who's the better southpaw: hagler or pacquaio???

only 2 southpaws all-time better than Pacquaio are Hagler and Whitaker

jimi gave birth to rock and roll, kurt killed it lolz Chuck Berry did. Marty McFly stole it.

Bit of a Jimmy Page man myself although he would have to get under Hendrix's jab and keep pressurising him. lol slash from GN'R is mad good

well, that's why I wrote: Never said you didn't my friend. Just making the point that both a long title reighn in one division and multi weight title collecting both have merit but you must look beyond that. e.g. Do you lend more weight to Duran's 4 belts or his long reign as LW champ or give equal weight. Problem if you go for the 4 belts you get Kirkland Laing etc thrown at you re Duran diminishing his greatness

i hate to disagee with you sam but jimi is the greatest guitarist of all time imo!....i play a lil bit too.....never got good at it. Bit of a Jimmy Page man myself although he would have to get under Hendrix's jab and keep pressurising him.

It's Manny Pacquiao's time now! He claimed a world title in his 6th division, tying De La Hoya's record. More important, Pacquiao became the first fighter in boxing history to win 4th lineal championships (flyweight, featherweight, junior lightweight and junior welterweight). That's the résumé of an all-time great. Why not give him what he's worth instead of belittling him and robbing him of what he deserves. Athletes like him only come once in a lifetime afterall, so enjoy him while you can. And yes! I said let him get what he deserves. Pacquiao earned his way to be on top. He didn't take any shortcuts or avoided any road blocks like other boxers who ducked the best competition. You may not understand a lot of what he says during his interviews, but love him or hate him, Manny Pacquiao's fists have done the talking unlike Floyd Mayweather Jr. who still looking how to cement his career after Manny Pacquiao overpass him.

whos the better guitarist? kurt cobain or jimi hendrix? (both soutpaw) hendrix was more of a technician Hendrix wasn't very technical at all. My own guitar playing skills are far more advanced than Jimi's, but that's not to say he wasn't a great player overall. He was a pioneer and changed the way the electric guitar was looked at. Some guitarists are extremely technical but it doesn't make you want to listen to them. Jimi wasn't technical. Compared to today's standards he was very limited. The difference though -- Cobain didn't want to be technical. It was against everything he stood for as a musician. So basically, Hendrix vs. Cobain is not a good comparison because Kurt was about songwriting first and foremost, not technicality and guitar stunts. 100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

http://www.ringtv.com/blog/657/10_greatest_fighters_by_decade/ 10: Greatest fighters by decade Posted May. 10, 2009 at 11:48pm By Michael Rosenthal Buzz up! A weekly boxing list compiled by Michael Rosenthal. This week: Best fighter pound-for-pound in each of the past 10 decades. 1910s: Sam Langford -- Small man beat the best big men of his day. Runner up: Jimmy Wilde. 1920s: Benny Leonard -- Some still say he’s the greatest lightweight ever. Runner up: Harry Greb. 1930s: Henry Armstrong -- Held titles in three weight classes simultaneously. Runner up: Tony Canzoneri. 1940s: Ray Robinson – Untouchable as a welterweight. Runner up: Willie Pep 1950s: Ray Robinson – Also one of the greatest middleweights ever. Runner up: Archie Moore. 1960s: Muhammad Ali – The Greatest really was the greatest at this time. Runner up: Carlos Ortiz. 1970s: Roberto Duran – Virtually untouchable as a lightweight. Runner up: Carlos Monzon. 1980s: Ray Leonard: His victories over Duran, Hearns and Hagler were epic. Runner up: Julio Cesar Chavez. 1990s: Roy Jones Jr. – At his best, he inspired awe. Runner up: Pernell Whitaker. 2000s: Manny Pacquiao – Sorry Floyd but you need to fight the best to be the best. Runner up: Floyd Mayweather. :owned: :owned: owned how? because of that mans biased opinion? lol you just have to look at his reasoning for Pac getting the acolade to see why, it seems more anti Floyd then pro Pac

i dont give a flyin' **** what nuthuggers say, hagler is greater then pac, his skills are better, resume, ext. but what do you all think? Stop living in the past. Move on! I think Manny Pacquiao already past all this guys. Better resume? I don't think so. Pacquiao resume is better too. Manny Pacquiao always amaze us every time he fights. If Manny Pacquiao is in the Era of Sugar Ray, Duran etc. I bet he will mark his name too just like this guys. Its Hard to compare this guys because their on different divisions. We never know what will happen. We are not perfect. Anyway: Manny Pacquiao claimed a world title in his 6th division, tying De La Hoya's record. More important, Pacquiao became the first fighter in boxing history to win 4th lineal championships (flyweight, featherweight, junior lightweight and junior welterweight). That's the résumé of an all-time great. The Pacman fights everyone, he beats everyone and he makes it exciting just like the past all time greats. Now his one of them!!! No complaints. Move along. :notworthy AMEN!

I think that beating the best guy in the division or even unifying each title should be given the kudos it deserves. Do think though the temptation is to fight the weakest champion, i.e. Lalonde rather than Virgil Hill I believe it was? Holding a title for a length of time does seem to take a back seat to holding a bag of sugar and title collecting. I am a big Duran fan but that is based on his LW reign rather than picking up Barclay's rather than Nunn's. well, that's why I wrote: assuming one fights the best opponents in whatever division one is in

pacquiao!!!!!!! pacquiao!!!!!!!

assuming one fights the best opponents in whatever division one is in, what's easier? winning belts at multiple weights or defending a championship in one division? I think that beating the best guy in the division or even unifying each title should be given the kudos it deserves. Do think though the temptation is to fight the weakest champion, i.e. Lalonde rather than Virgil Hill I believe it was? Holding a title for a length of time does seem to take a back seat to holding a bag of sugar and title collecting. I am a big Duran fan but that is based on his LW reign rather than picking up Barclay's rather than Nunn's.

Is this a serious question......... Everything Pac does..Hagler does better....... Hagler also is the more complete fighter......... And has the better resume. Hagler easily....gimme a break guys. true enough. I ain't saying that pac is better than hagler, but pac is the true southpaw and also titles in 6 divisions and 4 lineal championships.

and not saying pac is a bad fighter, but he is a limited fighter.. he can only throw 2 or 3 types of punches, hagler can throw damn near every kind of punch and could switch back and forth from orthodox to southpaw. the poll asks if hagler is a better southpaw, not if hagler is the better boxer in general. I must say it is not the feat of Armstrong's day. Now with day before weigh ins to put on 17lbs I believe gives you the opportunity to win 6 belts out of 24. It sounds twice as impressive as Armstrong and others but not to this old man. I don't give much weight to this 6 titles at different weight stuff, I'm an 8 weight guy really. then we are at an impasse because you are working off a different model.

not really if you are jumping in weight each time you do it. I must say it is not the feat of Armstrong's day. Now with day before weigh ins to put on 17lbs I believe gives you the opportunity to win 6 belts out of 24. It sounds twice as impressive as Armstrong and others but not to this old man. I don't give much weight to this 6 titles at different weight stuff, I'm an 8 weight guy really.

and not saying pac is a bad fighter, but he is a limited fighter.. he can only throw 2 or 3 types of punches, hagler can throw damn near every kind of punch and could switch back and forth from orthodox to southpaw.

In my eyes, ruling a division for a long stretch has the most prestige. You aren't talking about someone like Henry Armstrong who held titles in three weight classes SIMULTANIOUSLY. Poet there's nothing left to discuss. all we can do is agree to disagree.

I think if Hagler and Pacquiao were fighting in the same era and weight class, Pac would KO him..speed, power and footwork..just my opinion You might be the dumbest person on this planet

I don't rate belt collecting as high as long tite reigns. Hence, I don't give Leonard and Hearns kudos for THEIR belt collecting adventures. Poet well then there is really nothing to discuss since you are working off a different paradigm.

Which, along with a couple of dollars, is worth a cup of coffee at Starbucks. A belt without the title reign to go along with it is meaningless. Poet assuming one fights the best opponents in whatever division one is in, what's easier? winning belts at multiple weights or defending a championship in one division?