List of fighters Pac should fought instead of Hatton, Cotto, Clottey, Marg & Mosley?

Here goes down another undefeated fighter PAC ducked and should fought instead.

I have checked Boxrec several times, and so far, have failed to find that Manny P. ever won a major (1 of the 4) title at 118 and 140. he fought Hatton at 140 for the IBO title, really never regarded as a world title. Perhaps someone can solve the seeming discrepancy?? Manny P. according to Boxrec fought Hatton only for the IBO title, not a recognised major title. How does this make him the "lineal" 140 lb champion? SMH. Certainly your lack of knowledge on this particular subject made you look like a fool. Hatton beat Kostya Tszyu for the lineal championship title. Hatton beat Tszyu who beat the man who beat the man. It is common sense not to look at the paper title but the person who held the title. Like for example, After Pac beat Hatton for the IBO title...do you think if someone beat Pac after that it doesn't matter right? and no use because the IBO was not a recognized title?

I trust Cliff Rold's opinion regarding Pac's claim to four lineal titles. Cliff seems like a swell guy: http://www.boxingscene.com/pacquiao-aims-four-six-real-history-thoughts--19677

Pac beat Hatton who beat Tszyu who was the lineal champ. That's the line of succession right there. And I already do know that the lineal title in the absence that the champ retires or moves to another division is started by the top 2 contenders who wins that fight. But you were saying that when Pac beat Hatton there was no "major" title on the line, so Pac was no champ. Myself and the other guy said Pac was a legit champ because he just just beat the lineal champ who was Hatton. Yeah you can say Pac wasn't champ at 140 if you count the corrupt ABC titles as only legit titles, which no hardcore boxing fan or historian really counts in this day and age. Whatever "hard core" boxing fans think, those 4 titles, WBC, WBA, IBF< and WBO, are the recognised and accepted major titles, and all else flows from this. It still requires beating the previous lineal champ, or in case of retirement (or moving up) the fight off between the top two contenders. There are some lineal recognised champions today I'm sure who really are NOT really lineal successors. Why?? because for promotional or TV or Arena or popularity reasons the vacant title was NOT contested by the top 2 contenders. So, in MY opinion, for example, when Marciano retired, the fight off to become the new champ was between Floyd Patterson and Archie Moore. Although I remember the fight itself well, and saw it happening, I' know that Patterson, whom I've always admired, was the #1 contender, but I don't think that Moore was the next deserving contender. I seem to recall that he got himself, although well over 40 years old, into the picture by brash self promotion, and it was the expected popularity of the matchup rather than the top 2 deserving candidates, which made this fight possible. Moore had no chance against Patterson, a built up middleweight, and it showed baldly. So, although universally accepted as the lineal champ, Patterson, in my opinion didn't earn it. And he was ALWAYS regarded as the lineal champ during his term, although for several years, it had become obvious to all, that Sonny Liston was by far the best fighter in the division. This just shows how carefully one needs to trace the true descent. Another case in point is that of Max Schmeling and Jack Sharkey after Tunney's retirement. Were they truly the top 2 in the division....? I don't think so, they both had had several losses each, and were not dominant. Another case was that of Shannon Briggs becoming the lineal champ by "beating" old George Foreman. Foreman became champ with a lucky punch in the 10th against Michael Moorer, although he lost every previous round convincingly. I seem to recall that Foreman was stripped of his titles for fighting only "patsies" BEORE he lost to Briggs. So even though Foreman undeservedly succeeded Moorer, he was not any more the lineal champ when he lost to Briggs. So Briggs was never the lineal champ. I can see that the majority of fans prefer to accept the opinions of others, who may not know what they' are talking about. must stop here or it can go on all night, i didn't know what I was getting myself into.

tszyu beat judah, hatton beat tzysu and pac beat hatton=lineal champion and along the way all the little trinket belts were stripped. a linear title is still a title and it's worth a hell of a lot more than a wbc, wba crap belt. Judah, by beating Spinks as I recall, took 3 belts. (The WBO was not included). And then lost to Baldomir for the WBC belt only. (A loss of a single belt implies stripping of the others I think). It used to be that although losing a belt meant stripping of any others held, those others then became vacant) None of this impies lineality, because lineal succession of each of these belts could have been broken, where the lineality had not been restored. I don't know, do you, perhaps? It's a technical point but a real one nevertheless. I never normally bother myself with these trivia, but the question came up and I just wanted to clarify "lineal". I think it takes a real boxing historian who has tracked the lineage of each weight class from it's beginning, or interruption and renewal.. I'm going to bed. It's been a pleasant discussion, thank you.

Pac doesn't have a "world" (WBC,IBF,WBO,WBA) title at 126 either or 140 but he's considered the lineal champ of the division back then when he beat MAB. Lineal championship means "the man who beat the man at the division." You don't need a corrupt sanctioning body like the WBC,WBA,IBF,WBO to be recognized as the legit champ at the division. When you beat the recognized man at the division you're considered to the lineal champ. Lineal Championship>Alphabet soup title Fact. Manny P. and Barrera fought as featherweights and, again according to Boxrec, there was NO title at stake, although they came in at the featherweight limit. This fight had no connection with the 140 lb div. as your comment seems to imply, probably just a hasty choice of words. In fact, he tried to take a featherweight title from Marquez in his next fight, which was (unjustly I believe) called a draw. So, as well as never holding a 118 or 140 world title Manny P. never held the 126 lb. title either, as he went on to win the 130 lb title in his next fight. So that makes him, not a 6 weight champ as I thought and posted earlier, but a 5 weight champ. He spans 8 divisions it's true, but in 3 of those divisions he did not win the titles. By today's accepted reasoning, then Roy Jones should have been recognised as a 5 div champ instead of 4, from Middle to Heavy, even though he didn't win a Cruiser title. But he's always referred to even by himself, as a 4 div. champ. I'm getting confused................. To be "the man" is not neccessarily to be the LINEAL champ. Lineality has to be acquired by legal succession. That fans or authorities might think that Barrera was the best in the division has no bearing on lineality unless he actually won the 126 lb title from the previous lineal holder, or fought for the lineal position. I don't know if he did this. It has to be arranged and announced not by the promoters, but the Commissions. There have been many times in boxing history, when there have been terrific, unbeatable fighters at various weights, who undoubtedly were "the man" in those weights, but they were NOT recognised as the Lineal Champs. So, correctly, sometimes for years at a time, there were no lineal champs in a certain division. Lineal means lineal, and that requires legitimate descent, there's no getting around it

fought em all coming from big losses and at catch weight..why didnt he fight mosley when mosley rocked up to his gym? You know the time when freddie roach said you're too good of a fighter shane!!!! Yes now he's older and been beaten by mayweather..he's welcome now :lol1: JMM, Barrera, Diaz, Oscar, Hatton, Cotto, Margarito and Mosley won their last fights or two before the Pac fight. Some may had previous losses but don't make it sound like they lost to a bum. They lose to their fellow elite fighters and that is pretty normal when you fighting the best in your division.

Manny P. according to Boxrec fought Hatton only for the IBO title, not a recognised major title. How does this make him the "lineal" 140 lb champion? tszyu beat judah, hatton beat tzysu and pac beat hatton=lineal champion and along the way all the little trinket belts were stripped. a linear title is still a title and it's worth a hell of a lot more than a wbc, wba crap belt.

Pac doesn't have a "world" (WBC,IBF,WBO,WBA) title at 126 either or 140 but he's considered the lineal champ of the division back then when he beat MAB. Lineal championship means "the man who beat the man at the division." You don't need a corrupt sanctioning body like the WBC,WBA,IBF,WBO to be recognized as the legit champ at the division. When you beat the recognized man at the division you're considered to the lineal champ. Lineal Championship>Alphabet soup title Fact. i regret to differ with you over the correct meaning of "Lineal" Champ. It means the LEGITIMATE descendant of the original holder of the title, passed from holder to holder. Where it becomes defunct, as in a retirement, the 2 top contenders are chosen to start a "new" line of descent. Not "the man" of the division as you say. He can only succeed to lineality by defeating the LEGITIMATE occupier, not neccessarily "....the man............". Like with the descent and legitimate succession with Royalty, from where the term came.

Pacquiao has four lineal belts at 112, 126, 130, and 140. All the rest are crap. That's still more lineal belts than anyone else and it's spanning seven modern weight classes which is awfully impressive. If they really cared about his legacy they would fight JMM at 135 for that lineal belt and then Berto for the belt at 147. Six lineal belts would be a really really tough record to break. I question his 140 lb lineal belt. He fought Hatton for the IBO belt, which was barely considered as a very minor unimportant title, just dragged out of the attic to make it seem like a Championship fight. I am not denigrating Pannmy P."s achievements, but it seems to me that he is a 6 div champ not an 8 div champ as he never held any major titles at 118 and 140. This according to Boxrec.

Manny P. according to Boxrec fought Hatton only for the IBO title, not a recognised major title. How does this make him the "lineal" 140 lb champion? I think you have to understand what the world "lineal" means. Pac also has trinkets at 112, 122, 126, 130, 135, 140, 147, and 154.

Exactly, Pac has 4 titles in reality. But those lineal titles are more than anyone else in boxing history. And it's funny you have guys here that are so called "boxing fans" think an ABC alphabet title is more important and legitimate than a lineal title, even if that lineal title didn't come with some corrupt organization's title on the night of the fight. Manny P. according to Boxrec fought Hatton only for the IBO title, not a recognised major title. How does this make him the "lineal" 140 lb champion?

Yall can hate all yall want on the Margarito fight but Pac banked $25mill+ and won a 8 division title which is something that WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN EVER. Anyone who says they would turn down over $25mill+ and a historic accomplishment that has never and will never be done again before is a straight up liar and or moron. I have checked Boxrec several times, and so far, have failed to find that Manny P. ever won a major (1 of the 4) title at 118 and 140. he fought Hatton at 140 for the IBO title, really never regarded as a world title. Perhaps someone can solve the seeming discrepancy??

fought em all coming from big losses and at catch weight..why didnt he fight mosley when mosley rocked up to his gym? You know the time when freddie roach said you're too good of a fighter shane!!!! Yes now he's older and been beaten by mayweather..he's welcome now :lol1: Unless you were from outer space, everyone knew that Cotto was next(Arum guy). So if we knew, Roach knew a lot earlier than us. So Roach knew when he was telling Mosley that BUT Roach was interested!!! Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTHzlJ9FDVs

I seem to recall that Mayweather was ranting daily that the coming fight was in defence of all beaten wives............ At the same time he was beating up women himself, far worse than Corrales, because Corrales' situation was a single offence, whereas Mayweather was shown to be a habitual woman beater. A "nice" way to treat your opponent who is on his way to gaol, where in fact mayweather himself should have been. A genuine "sportsman" is Mayweather. The only god thing I can say about Mayweather today, is that he may still end up there, where he should have been long ago. We can only "hope and pray"..........

fought em all coming from big losses and at catch weight..why didnt he fight mosley when mosley rocked up to his gym? You know the time when freddie roach said you're too good of a fighter shane!!!! Yes now he's older and been beaten by mayweather..he's welcome now :lol1: So Barrera and Marquez came from big losses.

fought em all coming from big losses and at catch weight..why didnt he fight mosley when mosley rocked up to his gym? You know the time when freddie roach said you're too good of a fighter shane!!!! Yes now he's older and been beaten by mayweather..he's welcome now :lol1:

Pacquiao has four lineal belts at 112, 126, 130, and 140. All the rest are crap. That's still more lineal belts than anyone else and it's spanning seven modern weight classes which is awfully impressive. If they really cared about his legacy they would fight JMM at 135 for that lineal belt and then Berto for the belt at 147. Six lineal belts would be a really really tough record to break.

If you think those are Mayweathers best wins then you really don't know ****. Floyd only underdog fights were when he was 3-1 underdog agains Chicanito and slight underdog against Corrales. At that time it was considered great wins but in retrospective, both of them are very good fighters but not great so it was good wins nonetheless. Floyd also convincingly beat El Ternible in their rematch, another solid fighter and left his balls after that.

Choosing to fight big name opponents coming of losses recently is taking risks? WTF are you smoking? Mayweathers best wins came against fighters at the top of their game when he fought them. Like Corrales I suppose, who practically collapsed at the weigh-in and had been living in a sweatbox for weeks, and starving, hardly able to train etc. AND........ even failed the first weigh-in. Even though Mayweather was generally ignored by the majority of experts then for his "stink-out-the-house" kind of fighting, I liked him, because I respected skill, and the ART is to hit and not be hit. However, when I saw what disgusting and outrageous advantage he took of Corrales, by tempting him with money, who had not only left the division, but was just getting ready to go to gaol for 2 years, as well as being bankrupt with no money to pay his lawyers, and on whose mind the last thing in the world was boxing. Until then I absolutely did not like Corrales whom I considered a bully, but after this so-called "fight" where the poor guy struggled to move and punch right from the very first rd. and just couldn't do it, looking as if he was wading through oil, I ended up detesting Mayweather, and respecting Corrales, even though he had received his sentence for assaulting his wife. My feelings have never changed since then. And I think that the public perception of these two fighters has mirrored mine.