How high does the winner of Pac/FMJ rate on the ATG list?

not that huge. thats why most people feel floyd will beat manny. even the pactards know that Most people think a lot of things, and they're usually wrong. :owned:

Armstrong, Ali, Louis, Duran, Ray Leonard, Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano, Julio Cesar Chavez, Pernell Whitaker, Carlos Monzon, Archie Moore, etc. They all have pluses and minuses, none of them has a has such an amazing resume that people look at it and immediately say "this guy deserves to be #2 all time". I think Ali is probably the best of that group, he fought all the top contenders in his weight class (something that not a lot of boxers have done). However, he is still only a 1-division champion, and he wasn't really a super dominant champion since he had a lot of close fights and a few losses. If Ali didn't have an amazing resume, out of all heavyweights, who does ?.

Is he on Ring Mag's top 50 ATG? Ring Magazine??? hahahaha:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Armstrong, Ali, Louis, Duran, Ray Leonard, Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano, Julio Cesar Chavez, Pernell Whitaker, Carlos Monzon, Archie Moore, etc. They all have pluses and minuses, none of them has a has such an amazing resume that people look at it and immediately say "this guy deserves to be #2 all time". I think Ali is probably the best of that group, he fought all the top contenders in his weight class (something that not a lot of boxers have done). However, he is still only a 1-division champion, and he wasn't really a super dominant champion since he had a lot of close fights and a few losses. I don't rate heavyweights in p4p lists, prefer not too. The best on that list imo is Archie Moore, and if you don't think his resume is that good I suggest that you look at his opponents more, he fought some of the best middleweights and light heavies to ever grace the ring, fought some of the best heavies also and fought until he was 51. he also has the most KO's of any boxer. Duran is somewhat over rated by some people but I know a lot of other people on here massively under rate his resume and how dominant he was at lightweight, he's also an extremely skilled boxer, anyone can see that. Carlos Monzon is a top 4 MW, his reign proves it, some people seem to discredit him for fighting WWs though for some reason dunno why, he cleared out the MW division and retired with his belts. Has some impressive names on his resume but what ranks him so high on lists is like Duran, his dominance. Some people discredit him for not moving up in weight as well, imo he should of fought John Conteh, would of been one of the greatest fights ever. Ray Leonard is on of the most skilled welters ever, top 5 welter easily has some amazing wins, he's top 15 ATG imo, wouldn't put him in top 10 though. I don't know as much about Greb, Pep, and Benny Leonard. They might possibly deserve to be ranked higher. However, it seems like if they were really that extraordinary the "experts" wouldn't be ranking them behind guys like Henry Armstrong. Grebs resume is somewhat amazing, it's comparable to Robinsons, top 4 middleweight but it's somewhat hard to rank him because we don't have footage of his fights, the most we can do is look at the people he beat and judge from there how good he was and different reports on him. Willie Pep is one of, if not the greatest featherweight ever and he ruled in one of the best featherweight eras. One of the best defensive boxers, rumored to have won a fight without throwing a punch, managed to best another ATG Featherweight in Sandy Saddler after he was in a plane crash, from which he was obviously never the same. Benny Leonard is a top 3 Lightweight and ruled in a great lightweight era, best Jewish boxer ever. It seems the boxers don't stand out because you don't look enough into them, Greb, Pep and Leonard are some of the biggest figures in boxing. He has an impressive resume, you can make a good case for him being top 10. However, It's hard to compare fighters from that era to modern fighters. Confused, you somewhat discredited Armstrong because he had a number of losses and didn't defend his title much but you rate Langford even though he had much more losses and never held a title :dunno: Langford's resume is up there with the best, he's easily a top 10 ATG. Armstrong beat 16 world champions and another possible top 10 ATG in Barney Ross. That trumps both Manny and Floyd. I question whether the competition back then was as good as it is now. There isn't a lot of video from back then, and most of the really old fighters we do have tape of don't look that impressive. The population was a lot smaller, and almost all the top fighters were from the US. The sport was very dangerous and didn't pay all that well for most fighters, which led to a of of the top fighters leaving the sport before they were 30. Even the top contenders back then usually had a lot of losses, including losses to guys with very average records. Would those old fighters be able to compete with the best modern fighters? I'm not convinced they could. There were MUCH more boxers back then then there is now, there's a few statistics floating around that show this, I'll try and find one later, the contenders back then had more losses because they were fighting much more then today, thought that much was obvious. Mayweather and Pac don't belong in top 10 imo, there's just too much for them both to compete with, I'm not denying how great they are, it's just how I see it

Mayweather was Top 50 probably before you even heard of Manny, even on ESPN's Last Top 50 All Times list back in 2007 Mayweather was already Top 50 they had him at #48: http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/greatest/news/story?id=2815643 Is he on Ring Mag's top 50 ATG?

Why ? lol Everyone already knows that Floyd has a huge chance to beat Manny. Everyone knows that Manny has a huge chance to beat Floyd as well.

I can understand Pac, but how is Mayweather a top 50 ATG ? Mayweather was Top 50 probably before you even heard of Manny, even on ESPN's Last Top 50 All Times list back in 2007 Mayweather was already Top 50 they had him at #48: http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/greatest/news/story?id=2815643

"I would have to call Manny Pacquiao an all time great. Since 2001, he's fought all the best fighters from featherweight all the way now to welterweight, and performing at a top level. I've never known a fighter to do that." "I would put Manny Pacquiao in the same company as the Ray Robinson's and the Ali's" -Manny Steward, trainer of many ATGs So yeah, if Pac wins decisively, he is a lock for top 5 ATG at worst. If Mayweather wins decisively, he is the best boxer of the era, no doubt. Will he be as great as Pacquiao? Who knows.

Start at 6:43. That's how Floyd will react after he beat Manny. Why ? lol Everyone already knows that Floyd has a huge chance to beat Manny.

Start at 6:43. That's how Floyd will react after he beat Manny.

What is this even suppose to mean ?, no boxers really stand out?. Name "them" ?, which you don't think stand out which people seem to rate high. Armstrong, Ali, Louis, Duran, Ray Leonard, Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano, Julio Cesar Chavez, Pernell Whitaker, Carlos Monzon, Archie Moore, etc. They all have pluses and minuses, none of them has a has such an amazing resume that people look at it and immediately say "this guy deserves to be #2 all time". I think Ali is probably the best of that group, he fought all the top contenders in his weight class (something that not a lot of boxers have done). However, he is still only a 1-division champion, and he wasn't really a super dominant champion since he had a lot of close fights and a few losses. I don't know as much about Greb, Pep, and Benny Leonard. They might possibly deserve to be ranked higher. However, it seems like if they were really that extraordinary the "experts" wouldn't be ranking them behind guys like Henry Armstrong. Not getting into the rest of your post about Armstrong, where do you rank Sam Langford?. He has an impressive resume, you can make a good case for him being top 10. However, It's hard to compare fighters from that era to modern fighters. I question whether the competition back then was as good as it is now. There isn't a lot of video from back then, and most of the really old fighters we do have tape of don't look that impressive. The population was a lot smaller, and almost all the top fighters were from the US. The sport was very dangerous and didn't pay all that well for most fighters, which led to a of of the top fighters leaving the sport before they were 30. Even the top contenders back then usually had a lot of losses, including losses to guys with very average records. Would those old fighters be able to compete with the best modern fighters? I'm not convinced they could.

lololol when did you start following Floyds career? In 2007? Let's see your ATG list. Put it alongside Floyd's resume so everyone here can have a laugh.

I can understand Pac, but how is Mayweather a top 50 ATG ? lololol when did you start following Floyds career? In 2007?

This ^. Glad you agree you know your stuff. I think Top 25 makes the most sense.

damn this Topic is posted every 4 or 5 days:nonono: both are in the Top 50 all times and if they fight, who ever wins could make a argument for Top 25 status, but all that Top 5 BS is LAUGHABLE! because neither belongs that high I can understand Pac, but how is Mayweather a top 50 ATG ?

damn this Topic is posted every 4 or 5 days:nonono: both are in the Top 50 all times and if they fight, who ever wins could make a argument for Top 25 status, but all that Top 5 BS is LAUGHABLE! because neither belongs that high

Boxing is a sport that has a lot of great fighters, but none of them really stand out from the rest except Sugar Ray Robinson. What is this even suppose to mean ?, no boxers really stand out?. Name "them" ?, which you don't think stand out which people seem to rate high. Henry Armstrong had loads of losses throughout his career, and he was a champion for less than 3 years. Not getting into the rest of your post about Armstrong, where do you rank Sam Langford?. The winner goes into the Top 25 Period. This ^.

IMO only zombies who lived since the inception of boxing can be worthy of making a ATG list. Those who lived to see Johnson, Louis, Dempsey, all the way up to now. Bert Sugar is nearing zombie status. Aye, it's just a shame he's senile.

Where do you rank Pac right now? Judging by your first sentence I am guessing you kind of overrate him huh? Again where do you rank him right now? Pac is around #20 right now, similar to JCC. However, I view JCC as being a little bit past prime when he fought Whitaker. Meanwhile Pacquiao's recent form has been phenominal, I don't think anyone can argue that he isn't prime right now. Yes Whikater was shot when he got to Floyd age but you need to realize cocaine is a hell of drug... It can take years away of your career.... So when a fighter ruins his career by using cocaine that is somehow supposed to make them greater than a fighter who takes care of their body and is able to compete at an elite level for a longer period of time? #5? #2? seriously when did you start watching the sport? Boxing is a sport that has a lot of great fighters, but none of them really stand out from the rest except Sugar Ray Robinson. The Ring and Bert Sugar both list Henry Armstrong as their #2 all time. Henry Armstrong had loads of losses throughout his career, and he was a champion for less than 3 years. He had 0 successful defenses of his featherweight title, 0 successful defenses of his lightweight title, and though he defended his welterweight title a bunch of times most of the opponents weren't top 10 welterweights. If that is the sort of competition that Mayweather and Pacquiao are up against then I don't see why they can't become top 5 fighters of all time.

With a convincing win I would put Pacquiao in the top 5 (if he wins) and Mayweather probably at #2 (if Mayweather wins). n.2? right behind SRR? higher than Ali, Duran, SRL, Louis, Benny Leonard, Armstrong, etc? :thinking: