Where do you guys rank Pac and Floyd on your ATG pound for pound lists.

Yeah cool, it was besides the point anyway Moore win>MAB and Morales win imo. Honestly I agree with you on this statement.

That's debatable. I do admit it's easier to pick up titles in the lower weight classes, but Mannys are spread out in a sense If they were 112-115-118 and 122...then yeah I wouldn't give him a lot of credit for that. But they were at 112, 126, 130, and 140 respectively That's 4 outta the 8 original weight classes....althought some may say it's 3 due the his lineal title at JWW. To be fair JWW probably has the richest history outside the original 8.

I got Pac @ 52 I got May @ 83 Yourselves? can u name the 1st 51?

Im with you on that. Floyd and Pac anything over 50 is ridiculous. No its not its debateable although I would rank them within the top 50 if i made a list.

Yeah cool, it was besides the point anyway Moore win>MAB and Morales win imo. Moore beatdown> any Pac/Floyd win put together.

Mike would you say that Pac being able to fight at low weights for so long is honestly the main reason he had the opportunity to pick up 4 lineal titles and the 7 titles? Sometimes I feel like were congratulating Manny for being malnourished early in his career which allowed for him to fight so low and be in the right spot and the right time. That's debatable. I do admit it's easier to pick up titles in the lower weight classes, but Mannys are spread out in a sense If they were 112-115-118 and 122...then yeah I wouldn't give him a lot of credit for that. But they were at 112, 126, 130, and 140 respectively That's 4 outta the 8 original weight classes....althought some may say it's 3 due the his lineal title at JWW.

Cool, and I respect your opinion. But, for me was much more versatile, well rounded, and smarter boxing IQ at the start of the decade. Yeah cool, it was besides the point anyway Moore win>MAB and Morales win imo.

Honestly man I have touched on Burley several times throughout this thread, so no I'm not gonna play that little game with you. If I had no idea about him, I wouldn't know the stuff I posted in this thread. With that said, Barrera was at his absolute best. He had just knocked of the Man at that division, Hamed, in impressive fashion, had beaten fellow ATG in Erik Morales, along with great wins over Kelley, Tapia (HOF) and enrique sanchez. He was basically walking through the golden era of that division before Manny beat him. So yes he was not only in his prime, but at his absolute best. I think you r frontin and you dont know anything about the fighters Burley beat apart from Moore and Zivic.

In my opinion he was at his best around 95 a bit before his hiatus. Cool, and I respect your opinion. But, for me was much more versatile, well rounded, and smarter boxing IQ at the start of the decade.

Barrera was in his absolute prime against Pac. How was he not in his best in the first fight? Burely may not have the accomplishments that Floyd or Pac has. But, that is cuz he didn't get the opportunity. However, his resume is strong then both dudes. With wins over Archie Moore, Fritzie Zivic, Holman Williams, Bert Lydell(who was avoided as well) Billy Smith and many more. Makes Burley resume stronger but not accomplished as much. In my opinion he was at his best around 95 a bit before his hiatus.

If your so sure of this tell me about the fighters Burley faced. Im not quoting Lampley, was Barrera at his best against Pac yes or no? Honestly man I have touched on Burley several times throughout this thread, so no I'm not gonna play that little game with you. If I had no idea about him, I wouldn't know the stuff I posted in this thread. With that said, Barrera was at his absolute best. He had just knocked of the Man at that division, Hamed, in impressive fashion, had beaten fellow ATG in Erik Morales, along with great wins over Kelley, Tapia (HOF) and enrique sanchez. He was basically walking through the golden era of that division before Manny beat him. So yes he was not only in his prime, but at his absolute best.

Yup, do you think he is greater than Pac or Floyd? On my list, he is.

Honestly I never debated if those guys were ATG's. Not once. I simply stated that you feel Sal is top 50....then Floyd and Manny are because they have accomplished more. Same with Burley. If you got him in the top 50 yet have someone like Manny and Floyd around 70 or so....then you got a lot of explaining to do as that doesn't make much sense. Im with you on that. Floyd and Pac anything over 50 is ridiculous.

Mike would you say that Pac being able to fight at low weights for so long is honestly the main reason he had the opportunity to pick up 4 lineal titles and the 7 titles? Sometimes I feel like were congratulating Manny for being malnourished early in his career which allowed for him to fight so low and be in the right spot and the right time.

Oh my bad. I didn't read too far back. Just a page or so. Its a long thread. Its a sticky situation. Like Salvador Sanchez, He got it in but he died early. I still consider him an ATG though. Honestly I never debated if those guys were ATG's. Not once. I simply stated that you feel Sal is top 50....then Floyd and Manny are because they have accomplished more. Same with Burley. If you got him in the top 50 yet have someone like Manny and Floyd around 70 or so....then you got a lot of explaining to do as that doesn't make much sense.

If your so sure of this tell me about the fighters Burley faced. Im not quoting Lampley, was Barrera at his best against Pac yes or no? Barrera was in his absolute prime against Pac. How was he not in his best in the first fight? Burely may not have the accomplishments that Floyd or Pac has. But, that is cuz he didn't get the opportunity. However, his resume is strong then both dudes. With wins over Archie Moore, Fritzie Zivic, Holman Williams, Bert Lydell(who was avoided as well) Billy Smith and many more. Makes Burley resume stronger but not accomplished as much.

You say my Top 50 Pound for Pound "had many flaws" yet, have never made your own... You place holding titles to highly like you have to make up for it in your words. Again it's who you beat not the peice of jewellery. To be fair, if I were to make a list, I'm willing to bet a majority of the poster on NSB (or boxing fans in general) would say it has just as many if not more flaws than yours. With that said, I just don't look at titles. If that was the case, I would never have a guy like Langford in my top 20. I simply stated, 4 lineal titles in 4 different divisions alone is better than anything Burley has accomplished. Yes he beat Archie Moore, but Sandler beat Pep 3-4 times and to me that is more impressive than Burleys win. Should Sandler be top 10 due to that? IMO no because it's about considering everything in a fighters career before coming up with these rankings. FWIW...yes the catchweights hurt Manny's legacy. I would be a fool to tell you otherwise.

Charles Burley is easily in the top 50. That shouldn't even be questioned. Where in the top 50 is a matter of preference and opinion. But, dude is top 50. Yup, do you think he is greater than Pac or Floyd?

To be fair, I did state that. White america didn't want "two Ray Robinsons" and I felt Burley got punished for that. I also don't like how Robinson treated burley (saying no one knows who he is, so why should I fight him) but that is another story for another day. Yes he never got the opportunity and when Burley is brought up, there are a lot of "what ifs" when judging him as a fighter. IMO that is not how ATG list should be made and the only fair way is to go off of fighters did accomplish not what would they have done if this or that happened. Oh my bad. I didn't read too far back. Just a page or so. Its a long thread. Its a sticky situation. Like Salvador Sanchez, He got it in but he died early. I still consider him an ATG though.

Charles Burley is easily in the top 50. That shouldn't even be questioned. Where in the top 50 is a matter of preference and opinion. But, dude is top 50.