thought Whitaker legitimately lost to Ramirez.


For someone who thinks a NC is the same as a TKO, you should show a little more humility.

SCtrojansbaby
04-23-2011, 05:43 PM
Why do you always refer to them as "****ty" then.


When did I refer to them as shytty(if that is what you wrote?)?

They are just totally different eras and dumb to compare especially in terms of head to head. Not only because boxers back then fought 3x as much, but modern boxers are better athletes.

Yes sure there are a handful of exceptions but modern athletes in all sports are bigger faster stronger smarter and better. As much as you want to fight it modern technology, science, nutrition and medicine does make you a better athlete. And yes athleticism is a HUGE part of boxing.

SBleeder
04-23-2011, 05:47 PM
When did I refer to them as shytty(if that is what you wrote?)?

They are just totally different eras and dumb to compare especially in terms of head to head. Not only because boxers back then fought 3x as much, but modern boxers are better athletes.

Yes sure there are a handful of exceptions but modern athletes in all sports are bigger faster stronger smarter and better. As much as you want to fight it modern technology, science, nutrition and medicine does make you a better athlete. And yes athleticism is a HUGE part of boxing.

He's right, guys.

Modern fighters benefit from modern, scientific training methods, like hitting a heavy bag.

Holtol
04-23-2011, 05:57 PM
He's right, guys.

Modern fighters benefit from modern, scientific training methods, like hitting a heavy bag.

And modern nutrition. They did not used to eat fruit vegatables and meat way back then.

SCtrojansbaby
04-23-2011, 06:00 PM
He's right, guys.

Modern fighters benefit from modern, scientific training methods, like hitting a heavy bag.


You really should pick up a book if you don't think Science Nutrition etc has not made gigantic advancements from when Ray Robinson fought to today when Manny Pacquiao is fighting.

Steak
04-23-2011, 06:00 PM
lol, always laugh at that 'scientific breakthrough' garbage. Modern athletes almost exculsively train old school, with sparring, jump rope, heavy bag, speed bag, double end...they had all that crap throughout history.

Steak
04-23-2011, 06:03 PM
You really should pick up a book if you don't think Science Nutrition etc has not made gigantic advancements from when Ray Robinson fought to today when Manny Pacquiao is fighting.
this is true, out of shape boxers or ones that grew up without a healthy diet and living on scraps(Pacquiao) could never make it in boxing today. every boxer is in flawlessly better shape than ones from 40 years ago!
http://www.jimrome.com/cimages/var/ezjimrome/storage/images/repository/photos/james-toney-2007-vs-samuel-peter3/259368-1-eng-US/James-Toney-2007-vs-Samuel-Peter_photo_medium.jpg

crold1
04-23-2011, 06:07 PM
lol, always laugh at that 'scientific breakthrough' garbage. Modern athletes almost exculsively train old school, with sparring, jump rope, heavy bag, speed bag, double end...they had all that crap throughout history.

Nonsense. Today's athletes are bigger...stronger...faster...(which is true sometimes because of day before weigh ins that allow lots of guys to cheat down an extra class or two but um...)

Why, today, the Welterweight champion officially weighs no more than 147 lbs. Yesterday...oh, wait. Well, Jimmy McLarnin was 5'6, 146 1/4 with a 67-inch reach when he beat Ross for the title. Compare that to Pacquiao winning his first Welter belt against Cotto at 5'6 1/2, 144, with a 67 inch reach.

Wow.

Progress.

Well, there's Heavyweight though. What would Joe Louis have done against a 6'6 250 lb. monster with coordination and...

...ssssshhhh, Buddy Baer, keep it down over there.

Boxing ain't football.

SCtrojansbaby
04-23-2011, 06:07 PM
lol, always laugh at that 'scientific breakthrough' garbage. Modern athletes almost exculsively train old school, with sparring, jump rope, heavy bag, speed bag, double end...they had all that crap throughout history.


Yeah so and Usain Bolt just runs on a track and does some squats like Jesse Owens do they run equally as fast?

SBleeder
04-23-2011, 06:12 PM
You really should pick up a book if you don't think Science Nutrition etc has not made gigantic advancements from when Ray Robinson fought to today when Manny Pacquiao is fighting.

Manny Pacquiao's training info:
http://img541.imageshack.us/i/mannypacquiao1.jpg/

Eggs, omelettes, rice, chicken, watermelon... all high-tech stuff.

About the only thing that old-school fighters didn't have that modern fighters do is the ability to take human growth hormone and testosterone through a needle. What are you trying to imply?

SCtrojansbaby
04-23-2011, 06:14 PM
Manny Pacquiao's training info:
http://img541.imageshack.us/i/mannypacquiao1.jpg/

Eggs, omelettes, rice, chicken, watermelon... all high-tech stuff.

About the only thing that old-school fighters didn't have that modern fighters do is the ability to take human growth hormone and testosterone through a needle. What are you trying to imply?


lol read a book bro

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSc75cBbaUaJzaEpDklkUkbFjQszN7Ml vJqFTrRDL8E0i2mTVlf

SBleeder
04-23-2011, 06:24 PM
lol read a book bro

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSc75cBbaUaJzaEpDklkUkbFjQszN7Ml vJqFTrRDL8E0i2mTVlf


Author: Teri Tom
teritom.com: Basically a whole page devoted to the study of Bruce Lee... who died 40 years ago.

SCtrojansbaby
04-23-2011, 06:40 PM
Go buy the book and let us no if its about nutrition excercise medicine etc so you can feel stupid

RubenSonny
04-23-2011, 06:50 PM
Yeah so and Usain Bolt just runs on a track and does some squats like Jesse Owens do they run equally as fast?

You think improvements in a sport where the goal is to get the best time through relatively conservative movements somehow relates to boxing....LOL

SCtrojansbaby
04-23-2011, 07:02 PM
You think improvements in a sport where the goal is to get the best time through relatively conservative movements somehow relates to boxing....LOL


Try reading what I was responding too. He made the point that the exercises have not changed so the athletes haven't gotten better. I countered by saying basically, Bolt does the same exercises as Owens yet is obviously a far far superior athlete. The point is just because you do the same exercises doesn't mean you aren't doing them better now that you have 60+ more years of knowledge to work with

IronDanHamza
04-23-2011, 07:48 PM
can you post the great wins that ranked these guys so high, i dont care much for the older guys or atg lists for that matter

but who did whitaker beat that gets him so high yet pacquiao has no chance ?

not to say i think pacquiao is that high on the atg list, i dont care about atg lists and i do think whitaker should be higher cuz he fought some other considered "atg's", but pacquiao has come a long way too, should'nt be that far behind whitaker should he?, just curious

I think Pacqiuao is considerably lower than Whitaker, personally.

Whitaker is a Top 5 ATG Lightweight champion. Lightweight is arguablly the deepest division in the history of the sport. To be considered Top 5 of that means you have to be a real great fighter.

If he only had that he would be considered pretty high. But to then go on to win titles at 140, 147 and 154 is pretty amazing.

Add wins over prime HOF'ers Chavez, De La Hoya and Nelson to that (Fights I felt he won).

I just don't see Pacqiauo as great as that.

Not that Pacqiauo isnt a great fighter, he is.

studentofthegam
04-23-2011, 08:44 PM
Carlos F'ing Baldomir was a lineal champ

:rofl:He did beat some good guys to get where he was. But Im sure peeps will throw dirt on Judah and Gatti to make their argument. I can say this. He did the better than most with the skill set he had. To me his skills are similar to Froch who is also an over achiever.

Author: Teri Tom
teritom.com: Basically a whole page devoted to the study of Bruce Lee... who died 40 years ago. The key is Bruce was way ahead of his time. Dont get me wrong their are many boxers who were ahead of their time too. You have fighters like SRR, Pep, and Locche who transend their time period but then you have boxers who I feel were dominnt only for their time period like Louis, Tyson and Greb.

SBleeder
04-23-2011, 09:01 PM
Yeah so and Usain Bolt just runs on a track and does some squats like Jesse Owens do they run equally as fast?

Since when did Jesse Owens lift weights?

New England
04-23-2011, 09:20 PM
Break!

For the sake of argument (and in defense of the defenseless,), modern medicine keeps us from losing fighters like harry greb and tiger flowers in their primes from complications from what would today be considered relatively minor surgeries

injuries are easier to treat today than they were 100 years ago, and rehabilitation in athletes is a process that has been refined to a science

additionally, many athletes today, including boxers, take advantage of some of the "advancements" made in sporting nutrition and suppliments, medicine, and rehabilitation

a blown knee (simmilar to the one sustained by an overweight odlanier solis) would likely spell the end of a career in 1910
in 2010, he's looking at a year or so if he rehabs well before he can start training full speed again.


fighters cannot eat a ton of food because of weight
many top tier fighters take vitamins, recieve injections, etc, to suppliment nutrients in an absence of a huge dietary intake


additionally, human beings are becoming bigger and stronger.
in 200 years, there could be a ten foot heavyweight champion with a 120 inch reach and freakish athletic talent.
we havn't seen it yet, though (increases in size leading to superior HW's)

but a WW will still weigh 147 lbs on the scale, and he's always going to have trouble with sugar ray robinson, i dont care how tall or long or strong or engineered he is.

does this ensure that either era is inherently superior? absolutely not!
we have footage and resume for that

and sweet conjecture

AAAANNND go!
:boxing:

Holtol
04-23-2011, 09:32 PM
For the sake of argument (and in defense of the defenseless,), modern medicine keeps us from losing fighters like harry greb and tiger flowers in their primes from complications from what would today be considered relatively minor surgeries

injuries are easier to treat today than they were 100 years ago, and rehabilitation in athletes is a process that has been refined to a science


Also keeps a lot of not so gifted people alive that would not even be alive in tougher survival situations and they pass on their genetics. I think that may be one of the reasons there are more injuries and concussions in sports now days.

Ziggy Stardust
04-23-2011, 10:11 PM
Thank you gentleman for dealing with our resident 'tards (such Trojanman) quite nicely! Now let's see who I can pass out the green to :boxing:

PS. Damn that "spread it around" BS :(

Poet

JAB5239
04-23-2011, 10:33 PM
lol got news for you that is modern boxing NOBODY fights 10x a year like Barney Ross or Sugar Ray Robinson. That is why if you had common sense you would realize that its dumb to compare them.

And if you had a common sense you would realize that in "modern" boxing they CHOOSE not to fight as often. Why should the greatness of fighters be looked at differently because of the choices THEY make? Why should they get more credit for watered down titles and more divisions that make it possible for fighters like David Diaz to be called the champion of the world?

New England
04-23-2011, 11:49 PM
Also keeps a lot of not so gifted people alive that would not even be alive in tougher survival situations and they pass on their genetics. I think that may be one of the reasons there are more injuries and concussions in sports now days.



lol that sounds like a bit of a reach

environment would likely be a determining factor in survival, not athletic quality

certainly stronger genetic specimens would be more likely to survive and pass on genes, but the entirety of the genepool would be reduced, gifted people included


greb and flowers are great examples




are you saying that the quality athletic population in the world is digressing?
because i heartily disagree.

New England
04-23-2011, 11:51 PM
He did beat some good guys to get where he was. But Im sure peeps will throw dirt on Judah and Gatti to make their argument. I can say this. He did the better than most with the skill set he had. To me his skills are similar to Froch who is also an over achiever.

The key is Bruce was way ahead of his time. Dont get me wrong their are many boxers who were ahead of their time too. You have fighters like SRR, Pep, and Locche who transend their time period but then you have boxers who I feel were dominnt only for their time period like Louis, Tyson and Greb.


this is what it sounds like when you "learn" about boxing exclusively through outlets like the boxingscene forum

SCtrojansbaby
04-23-2011, 11:59 PM
And if you had a common sense you would realize that in "modern" boxing they CHOOSE not to fight as often. Why should the greatness of fighters be looked at differently because of the choices THEY make? Why should they get more credit for watered down titles and more divisions that make it possible for fighters like David Diaz to be called the champion of the world?

LOL so you think if Ray Robinson fought today he would be the only guy in the sport choosing to fight 10x a year and if Pacquiao fought back then he would be the only guy fighting 2x a year?

It is the sport of boxing today they fight less, it was the sport back then fight more. That is why its dumb to compare 2 completely different eras.

As for non heavyweight being the same caliber of athlete just cause of the weight limit that is simply wrong. Is hall of fame basketball player Dave Bing the same caliber of athlete as John Wall, both are 6'3 180... Hell no they aren't.

Its just ignorant to think that after 60 years the level of athleticism among top athletes is not going to have a huge difference.

Ziggy Stardust
04-24-2011, 12:17 AM
LOL so you think if Ray Robinson fought today he would be the only guy in the sport choosing to fight 10x a year and if Pacquiao fought back then he would be the only guy fighting 2x a year?

It is the sport of boxing today they fight less, it was the sport back then fight more. That is why its dumb to compare 2 completely different eras.

As for non heavyweight being the same caliber of athlete just cause of the weight limit that is simply wrong. Is hall of fame basketball player Dave Bing the same caliber of athlete as John Wall, both are 6'3 180... Hell no they aren't.

Its just ignorant to think that after 60 years the level of athleticism among top athletes is not going to have a huge difference.

JAB has explained it to you before. That's what makes you a freaking retard: Now matter how often something is explained to you, no matter how Dick 'N Jane they make it for your limited comprehension skills, you STILL don't get it. An example of a point that you're incapable of comprehending: In practically all the major sports skill trumps athleticism. But you're so hung up on "athleticism" that you're incapable of comprehending that.

Poet

GJC
04-24-2011, 12:24 AM
It is the sport of boxing today they fight less, it was the sport back then fight more. That is why its dumb to compare 2 completely different eras.



If you do something more don't you think you improve at it? Do you not think you learn more from adversity and losses than from careful match making to preserve the precious 0?

Holtol
04-24-2011, 12:37 AM
lol that sounds like a bit of a reach

environment would likely be a determining factor in survival, not athletic quality

certainly stronger genetic specimens would be more likely to survive and pass on genes, but the entirety of the genepool would be reduced, gifted people included


greb and flowers are great examples




are you saying that the quality athletic population in the world is digressing?
because i heartily disagree.


The world demands almost nothing out of a person to survive and pass on their genes. People with physical and mental problems can easily survive. Things were not allways like that. I think as long as it requires almost nothing to reach breeding age people will become less and less able to survive in more difficult type of enviroments.

SCtrojansbaby
04-24-2011, 12:41 AM
If you do something more don't you think you improve at it? Do you not think you learn more from adversity and losses than from careful match making to preserve the precious 0?


They fought that much because they had to. Why do you think Ali was basically the guy that set the standard as far as 2-3 fights per year? He and Don King realized that as the sports top attraction he could make much more fighting 2-3x a year with months of build up for every fight. As opposed to fighting every month.

Guys today have 2 month+ training camps for fights preparing so they can be at there best each and every fight something that simply was not possible back then.

crold1
04-24-2011, 01:24 AM
They fought that much because they had to. Why do you think Ali was basically the guy that set the standard as far as 2-3 fights per year? He and Don King realized that as the sports top attraction he could make much more fighting 2-3x a year with months of build up for every fight. As opposed to fighting every month.

Guys today have 2 month+ training camps for fights preparing so they can be at there best each and every fight something that simply was not possible back then.

You really have no clue what you're talking about.

At all.

Ali worked with King on certain events, Arum on others. Beyond that, most top Heavyweights have historically fought less. That's been the standard for most of history. Ali didn't set anything. Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano...none fought 10 a year. The wear was too much and the purses too good to need that many fights. Ali's decade in the 70s was high on activity with 4 fights each in 75 and 76 (after his association with King started). He went to two fights in 77 and 78 when he was generally shot.

When Robinson aged and could command top dollar (after his first retirement), he fought less too for many years. If fighters were paid their real value, instead of the inflated HBO prices paid out too often to guys who can't fill a flea market, you'd see more club shows featuring 'that guy I saw on HBO.'

studentofthegam
04-24-2011, 01:43 AM
this is what it sounds like when you "learn" about boxing exclusively through outlets like the boxingscene forumNo I learned that from watching Louis. Greb is the great mystery. Nobody's seen him but will die by the fact that he is the man. I felt from simply watching his training and a little sparring that he would get spanked handily against the MW's of this day and age. Louis had fatal flaws that would get exposed against the greats that came after him. He had good handsped and power but he squared his feet up to often and threw too many punches from his hip. These bigger guys with stiff jabs and good footwork would give him fits. Is that so crazy?

IronDanHamza
04-24-2011, 01:46 AM
No I learned that from watching Louis. Greb is the great mystery. Nobody's seen him but will die by the fact that he is the man. I felt from simply watching his training and a little sparring that he would get spanked handily against the MW's of this day and age. Louis had fatal flaws that would get exposed against the greats that came after him. He had good handsped and power but he squared his feet up to often and threw too many punches from his hip. These bigger guys with stiff jabs and good footwork would give him fits. Is that so crazy?

Yes.

Now please, go and learn about the History of this sport before returning to the History section.

Ziggy Stardust
04-24-2011, 02:07 AM
Ali worked with King on certain events, Arum on others.

Arum, interestingly enough, was Ali's lawyer.....that's how he got his start "in the biz".

Poet

studentofthegam
04-24-2011, 02:33 AM
Yes.

Now please, go and learn about the History of this sport before returning to the History section.NOw you're pissy because thats your favorite boxer. You still have never been able to defend him in any conversation we've had about him. Thank oyu oh gracious genius for the good word on Harry "The Mystery" Greb. Feel better now?

IronDanHamza
04-24-2011, 02:48 AM
NOw you're pissy because thats your favorite boxer. You still have never been able to defend him in any conversation we've had about him. Thank oyu oh gracious genius for the good word on Harry "The Mystery" Greb. Feel better now?

Joe Louis is not my favourite boxer nor is he even my favourite Heavyweight. Try again.

:lol1: Oh really? I have justified more than enough times on this website why I rank him as the greatest Heavyweight Champion of all time. I have no quarms with anyone who has Muhammad Ali #1 over Joe Louis.

But let's be honest, I have 'defended' him against you more than enough times in our very few conversations we have had about him. Infact, now I think about I can't recall any conversation we have shared on here for an extended length of time concerning Joe Louis.

Ziggy Stardust
04-24-2011, 02:52 AM
Joe Louis is not my favourite boxer nor is he even my favourite Heavyweight. Try again.

:lol1: Oh really? I have justified more than enough times on this website why I rank him as the greatest Heavyweight Champion of all time. I have no quarms with anyone who has Muhammad Ali #1 over Joe Louis.

But let's be honest, I have 'defended' him against you more than enough times in our very few conversations we have had about him. Infact, now I think about I can't recall any conversation we have shared on here for an extended length of time concerning Joe Louis.

Joe Louis IS my favorite (and obviously my favorite heavyweight) but I have Ali ranked over him.....and I've begged people to convince me Louis should be #1.

Poet

IronDanHamza
04-24-2011, 02:59 AM
Joe Louis IS my favorite (and obviously my favorite heavyweight) but I have Ali ranked over him.....and I've begged people to convince me Louis should be #1.

Poet

We had a very brief discussion on this a while back.

My memory may be failing me but didn't you have Louis #1 at one point?

Joe Louis isn't my favourite Heavyweight but by God am I much more fond of him than I am Ali. And if I'm being totally honest that may be a factor in my ranking.

But, personally, I struggle to split the two. Ali fought the stronger competition and has the stronger resume but Louis has the insane reign and title defences.

Like I said, I have absolutely no quarms with anyone who has Muhammad Ali #1 at HW. That is a more than reasonable argument.

But in my personal opinion, Louis' longevity and title reign backed up with an excpetional resume. Gives him that slight edge on my list.

:D

Ziggy Stardust
04-24-2011, 03:23 AM
We had a very brief discussion on this a while back.

My memory may be failing me but didn't you have Louis #1 at one point?

Joe Louis isn't my favourite Heavyweight but by God am I much more fond of him than I am Ali. And if I'm being totally honest that may be a factor in my ranking.

But, personally, I struggle to split the two. Ali fought the stronger competition and has the stronger resume but Louis has the insane reign and title defences.

Like I said, I have absolutely no quarms with anyone who has Muhammad Ali #1 at HW. That is a more than reasonable argument.

But in my personal opinion, Louis' longevity and title reign backed up with an excpetional resume. Gives him that slight edge on my list.

:D

Naw, it's JAB that had Louis #1 (still does I believe). Ali was just too damn fast in his prime for any Heavy to deal with on equal terms.

Poet

IronDanHamza
04-24-2011, 03:33 AM
Naw, it's JAB that had Louis #1 (still does I believe). Ali was just too damn fast in his prime for any Heavy to deal with on equal terms.

Poet

That's very true. Frustratingly so, Ali is just a different phenom in terms of handspeed and footspeed.

Not forgetting his iron chin and cat like reflexes (60's Ali) amongst many other frustratingly gifted attributes he has.

But with all that being said I still stand by Louis being #1. As great as Ali was, for me, he just doesn't match to Louis' reign of sheer dominance and exceptional resume to go with it.

Add that fact that I outright prefer Joe Louis to Ali to be a very small factor in the ranking :lol1:

Ziggy Stardust
04-24-2011, 03:37 AM
That's very true. Frustratingly so, Ali is just a different phenom in terms of handspeed and footspeed.

Not forgetting his iron chin and cat like reflexes (60's Ali) amongst many other frustratingly gifted attributes he has.

But with all that being said I still stand by Louis being #1. As great as Ali was, for me, he just doesn't match to Louis' reign of sheer dominance and exceptional resume to go with it.

Add that fact that I outright prefer Joe Louis to Ali to be a very small factor in the ranking :lol1:

I don't care for Ali as a person.....I just can't allow my personal distaste for him color my perception of him as a fighter. I admire Louis I freely admit :boxing:

Poet

IronDanHamza
04-24-2011, 03:42 AM
I don't care for Ali as a person.....I just can't allow my personal distaste for him color my perception of him as a fighter. I admire Louis I freely admit :boxing:

Poet

Yeah, joking aside my personal dislike for him doesn't effect my ranking.

He's an amazing fighter, amazing.

I just rank Louis higher for the specified reasons :D

SCtrojansbaby
04-24-2011, 04:59 AM
You really have no clue what you're talking about.

At all.

Ali worked with King on certain events, Arum on others. Beyond that, most top Heavyweights have historically fought less. That's been the standard for most of history. Ali didn't set anything. Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano...none fought 10 a year. The wear was too much and the purses too good to need that many fights. Ali's decade in the 70s was high on activity with 4 fights each in 75 and 76 (after his association with King started). He went to two fights in 77 and 78 when he was generally shot.

When Robinson aged and could command top dollar (after his first retirement), he fought less too for many years. If fighters were paid their real value, instead of the inflated HBO prices paid out too often to guys who can't fill a flea market, you'd see more club shows featuring 'that guy I saw on HBO.'

Reguardless King & Arum were setting up big pay days and building fights months in advance rather then have guys fight 6-12x a year

My other point still stands as well, boxers don't choose to fight more or less the market dictates how much you fight. Prehistoric boxer had to fight more modern fighters less.Obviously guys who are fighting 3x as many fights are going to have better resumes the market was different and that is why its dumb to compare the eras.

And yes as much as you want to fight it athletes have progressed by leaps and bounds over the past 60 years, that is a fact. There are a handful of exceptions but by in large Bigger Stronger Faster Better Athletes today. and yes Boxers are athletes.

Boxing fans much like Soccer fans are stuck in the stone age baseball hockey football etc fans all recognize that the guys of this era are better.

JAB5239
04-24-2011, 05:42 AM
LOL so you think if Ray Robinson fought today he would be the only guy in the sport choosing to fight 10x a year and if Pacquiao fought back then he would be the only guy fighting 2x a year?

It is the sport of boxing today they fight less, it was the sport back then fight more. That is why its dumb to compare 2 completely different eras.

The point is that those guys proved they were durable enough to fight all the best and much more often. Manny, as great as he is has not. You want to compare them to today's standards instead of holding today's fighters to the standards that have already been set by past greats because fighters today CHOOSE not to fight as often. That is a twisted logic that makes no sense to any kind of objective and open minded person.

And by the way, you've conveniently ducked all my questions.Why is that?

Sam Donald
04-24-2011, 08:21 AM
Greb
Wilde
Monzon
Gans
Gavilan
Fitzsimmons
Griffith
Walker
Tunney
Jofre
Napoles
Ketchel
McLarnin
Walcott
Ross


why are all these fighters ranked ahead of manny pac? im not saying they aint but some one please individually point out something from there career that has them ahead of pacquiao??

Sam Donald
04-24-2011, 08:23 AM
i amnot saying they are not great, yes some of them are ranked ahead of him but not all

Barn
04-24-2011, 08:25 AM
i amnot saying they are not great, yes some of them are ranked ahead of him but not all
You can't expect someone to do all those fighter pick out 1-3.

Sam Donald
04-24-2011, 08:32 AM
You can't expect someone to do all those fighter pick out 1-3.

the last 3

McLarnin
Walcott
Ross

Sam Donald
04-24-2011, 08:34 AM
You can't expect someone to do all those fighter pick out 1-3.

this is for u

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jGXdtu9Gfic" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Barn
04-24-2011, 09:35 AM
this is for u

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jGXdtu9Gfic" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Thanks for that bro had me in stitches.

I'm watching the Rangers vs Celtic game so once its finished I'll get back to you.

crold1
04-24-2011, 09:36 AM
And yes as much as you want to fight it athletes have progressed by leaps and bounds over the past 60 years, that is a fact. There are a handful of exceptions but by in large Bigger Stronger Faster Better Athletes today. and yes Boxers are athletes.

Boxing fans much like Soccer fans are stuck in the stone age baseball hockey football etc fans all recognize that the guys of this era are better.

The only place in boxing where that would be measurable is speed and, like any era, some have it and some don't. A Welterweight is still a Welterweight. 147 lbs. (or 160, or 118) are constants. When fighters are bigger below Heavyweight, it is only because of a change in the weigh-in rules (meaning they weigh more at fight time than they used to...still hit the scale the same).

As to your baseball example...funny how a change in rules on, um, vitamins has seen so much of the 'progress' of the last 20 years is regressing back to an increase in small ball and base running.

Different sports have different variables.

IronDanHamza
04-24-2011, 10:04 AM
the last 3

McLarnin
Walcott
Ross

Barney Ross was an offical 3 weight World champion, a tremendously difficult task back then. 2 of them in which he defended numerous times.

With great wins over Canzeroni x2, Mclarnin x2. Including a long list of wins Vs Top competition and good fighters. Add the fact he was never stopped across 81 and had one of the all time great chins. Is enough for me to ranked above Manny Pacqiuao, around the 25-30 mark.

Joe Walcott was a freakishlty powerful guy, one of the hardest punchers in the history of the sport. Arguably one of the greatest WW Champions of all time which is one of the deepest divisions of all time.

He was the offical WW Champion in a time where it was an incredibly difficult task, along with a list of impressive of title defences. Including KO victories in which he was outweighed by an insane amount and in which he was tipped for a certain loss.

Add draws with Hof'er argubally Top 15 of all time Joe Gans and arguablly the greatest fighter of all time in Sam Langford to that, ones in which cases can be made for him to win. That's enough to me for him to be ranked above Manny Pacqiauo.

Jimmy Mclarnin, truely one of the greatest fighters ever. Beating Pacho Villa at Flyweight to go on to beat Tony Canzoneri at WW. With wins over Barney Ross, Young Corbett 3, Benny Leonard (although done) and a string of excellent fighters in between, which in total include 13 HOF fighters. Is enough to me for him to be ranked above Manny Pacqiauo.

I'm sure many others could go into even more detail why they should be.

Spartacus Sully
04-24-2011, 10:18 AM
Boxing fans much like Soccer fans are stuck in the stone age baseball hockey football etc fans all recognize that the guys of this era are better.

most baseball fans will agree (based on statistics) that babe ruth is one of the greatest baseball players ever....up there with ty cobb, lou gherig ect all from the early 20th century while baseball had only been around for 60 some years.

is there a current baseball player you would rank with babe ruth? or how about a current team you would rank with the 1927 yankees?

Scott9945
04-24-2011, 12:22 PM
The only reason people wont consider Pacquiao a top 25 ATG is that they cant stand the fact an Asian fighter has achieved all this. Its funny that in a sport where most of the champions have been non-white that the champions considered the greatest are white.

People often root for their own colour. Its no suprize people rate whites as the greatest fighters. Floyds unbeaten record is laughed at yet Marcianos is great. JCCs record winning streak and title record is dissmissed.

Thanks for turning this into a crybaby thread. :bottle: :baby:

Barn
04-24-2011, 01:11 PM
My Top 5 P4P consits of 1 white fighter and that is Harry Greb and he is an obvious choice to anynoe who posseses a brain.

Steak
04-24-2011, 01:52 PM
Greb
Wilde
Monzon
Gans
Gavilan
Fitzsimmons
Griffith
Walker
Tunney
Jofre
Napoles
Ketchel
McLarnin
Walcott
Ross


why are all these fighters ranked ahead of manny pac? im not saying they aint but some one please individually point out something from there career that has them ahead of pacquiao??
I dont believe Jofre and Wilde should be rated above Pacquiao.

joseph5620
04-24-2011, 02:02 PM
I dont believe Jofre and Wilde should be rated above Pacquiao.

Based on what?

Steak
04-24-2011, 02:08 PM
Based on what?

Pacquiao's best win(Barrera) is better than Jofre's best win(Medel).

Pacquiao has more wins over top competition than Jofre.

Pacquiao's wins over top competition are overall more impressive.

Pacquiao had more success over multiple weight classes.(extra credit, not what makes him great)

Ziggy Stardust
04-24-2011, 03:55 PM
most baseball fans will agree (based on statistics) that babe ruth is one of the greatest baseball players ever....up there with ty cobb, lou gherig ect all from the early 20th century while baseball had only been around for 60 some years.

is there a current baseball player you would rank with babe ruth? or how about a current team you would rank with the 1927 yankees?

Funny how practically ALL Hockey fans regard some guy who played his best seasons circa 25 years ago as the runaway best Hockey player ever.....some dude named Gretzky (maybe Trojanman's heard of him).

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
04-24-2011, 03:57 PM
As to your baseball example...funny how a change in rules on, um, vitamins has seen so much of the 'progress' of the last 20 years is regressing back to an increase in small ball and base running.

Yeah who would have thought cracking down on 'rhoids and HGH would cause homers to fall back to 1970s levels :hahahaha9:

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
04-24-2011, 04:01 PM
Thanks for turning this into a crybaby thread. :bottle: :baby:

Yeah, there's always someone who's got to drag race into it. Funny that, I'm white as Casper The Fvcking Ghost and my ATG lists are loaded with black and Latino fighters.

Poet

studentofthegam
04-24-2011, 04:12 PM
Greb
Wilde
Monzon
Gans
Gavilan
Fitzsimmons
Griffith
Walker
Tunney
Jofre
Napoles
Ketchel
McLarnin
Walcott
Ross


why are all these fighters ranked ahead of manny pac? im not saying they aint but some one please individually point out something from there career that has them ahead of pacquiao??
They all have good records and achievements but I believe Pac blisters most of them that were in his weight classes. Pac will get his due when he's old and out of the game. Even SRR wasnt loved until he was in the twilight of his career. I guess with boxing thats just the life cycle.

SCtrojansbaby
04-24-2011, 05:02 PM
most baseball fans will agree (based on statistics) that babe ruth is one of the greatest baseball players ever....up there with ty cobb, lou gherig ect all from the early 20th century while baseball had only been around for 60 some years.

is there a current baseball player you would rank with babe ruth? or how about a current team you would rank with the 1927 yankees?


Baseball fans also realize that Babe Ruth Ty Cobb was hitting MUCH slower and a FAR smaller variety of pitches and in to a field that had MUCH slower fielders. NO player from back then could make a major league team today just about everyone recognizes this Baseball is the worst as strength and conditioning was non existent back then.

It is perfectly ok to say someone is one of the greatest of all time in terms how great he is relative to his era.... just don't say if he was playing in another era he would be as good.

JAB5239
04-24-2011, 05:19 PM
Baseball fans also realize that Babe Ruth Ty Cobb was hitting MUCH slower and a FAR smaller variety of pitches and in to a field that had MUCH slower fielders. NO player from back then could make a major league team today just about everyone recognizes this Baseball is the worst as strength and conditioning was non existent back then.

It is perfectly ok to say someone is one of the greatest of all time in terms how great he is relative to his era.... just don't say if he was playing in another era he would be as good.

They were also not playing with juiced balls, corked bats and the miniature fields today while being loaded up on steroids, HGH EPO, etc., etc., etc..

SCtrojansbaby
04-24-2011, 05:22 PM
They were also not playing with juiced balls, corked bats and the miniature fields today while being loaded up on steroids, HGH EPO, etc., etc., etc..


That is nice, all the more reason why its retarded to compare

JAB5239
04-24-2011, 05:34 PM
That is nice, all the more reason why its retarded to compare

So you're admitting baseball players today can't live up to those of yesteryear on an even playing field. Thank you!

IronDanHamza
04-24-2011, 05:42 PM
They all have good records and achievements but I believe Pac blisters most of them that were in his weight classes. Pac will get his due when he's old and out of the game. Even SRR wasnt loved until he was in the twilight of his career. I guess with boxing thats just the life cycle.

People we're quite fond of Ray Robinson, to be honest.

Maybe not whilst he was the best fighter in the world, and he knew it too well.

But pretty much in the later of his career and after he retired people were quite fond of him.

And why do you use H2H analogies to compare greatness? It doesn't work like that.

SCtrojansbaby
04-24-2011, 05:42 PM
So you're admitting baseball players today can't live up to those of yesteryear on an even playing field. Thank you!


Live up to how? Players swing faster, hit the ball harder, pitch harder and with more variety, run faster, throw harder today.

studentofthegam
04-24-2011, 05:43 PM
Baseball fans also realize that Babe Ruth Ty Cobb was hitting MUCH slower and a FAR smaller variety of pitches and in to a field that had MUCH slower fielders. NO player from back then could make a major league team today just about everyone recognizes this Baseball is the worst as strength and conditioning was non existent back then.

It is perfectly ok to say someone is one of the greatest of all time in terms how great he is relative to his era.... just don't say if he was playing in another era he would be as good.Its the same in all sports including boxing IMO. Some players could transend eras and some cant. Ruth couldnt hold Aaron's jock strap. Gherig is good in any era. This is all my opinion now. Fields were made to accomodate players like Ruth. Its just like boxing, some greats are only great for that time period. But it will never be settled. We just have to entertain ourselves with speculation.

JAB5239
04-24-2011, 05:46 PM
Live up to how? Players swing faster, hit the ball harder, pitch harder and with more variety, run faster, throw harder today.

And why is that? Because they have smaller fields, juiced balls, corked bats and are loaded with steroids. Am I lying?

SCtrojansbaby
04-24-2011, 05:46 PM
Its the same in all sports including boxing IMO. Some players could transend eras and some cant. Ruth couldnt hold Aaron's jock strap. Gherig is good in any era. This is all my opinion now. Fields were made to accomodate players like Ruth. Its just like boxing, some greats are only great for that time period. But it will never be settled. We just have to entertain ourselves with speculation.


I agree that there are a handful that can transcend eras because that were ahead of there time as far as athleticism. But if they played in an era where everybody is as athletic as they were they would not be nearly as good as they were in there era

Ziggy Stardust
04-24-2011, 05:49 PM
So you're admitting baseball players today can't live up to those of yesteryear on an even playing field. Thank you!

The irony is he doesn't even realize that admitting their PED use discredits the very players he's trying to defend against those hated "Old Dudes" :chuckle9: 'roids and HGH = cheating.....bottom line :boxing:

Poet

SCtrojansbaby
04-24-2011, 05:51 PM
And why is that? Because they have smaller fields, juiced balls, corked bats and are loaded with steroids. Am I lying?

You can believe what you want.

I don't care, the fact is that its completely different eras guys do things better today and its retarded to compare.

studentofthegam
04-24-2011, 05:52 PM
People we're quite fond of Ray Robinson, to be honest.

Maybe not whilst he was the best fighter in the world, and he knew it too well.

But pretty much in the later of his career and after he retired people were quite fond of him.

And why do you use H2H analogies to compare greatness? It doesn't work like that.Key-Not while he was the best and thought he was the best. Later after he showed some weakness in the ring. Its how boxing goes so I guess we agree. I dont see the argument. Same with ALI. He was hated even by some of his own black people for being a "trouble maker". He falls off and he's the best thing since sliced bread by the majority.


The head to head issue is pretty clear. Thats why I separated the two. The H2H always comes into play and does have a place in ATG discussions. Thats why we had our debates about SRR beating FLoyd. We cant just take it into consideration when it fits our argument. Resume's are sometimes as questionable as fantasy matches so its a need for both. You cant be the best ever if no one thinks you can beat anyone that came for the next 100 yrs after you.

SCtrojansbaby
04-24-2011, 05:53 PM
The irony is he doesn't even realize that admitting their PED use discredits the very players he's trying to defend against those hated "Old Dudes" :chuckle9: 'roids and HGH = cheating.....bottom line :boxing:

Poet


Yeah because we all know guys never cheated back then when the game had little to no regulations and it was infintley harder for things to get publicized right? LOL you naive little man.

JAB5239
04-24-2011, 05:54 PM
You can believe what you want.

I don't care, the fact is that its completely different eras guys do things better today and its retarded to compare.

What is better about it? Give athletes from any era the same set of circumstances and they'd be doing the same things.Its retarded to ASSume you're right when you refuse to look at all the circumstances.

SCtrojansbaby
04-24-2011, 05:59 PM
What is better about it? Give athletes from any era the same set of circumstances and they'd be doing the same things.Its retarded to ASSume you're right when you refuse to look at all the circumstances.


THE CIRCUMSTANCE CAN NOT BE THE SAME things change over time. What is so hard to understand?

Ziggy Stardust
04-24-2011, 06:01 PM
Yeah because we all know guys never cheated back then when the game had little to no regulations and it was infintley harder for things to get publicized right? LOL you naive little man.

Considering Ruth's era was in the wake of the Black Sox scandal with all the Federal investigations that went with it I'd hazard to say that things were a hell of a lot more closely regulated then than they are now.

Oh, and PEDS didn't exist in the 1920s Einstein.....unless you consider beer and hotdogs "PEDS".

Poet

JAB5239
04-24-2011, 06:04 PM
THE CIRCUMSTANCE CAN NOT BE THE SAME things change over time. What is so hard to understand?

What has changed besides field conditions, better equipment and steroids?

Holtol
04-24-2011, 06:05 PM
[

Baseball fans also realize that Babe Ruth Ty Cobb was hitting MUCH slower and a FAR smaller variety of pitches and in to a field that had MUCH slower fielders. NO player from back then could make a major league team today just about everyone recognizes this Baseball is the worst as strength and conditioning was non existent back then.

It is perfectly ok to say someone is one of the greatest of all time in terms how great he is relative to his era.... just don't say if he was playing in another era he would be as good.

Micky Mantle hit the furthest home run in the history of baseball. Ted Williams hit the furthest ever home run in Fenway. Sandy Koufax threw a base ball 100 mph. Bobby Hull had a 100 mph slap shot. The greatest athletes were not all born 20 or 30 years ago.

IronDanHamza
04-24-2011, 06:06 PM
Key-Not while he was the best and thought he was the best. Later after he showed some weakness in the ring. Its how boxing goes so I guess we agree. I dont see the argument. Same with ALI. He was hated even by some of his own black people for being a "trouble maker". He falls off and he's the best thing since sliced bread by the majority.


The head to head issue is pretty clear. Thats why I separated the two. The H2H always comes into play and does have a place in ATG discussions. Thats why we had our debates about SRR beating FLoyd. We cant just take it into consideration when it fits our argument. Resume's are sometimes as questionable as fantasy matches so its a need for both. You cant be the best ever if no one thinks you can beat anyone that came for the next 100 yrs after you.

Well, I can understand why that kind of supreme confidence can give a negative outlook. People like Robinson, Ali and even Floyd Mayweather are special fighters. People don't tend to be fond of that confidence until they are humbled, to a degree.

But I don't think Pacqiauo ties in with that. Although an exceptional fighter, he doesn't have that arrogance, if you will.

There have been exceptional fighters throughout this sport that just won't get the recognition of how great the actually are. Even years and years and years after they retire they still don't get the recognition they might deserve. Look at Gene Tunney for example.

My point being; in 100 years time peoples opinion on Pacqiauo's greatness won't have enhanced. He will be seen as a great fighter if he were to retire today he will never be seen as a Top 10 ATG. No matter how many years pass by.

People like Ray Robinson are put in that leauge because he's that good and achieved that much.

Take what into consideration when it fits my argument? I never once said the fact that Ray Robinson would beat Floyd Mayweather is any reasoning to why he's greater. He's greater because he achieved so much more. My ranking of Robinson over Floyd has nothing to do with any H2H match up.

H2H match up's really don't mean much in terms of greatness. A great fighter can beat another great fighter on a given day. That doesn't mean that they are greater. Hence why resumes and achievements determine greatness.

If that's the case, do you rank Sandy Saddler over Willie Pep? Saddler beat Pep 3 out of 4 times.

SCtrojansbaby
04-24-2011, 06:08 PM
Considering Ruth's era was in the wake of the Black Sox scandal with all the Federal investigations that went with it I'd hazard to say that things were a hell of a lot more closely regulated then than they are now.

Oh, and PEDS didn't exist in the 1920s Einstein.....unless you consider beer and hotdogs "PEDS".

Poet

LOL keep living in your fantasy, EVERYTHING GETS WORSE OVER TIME world

SCtrojansbaby
04-24-2011, 06:15 PM
[



Micky Mantle hit the furthest home run in the history of baseball. Ted Williams hit the furthest ever home run in Fenway. Sandy Koufax threw a base ball 100 mph. Bobby Hull had a 100 mph slap shot. The greatest athletes were not all born 20 or 30 years ago.


As I said there were exceptions. Oh and the home run thing is a farce because guess what not only have athletes gotten better but so has math.

JAB5239
04-24-2011, 06:17 PM
As I said there were exceptions. Oh and the home run thing is a farce because guess what not only have athletes gotten better but so has math.

If you can't put up a valid argument than please move on to another subject.

Ziggy Stardust
04-24-2011, 06:19 PM
If you can't put up a valid argument than please move on to another subject.

Last time I checked people still use the same equations to solve mathematical problems that they used hundreds of years ago.....geometry is NOT a new invention :hahahaha9:

Poet

studentofthegam
04-24-2011, 06:24 PM
Well, I can understand why that kind of supreme confidence can give a negative outlook. People like Robinson, Ali and even Floyd Mayweather are special fighters. People don't tend to be fond of that confidence until they are humbled, to a degree.

But I don't think Pacqiauo ties in with that. Although an exceptional fighter, he doesn't have that arrogance, if you will.

There have been exceptional fighters throughout this sport that just won't get the recognition of how great the actually are. Even years and years and years after they retire they still don't get the recognition they might deserve. Look at Gene Tunney for example.

My point being; in 100 years time peoples opinion on Pacqiauo's greatness won't have enhanced. He will be seen as a great fighter if he were to retire today he will never be seen as a Top 10 ATG. No matter how many years pass by.

People like Ray Robinson are put in that leauge because he's that good and achieved that much.

Take what into consideration when it fits my argument? I never once said the fact that Ray Robinson would beat Floyd Mayweather is any reasoning to why he's greater. He's greater because he achieved so much more. My ranking of Robinson over Floyd has nothing to do with any H2H match up.

H2H match up's really don't mean much in terms of greatness. A great fighter can beat another great fighter on a given day. That doesn't mean that they are greater. Hence why resumes and achievements determine greatness.

If that's the case, do you rank Sandy Saddler over Willie Pep? Saddler beat Pep 3 out of 4 times.Being that its all opinionated people have different views. Lots of people consider Ali the greatest. I cant tell them its insane. When I judge a fighters place in history I cant help but wonder how the H2H match up would come out when its logical (near weight class). Thats just my way of judging. Kobe may surpass MJ in titles and scoring but some intelligent people will still have jordan as the greatest. My point is there is no set way to have an opinion on the greatest in sport. Barry Sanders is the greatest RB I ever saw followed by Jim Brown but neither has accomplished as much as Emmit Smith statistically. Its a matter of taste when no rules are set. I never said you picked SRR solely on that but if you thought Floyd would tear SRR to pieces you'd be a lot less likely to disregard it as a factor. Right or Wrong?

With Pacquiao it goes to show that opinions will vary. You say he wont be remembered like I think he will. Thats just your opinion and my opinion being opposite. The reality of it is we dont know what it will be in 100 years.

Holtol
04-24-2011, 06:26 PM
As I said there were exceptions. Oh and the home run thing is a farce because guess what not only have athletes gotten better but so has math.

Never mind SCtrojansbaby it was just an attempt to wake you out of your dream.

SCtrojansbaby
04-24-2011, 06:34 PM
If you can't put up a valid argument than please move on to another subject.

I have made valid argument that you and others choose to ignore. I will recap

1. Boxers back when Sugar Ray Robinson fought 3-4x as much as Floyd Mayweather because that is what the market dictated. Obviously fighting 3-4x as many fights you will have a better resume.

2. Nutrition Medicine Exercise etc has gotten much much better over the past 60 years and doing all those things much better makes you a better athlete. Athleticism is a really big part of being a boxer generally the guys of today are better athletes and in turn better boxers.

But as I expect you all will continue using your typewriters and listen to your cassettes believing that athletics of totally different eras should be compared and every fighter that I never actually saw fight was greatest ever

JAB5239
04-24-2011, 06:39 PM
I have made valid argument that you and others choose to ignore. I will recap

1. Boxers back when Sugar Ray Robinson fought 3-4x as much as Floyd Mayweather because that is what the market dictated. Obviously fighting 3-4x as many fights you will have a better resume.

2. Nutrition Medicine Exercise etc has gotten much much better over the past 60 years and doing all those things much better makes you a better athlete. Athleticism is a really big part of being a boxer generally the guys of today are better athletes and in turn better boxers.

But as I expect you all will continue using your typewriters and listen to your cassettes believing that athletics of totally different eras should be compared and every fighter that I never actually saw fight was greatest ever

SC, all your arguments were countered and you have stopped answering questions and just repeated the same thing over and over. Just move on to something else bro.

IronDanHamza
04-24-2011, 06:50 PM
Being that its all opinionated people have different views. Lots of people consider Ali the greatest. I cant tell them its insane. When I judge a fighters place in history I cant help but wonder how the H2H match up would come out when its logical (near weight class). Thats just my way of judging. Kobe may surpass MJ in titles and scoring but some intelligent people will still have jordan as the greatest. My point is there is no set way to have an opinion on the greatest in sport. Barry Sanders is the greatest RB I ever saw followed by Jim Brown but neither has accomplished as much as Emmit Smith statistically. Its a matter of taste when no rules are set. I never said you picked SRR solely on that but if you thought Floyd would tear SRR to pieces you'd be a lot less likely to disregard it as a factor. Right or Wrong?

With Pacquiao it goes to show that opinions will vary. You say he wont be remembered like I think he will. Thats just your opinion and my opinion being opposite. The reality of it is we dont know what it will be in 100 years.

First things first I don't follow those sports you used and secondly it's different sports so let's not relate them.

Someone may say Muhammad Ali is the greatest fighter of all time, and although I would strongly disagree with that, it still is a valid and reasonable argument.

Whereas if someone were to say, I don't know, Barney Ross was the greatest of all time..Altough Ross an ATG fighter, there is simply no argument for him being the greatest fighter of all time, none. Even if he had the ability to beat any fighter in his weight class. He just simply hasn't acheived enough to warrant that status. Greatness is based on many things, but not H2H match ups.

Again, if it is, do you rank Saddler higher than Willie Pep? He beat him 3 out of 4 times.

If I thought Floyd Mayweather could beat Ray Robinson with utter ease it still doesn't make him greater than Ray Robinson. Ray Robinson achieved so much more, so much more. That there is just no way or any reasonable argument for him to be ranked higher than him.

IronDanHamza
04-24-2011, 07:25 PM
You know what yall are completely inconsistent. If you're gonna tell me how to debate and what the criteria is why do you even respond to me. Its simple, I think both are necessary and you just think one is necessary. Im aware that I cant make your mind up but that doesnt dawn on you for some reason. Why repeat the exact same thing to me. You got a bad taste in your mouth and its making you argue things that we obviously agreed on. There is no crime in thinking Saddler is greater than Pep. He won a lot of fights and whipped Pep. There is room for the opinion that Hopkins is greater than Jones because he split with him and had a great career or better yet has a great career. OPINIONS?

Oooooooook :thinking:

I'm repeating it because I'm trying to explain to you why it's illogical to base greatness on H2H match up's.

That's the thing, thinking Saddler is greater than Pep is a crime. And that is the point. There is no reasonable or logical argument for Saddler being greater than Pep. Literally, none what so ever. Regardless to the fact he beat him 3 times our of 4.

Hense, why H2H match ups mean nothing when determining a fighters greatness.

pacquia0
04-24-2011, 07:53 PM
First things first I don't follow those sports you used and secondly it's different sports so let's not relate them.

Someone may say Muhammad Ali is the greatest fighter of all time, and although I would strongly disagree with that, it still is a valid and reasonable argument.



Someone may say Manny Pacquiao is a top 25 all time great, and although you would strongly disagree with that, it still is a valid and reasonable argument.

Mulitple boxing trainers, writers, historians and fighters have all said this. Also there is footage to back up their opinion as well as the fact Pacquiao has made boxing history by setting records that will most likely never be matched.

IronDanHamza
04-24-2011, 08:02 PM
Someone may say Manny Pacquiao is a top 25 all time great, and although you would strongly disagree with that, it still is a valid and reasonable argument.

Mulitple boxing trainers, writers, historians and fighters have all said this. Also there is footage to back up their opinion as well as the fact Pacquiao has made boxing history by setting records that will most likely never be matched.

But I don't see that as reasonable, atleast not as it stands.

Which legit historians have Pacquiao in the top 25 of all time? I genuinely haven't seen that.

Feel free to provide a link if you have one.

Ziggy Stardust
04-24-2011, 08:04 PM
But I don't see that as reasonable, atleast not as it stands.

Which legit historians have Pacquiao in the top 25 of all time? I genuinely haven't seen that.

Feel free to provide a link if you have one.

Freddie Roach-clip sed so so i must be true :allhail9:

SBleeder
04-24-2011, 08:24 PM
Nolan Ryan still holds the record for the fastest pitch ever recorded, back in 1974.

You'd think with all the modern medicine (steroids), nutrition (Quarter Pounders), and exercise techniques (lifting weights for six hours a day and never working on your actual game) that this record would have been obliterated years ago.

Ziggy Stardust
04-24-2011, 08:27 PM
Nolan Ryan still holds the record for the fastest pitch ever recorded, back in 1974.

You'd think with all the modern medicine (steroids), nutrition (Quarter Pounders), and exercise techniques (lifting weights for six hours a day and never working on your actual game) that this record would have been obliterated years ago.

:biggthump:biggthump:biggthump:biggthump

GJC
04-24-2011, 08:44 PM
Thing is what I don't think us old timers are given credit for is we want to see a new great fighter. If I didn't I might as well curl up with my old tapes. Thing is for me I don't like to rate fighters in their historical perspective until they are over and the story is told and they have answered a few question marks. An example is Tyson who when he came on the scene I was calming a lot of people down. There were questions to ask.
Ok he can hit but can he take one?
He is quick compared with the guys he is fighting but what if he fights someone quicker?
What if he fights someone he isn't intimidated and who will try and get in his head?
Great going forward what about if he gets backed up? What if he can't knock the other guy out hows his stamina? What if it's not going well has he a plan B how's his heart? How is he getting in against a guy who can really fire out his jab and stick and move?
etc etc Tyson ticked some boxes and not others but thats the way I look on fighters

Scott9945
04-24-2011, 08:45 PM
Nolan Ryan still holds the record for the fastest pitch ever recorded, back in 1974.

You'd think with all the modern medicine (steroids), nutrition (Quarter Pounders), and exercise techniques (lifting weights for six hours a day and never working on your actual game) that this record would have been obliterated years ago.

Aroldis Chapman set the record last week for throwing a pitch 106 mph.

Ziggy Stardust
04-24-2011, 08:49 PM
Aroldis Chapman set the record last week for throwing a pitch 106 mph.

From what I understand, though, it's disputed. Stay tuned to see if it sticks.

Poet

pacquia0
04-24-2011, 09:00 PM
But I don't see that as reasonable, atleast not as it stands.

Which legit historians have Pacquiao in the top 25 of all time? I genuinely haven't seen that.

Feel free to provide a link if you have one.

Bert Sugar does.

Emmanuel Steward - he's the greatest of all time. He's the only modern fighter.... I mean Bernard Hopkins will go to the Hall of Fame, and De La Hoya will too, but none of them has accomplished what this man has. He's been in America for the last 8 or 9 years fighting the top in the business all the way up to the top welterweights, and been consistent in all of his fights. Even the one fight he lost, he still fought a great fight, and then came back and knocked him out in the next fight. Everybody that's been available to him, he's put forth great performances against. He's definitely an all time great. He's beyond Hall of Fame, he's an all time great with the Muhammad Ali's and the Ray Robinson's.

IronDanHamza
04-24-2011, 09:07 PM
Bert Sugar does.

Emmanuel Steward - he's the greatest of all time. He's the only modern fighter.... I mean Bernard Hopkins will go to the Hall of Fame, and De La Hoya will too, but none of them has accomplished what this man has. He's been in America for the last 8 or 9 years fighting the top in the business all the way up to the top welterweights, and been consistent in all of his fights. Even the one fight he lost, he still fought a great fight, and then came back and knocked him out in the next fight. Everybody that's been available to him, he's put forth great performances against. He's definitely an all time great. He's beyond Hall of Fame, he's an all time great with the Muhammad Ali's and the Ray Robinson's.

Did I say Historian? Or LEGIT Historian? I'm quite sure I said legit Historian.

Therefore Bert "Shane Mosley is a master jabber" Sugar and Emmanuel "my only advice to my fighters is let your hands go" Steward just simply don't cut it.

Come back to me with a legit boxing historian who has Pacqiauo in thier Top 25 and I will accept it.

Ziggy Stardust
04-24-2011, 09:10 PM
Did I say Historian? Or LEGIT Historian? I'm quite sure I said legit Historian.

Therefore Bert "Shane Mosley is a master jabber" Sugar and Emmanuel "my only advice to my fighters is let your hands go" Steward just simply don't cut it.

Come back to me with a legit boxing historian who has Pacqiauo in thier Top 25 and I will accept it.

If someone's relying on Bert Sugar for their info then they'll never want for moonshine :hahahaha9:

Poet

SCtrojansbaby
04-24-2011, 09:10 PM
Did I say Historian? Or LEGIT Historian? I'm quite sure I said legit Historian.

Therefore Bert "Shane Mosley is a master jabber" Sugar and Emmanuel "my only advice to my fighters is let your hands go" Steward just simply don't cut it.

Come back to me with a legit boxing historian who has Pacqiauo in thier Top 25 and I will accept it.


LOL legit historian=some one you agree with

GJC
04-24-2011, 09:21 PM
Sugar is an entertaining writer and a great introduction to the sport but thats about it, you should outgrow Sugar pretty quick

Holtol
04-24-2011, 09:21 PM
Aroldis Chapman set the record last week for throwing a pitch 106 mph.

Thats good but there have been faster pitchers just not on radar gun. Steve Dalkowski threw 115 mph. Does not matter anyway one of my favorite pitchers Jimmy Key did not have much of a fast ball but was really good. And Billy Koch was in the Jays bulpen a few years ago and could throw 100 mph he sucked ****! If you have good eyes it don't matter how fast something is moving. You have to use tricks like Key or Maddux to fool good hitters. Speed is not enough if you can see things in slow motion. Thats why Zab Judah was beatable and thats why Roy Jones would have lost more fights if he fought more good fighters.

GJC
04-24-2011, 09:25 PM
Thats good but there have been faster pitchers just not on radar gun. Steve Dalkowski threw 115 mph. Does not matter anyway one of my faviorit pitchers Jimmy Key did not have much of a fast ball but was really good. And Billy Koch was in the Jays bulpen a few years ago and could throw 100 mph he sucked ****! If you have good eyes it don't matter how fast something is moving. You have to use tricks like Key or Maddux to fool good hitters. Speed is not enough if you can see things in slow motion. Thats why Zab Judah was beatable and thats why Roy Jones would have lost more fights if he fought more good fighters.
Like Tiger Woods started hitting his drives a lot less on average and won a lot more majors

Holtol
04-24-2011, 09:31 PM
Like Tiger Woods started hitting his drives a lot less on average and won a lot more majors

The only reason I mentioned Koufax's fast ball was because posters claiming athletic ability did not used to be as good. It does not even matter though.

I don't watch golf but I know Woods is amazing. Does not suprise me that he does not need to hit a ball far to win.

IronDanHamza
04-24-2011, 09:39 PM
LOL legit historian=some one you agree with

Well no, not really.

I personally disagree with quite a few portions of the IBRO's ATG list.

But it's still a legit list..

Amongst many others.

pacquia0
04-24-2011, 09:45 PM
Did I say Historian? Or LEGIT Historian? I'm quite sure I said legit Historian.

Therefore Bert "Shane Mosley is a master jabber" Sugar and Emmanuel "my only advice to my fighters is let your hands go" Steward just simply don't cut it.

Come back to me with a legit boxing historian who has Pacqiauo in thier Top 25 and I will accept it.

I dont rate Sugar I just stated him as a historian who does. I doubt any of those you class as legit have regular access with the media so their opinion on pacquiao is not known.

Steward has had great success as a trainer. Have you had first-hand experiance with the guy or heard any fighter criticize him. Ive seen many a fighter praise him. Robert Garcia is another trainer who rates Pacquiao as top 25.

If someone's relying on Bert Sugar for their info then they'll never want for moonshine :hahahaha9:

Poet

The TS has Wilde, Monzon and Napoles in his top 25.

Can you not see the case for Pacquiao being greater than any of these fighters ?

Scott9945
04-24-2011, 09:57 PM
Sugar is an entertaining writer and a great introduction to the sport but thats about it, you should outgrow Sugar pretty quick

Very well said. Sugar is like a "celebrity" boxing historian who the media likes to use for his ready soundbites.

Saddlebred
04-25-2011, 12:08 AM
I'm beating a dead horse here, but this thread has completely changed from Pacquiao as a top 25 ATG, into a Pacquiao as top 5 ATG, into a Manny Pacquiao #1 GOAT thread. Many people have mentioned in this thread and threads similar to this that it is impossible to judge a career amongst the best of all-time before said fighter's career is over.

Let me give you Pacquiao fans a little history lesson here. In an age before Filipinos widely had access to netcafes and the internet...in an age when Pacquiao had never left Southeast Asia to fight, when Pacquiao was on the verge of fighting in the United States for the first time (which eventually ended as a draw)...10 years ago there were people out there saying Roy Jones Jr was the greatest fighter of all-time. You had boxing "celebrities" singing a million kinds of praises of him, you had diehard fanboys talking all day about how none of the past greats could beat him.

Where is Roy Jones Jr on your top 25 ATG list now?

It is impossible to put a fighter's ranking amongst the ATGs until that fighter's career is truly over.

/thread

Ziggy Stardust
04-25-2011, 12:29 AM
The TS has Wilde, Monzon and Napoles in his top 25.

And this is a problem how? I personally wouldn't rate Monzon that high but then again I also think Monzon gets grossly overrated.


Can you not see the case for Pacquiao being greater than any of these fighters ?

No. Not at this stage in anycase. As things stand now I'd rate Monzon over him even as overrated as I think he is.

Poet

Spartacus Sully
04-25-2011, 01:33 AM
Baseball fans also realize that Babe Ruth Ty Cobb was hitting MUCH slower and a FAR smaller variety of pitches and in to a field that had MUCH slower fielders. NO player from back then could make a major league team today just about everyone recognizes this Baseball is the worst as strength and conditioning was non existent back then.

It is perfectly ok to say someone is one of the greatest of all time in terms how great he is relative to his era.... just don't say if he was playing in another era he would be as good.

nope, ruth would be just as good today as when he played back inthe day.

they simply dont swing the bat like he did....completly diffrent with modern days inferior technique...watch a few vids of sammy sosa or mark mcguire then go watch the babe swing the bat a few times and you can see the clearly supior timing, technique and power.....

Saddlebred
04-25-2011, 02:02 AM
nope, ruth would be just as good today as when he played back inthe day.

they simply dont swing the bat like he did....completly diffrent with modern days inferior technique...watch a few vids of sammy sosa or mark mcguire then go watch the babe swing the bat a few times and you can see the clearly supior timing, technique and power.....I think Ruth would be even better! Boxing and baseball in the United States have a very intertwined history as far as the time frames go...I would say they provide accurate inflection into both sports throughout their collective histories...back in Babe Ruth's day pitchers could still throw spitballs, scuff balls with whatever they could hide, and organized crime had heavy influence from gambling circles...whoever is arguing that Babe Ruth would suck today, please go read the wikipedia article on the Dead Ball Era regarding baseball. Then come back to me on what you think was going on with boxing in those days.

Bottom line, astronauts vs cavemen...who would you pick to win in a fight?

Spartacus Sully
04-25-2011, 02:26 AM
Bottom line, astronauts vs cavemen...who would you pick to win in a fight?

i get your point but as most astronauts were trainined soldiers before they became astronauts id have to go with the astronaut.

and the dead ball era is some interesting stuff.

Saddlebred
04-25-2011, 03:00 AM
i get your point but as most astronauts were trainined soldiers before they became astronauts id have to go with the astronaut.Touché, but just because someone went through a couple weeks of pushups, monkey bars and eating square meals doesn't make them surviorman. There are army librarians as well.

I wasn't trying argue your post, just agree with it more and possibly expand on it somewhat for lurkers/pactads/*****s. The NSB section is a bit too much for me and I am just trying to find a nice boxing forum where I can post my opinions and learn about other people's opinions and maybe change some of my own.

I still think cavemen might take it.

Ziggy Stardust
04-25-2011, 03:10 AM
nope, ruth would be just as good today as when he played back inthe day.

they simply dont swing the bat like he did....completly diffrent with modern days inferior technique...watch a few vids of sammy sosa or mark mcguire then go watch the babe swing the bat a few times and you can see the clearly supior timing, technique and power.....

I love that bit about "variety" of pitches.....what are the vast majority of pitches that batters see today? Fastball, curveball, slider, and changeup. What did pitchers mostly throw in 1920? You guessed it! Fastball, curveball, slider, and changeup. Plus, back then you were more likely to come up against a knuckleballer then you are today. I swear it makes me laugh my azz off at these people who think any of this stuff is new :hahahaha9: These people actually think this sh1t was just invented yesterday :chuckle9:

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
04-25-2011, 03:16 AM
Touché, but just because someone went through a couple weeks of pushups, monkey bars and eating square meals doesn't make them surviorman. There are army librarians as well.

I wasn't trying argue your post, just agree with it more and possibly expand on it somewhat for lurkers/pactads/*****s. The NSB section is a bit too much for me and I am just trying to find a nice boxing forum where I can post my opinions and learn about other people's opinions and maybe change some of my own.

I still think cavemen might take it.

Yeah, you're better off over here than in NSB.....In NSB you'll get a really warped vision of Boxing Scene that isn't necessarilly accurate :hah9:

Poet

Spartacus Sully
04-25-2011, 03:30 AM
Touché, but just because someone went through a couple weeks of pushups, monkey bars and eating square meals doesn't make them surviorman. There are army librarians as well.

I wasn't trying argue your post, just agree with it more and possibly expand on it somewhat for lurkers/pactads/*****s. The NSB section is a bit too much for me and I am just trying to find a nice boxing forum where I can post my opinions and learn about other people's opinions and maybe change some of my own.

I still think cavemen might take it.

some one like neil armstrong was in the navy and fought in the korean war, i think he could take down a caveman.

i understand your post and i agree......except for the astronaut part.

Saddlebred
04-25-2011, 04:17 AM
some one like neil armstrong was in the navy and fought in the korean war, i think he could take down a caveman.

i understand your post and i agree......except for the astronaut part.<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZOo6aHSY8hU?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZOo6aHSY8hU?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>I'll take Buzz over Neil in 4 =P

SCtrojansbaby
04-25-2011, 05:14 AM
You people still listen to cassettes and use VCRs? Things evolve stop living in the past.

Spartacus Sully
04-25-2011, 05:49 AM
You people still listen to cassettes and use VCRs? Things evolve stop living in the past.

16mm = 720p

35mm camera film = 25 megapixel digital camera

vinyl > cd's

straight edge > double edge safty razors > cartridge razors > electrict razors

davinchi > dali > warhol

mozart > gershwin > philip glass....

bojangles1987
04-25-2011, 07:00 AM
Very well said. Sugar is like a "celebrity" boxing historian who the media likes to use for his ready soundbites.

It's the cigar and the hat. You have to listen to an old man wearing that hat and smoking a cigar, it's the law.

Quarry
04-25-2011, 07:41 AM
over half a million voted in this pole

http://filamstar.net/index.php?id=1354

Spartacus Sully
04-25-2011, 09:17 AM
over half a million voted in this pole

http://filamstar.net/index.php?id=1354

and half a million also voted mike tyson and rocky marciano over joe louis for 2nd and third greatest heavy weights of all time.

clearly nothing but a popularity contest.

IronDanHamza
04-25-2011, 12:25 PM
And this is a problem how? I personally wouln't rate Monzon that high but then again I also think Monzon gets grossly overrated.




No. Not at this stage in anycase. As things stand now I'd rate Monzon over him even as overrated as I think he is.

Poet

:fing02: :fing02:

Quarry
04-25-2011, 01:47 PM
and half a million also voted mike tyson and rocky marciano over joe louis for 2nd and third greatest heavy weights of all time.

clearly nothing but a popularity contest.

are you saying Mike Tyson would not have a even money chance of knocking out both Louis & Marciano

Vadrigar.
04-25-2011, 02:32 PM
are you saying Mike Tyson would not have a even money chance of knocking out both Louis & Marciano

It's talking about greatness not h2h matchups.

Saddlebred
04-25-2011, 02:47 PM
over half a million voted in this pole

http://filamstar.net/index.php?id=1354Wow an internet poll got posted on PhilBoxing and spammed by the Pinoy and he still couldn't win? I'm actually kind of disappointed in you guys considering your country is 90 million strong.

This is like when I posted links to peer-reviewed medical articles about HGH and other PEDs...and the Pacnuts post links to random Filipinos talking into their webcams on youtube and think that it somehow invalidates the studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals.

facepalm

pacquia0
04-25-2011, 05:23 PM
Unfortunately people are high on nostalgia and living in the past.

Pacquiao fights in an where era in which latinos, black and asians compete. The greats most of you speak of(pre 1930s) them made their mark in apartheid eras.

SBleeder
04-25-2011, 05:59 PM
are you saying Mike Tyson would not have a even money chance of knocking out both Louis & Marciano

Tyson could win 2-3 out of 10 versus Marciano...

Louis stops Tyson inside of 6 rounds 100 out of 100 times.

pacquia0
04-25-2011, 06:14 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/x8Y-Fk4ZsDI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tKpyWZwnLdA&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tKpyWZwnLdA&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Ziggy Stardust
04-25-2011, 09:16 PM
Unfortunately people are high on nostalgia and living in the past.

Pacquiao fights in an where era in which latinos, black and asians compete. The greats most of you speak of(pre 1930s) them made their mark in apartheid eras.

Another race baiter :rolleyes9:

DeepSleep
04-26-2011, 01:55 AM
No one questions Pacquaio's talent but his resume doesn't have nearly as many excellent fighters as most of the fighter's in the top 25.

The main problem is the best fighter I watched Pacquaio fight was JMM and he struggled with him a plenty. Since JMM I have watched Pacquaio fight guys who seem to be cherry picked because they don't have a powerhouse straight right hand (Left handed: ODH, Cotto, Diaz. No Handed: Hatton, No anything without his wraps: Margo). Making matters worse now Arum has PacMan in a no win scenario in fighting a shot Mosley in a fight no one cares about.

Still the problem isn't just PacMan. Most of the fighter's these days are so sheltered by the promoters they never end up fighting the best talent at their weight class. Say what you want about the UFC but they have the right idea; force the best to fight the best for a single belt.

SCtrojansbaby
04-26-2011, 03:50 AM
No one questions Pacquaio's talent but his resume doesn't have nearly as many excellent fighters as most of the fighter's in the top 25.

The main problem is the best fighter I watched Pacquaio fight was JMM and he struggled with him a plenty. Since JMM I have watched Pacquaio fight guys who seem to be cherry picked because they don't have a powerhouse straight right hand (Left handed: ODH, Cotto, Diaz. No Handed: Hatton, No anything without his wraps: Margo). Making matters worse now Arum has PacMan in a no win scenario in fighting a shot Mosley in a fight no one cares about.

Still the problem isn't just PacMan. Most of the fighter's these days are so sheltered by the promoters they never end up fighting the best talent at their weight class. Say what you want about the UFC but they have the right idea; force the best to fight the best for a single belt.


LOL at
1. JMM being the best fighter Pacquiao has fought... HELLO Barrera!
2. Anyone who has ever boxed between 125-135 would have trouble with Marquez.
3. Of course if you compare Pacquiao to pre historic fighters his resume doesn't match up they fought at least 3x as many fights.

Daruhon
04-26-2011, 12:49 PM
Being PAC as an ATG is has no argument in this later years of boxing Pac made a mark in boxing history but at top 25 personally i have to say open for debate..anyway he is still Active or shall we say at its Primes right now He can still add more to Justify to be included..but right now i still want to see more

New England
04-26-2011, 02:42 PM
LOL at
1. JMM being the best fighter Pacquiao has fought... HELLO Barrera!
2. Anyone who has ever boxed between 125-135 would have trouble with Marquez.
3. Of course if you compare Pacquiao to pre historic fighters his resume doesn't match up they fought at least 3x as many fights.



marquez finished his career at 135 with old legs in a dismal lightweight division. it was as bad as could be


there have been career lightweights, lightweights that later became WW's and MW's, etc that would have dusted marquez

i love the guy. i jones his fights. absolutely jones them
he's one of the best fighters alive in terms of the craft developed during a long career as a top tier boxer
but he's just not a dominant lightweight in terms of historical greatness.


he went life and death with michale katsidis and juan diaz, ffs

be happy that marquez isnt a dominant lightweight, we would have never gotten two absolute classics at the weight in '09 and '10

goldenbear
04-26-2011, 03:38 PM
In all honesty I don't think Pac would make my top 25 all time list in history given all the great fighters and the caliber of fighters they fought. Manny has some names on his record but many of them were well past their prime when he fought them and most all time greats cleared out divisions as opposed to fight the clearly weakest guy in a division and then move up in weight. Also, considering he's the only fighter in the history of the sport of boxing to move up in weight and not lose any speed or power makes me question his performance....I think Pac makes my top 50 but not 25. For those of you who question why not top 25 because I would have to include individuals such as Charley Burley who the Great Sugar Ray Robinson ducked, Gadon (aka Old Master) for his pioneering defensive style. Most people have never heard of these individuals so how can Pac be in top 25 if most people have no frame of reference for the history of the sport past the last 30yrs.

JAB5239
04-26-2011, 05:31 PM
In all honesty I don't think Pac would make my top 25 all time list in history given all the great fighters and the caliber of fighters they fought. Manny has some names on his record but many of them were well past their prime when he fought them and most all time greats cleared out divisions as opposed to fight the clearly weakest guy in a division and then move up in weight. Also, considering he's the only fighter in the history of the sport of boxing to move up in weight and not lose any speed or power makes me question his performance....I think Pac makes my top 50 but not 25. For those of you who question why not top 25 because I would have to include individuals such as Charley Burley who the Great Sugar Ray Robinson ducked, Gadon (aka Old Master) for his pioneering defensive style. Most people have never heard of these individuals so how can Pac be in top 25 if most people have no frame of reference for the history of the sport past the last 30yrs.

I agree with all you have said, but I have no idea who Gadon is. Do you mean Joe Gans?

SCtrojansbaby
04-26-2011, 05:43 PM
marquez finished his career at 135 with old legs in a dismal lightweight division. it was as bad as could be


there have been career lightweights, lightweights that later became WW's and MW's, etc that would have dusted marquez

i love the guy. i jones his fights. absolutely jones them
he's one of the best fighters alive in terms of the craft developed during a long career as a top tier boxer
but he's just not a dominant lightweight in terms of historical greatness.


he went life and death with michale katsidis and juan diaz, ffs

be happy that marquez isnt a dominant lightweight, we would have never gotten two absolute classics at the weight in '09 and '10


Marquez is an exciting fighter so he makes fights look good but he beat Katsidis and DiazII handily. And he KO'd Diaz as an underdog which was very impressive. As I said their isn't a boxer in history from 125-135 who wouldn't "have trouble" with Marquez.

SCtrojansbaby
04-26-2011, 06:33 PM
What was that?

Old Today, 05:18 PM
Remove user from ignore list
poet682006
This message is hidden because poet682006 is on your ignore list.