No Paqtivists or May-sayers: Whats Pac's all-time WW ranking

Id be interested in getting some points of view as to his WW ranking considering some consider him legendary and some consider his stint at the weight class flawed because of catch-weights and opponent quality. :boxing: what say you... a legendary WW? more like a jr ww / LW fighting in a very weak WW era. catchweights dont bother me a ton in this case. weight was not winning him these fights. if you put manny pacquiao in with a great h2h WW (burley, robinson, hearns, leonard, etc,) he's getting torched. torched. he's way too small. match him with lightweights and FW's and he beats a lot of great fighters. not the best, but a lot of the greats. the pacquiao that fought ricky hatton could have weighed 135 lbs (i believe he was 138 at the weigh in, eating like a horse through camp,) that man roughs up a lot of LWs. LW is a thick division with serious historical accomplishments, and the best of the best have to be assumed to be better than manny. for instance, i dont think manny would beat floyd mayweather at 135, pernell whitaker, roberto duran, and that's really not an insult to manny. those are some of the best h2h LW ever, and floyd and whitaker have kryptonite styles for an aggressor like pacquiao. pacquiao is a funky case. when he moved up in weight he displayed far more craft. who knows how effective he might have been if he had been that crafty at lower weights, where his chin and power make him a huge problem. his display of craft (moving in and out mostly,) came about when he fought larger men. he probably wouldnt have developed it to the extent he did if he werent fighting larger guys. why not come forward without having to back up if your opponents aren't giving you reason to back up. he doesnt fight well when he's not cutting in.

Id be interested in getting some points of view as to his WW ranking considering some consider him legendary and some consider his stint at the weight class flawed because of catch-weights and opponent quality. :boxing: what say you... All time? Very, very, low. What's with ignoring the history of the sport? "I am going to start watching basketball today, but I will only pay attention to the last decade. Nothing before happened in my book. Chamberlain and Bird? Don't exist. Not as good." That's what so many people in here (NSB) sound like. Also, what's wrong with Flom.o and Pactar.d? Those new nicknames you are trying to trend are corny.

In between low and not very high at all

hmm seems to be a consensus that his WW resume does not add up... does Bradley do anything for it, or is a Mayweather victory the only way to push him over the top?

Im a serious pac fab but imo He wont even get past dlh or trinidad.

I think horge was on point with his post. Manny won't be ranked very high at WW, but not because of lack of skill. A large part of Manny's trajectory is based on what he did in the lower classes, and the fact he was able to effectively compete at so many weight divisions. His resume at WW isn't that impressive, and historically, WW is probably one of the most stacked divisions in all of boxing. Guys like armstrong, the fab 4, walcott, gavilan, griffith, napoles, britton, ross, mclarnin, lewis, luis rodriguez are all guys who's Welterweight runs would be mentioned before Pac, even a prime Robinson had a great Welterweight stint. Then you get to the more recent names like Whitaker, DLH, Trinidad, etc.... However, Pacquiao's standing in boxing history is very unique and his accomplishments as a serious multi-divisional/ p4p threat will earn him a place in a very exclusive list of greats.... unfortunately for him that list also includes a contemporary in Floyd Mayweather Jr., and their respective standings will always be argued, compared & contrasted against each other. You say "even a prime Robinson" as if he isn't probably the greatest WW of all time :lol1:

Welterweight is one of if not the most stacked division in boxing history. NO way does Pacquiao factor in historically at all.

as a fan of manny i can easily say not very high , theres no one in weltwerweight that can really be a factor except for floyd

lots of great insight and thought out points in here...

not high at all to be honest, due to the IGNORANCE OF TODAY BOXING FANS, they are not even aware of some great welterweights that they probably never heard up, so they just think Pacquiao fits in after Armstrong and Ray Leonard but little do they know it is a ton of great Welterweights they probably never even heard of like: Kid Gavilan, Emile Griffith, Young Corbett, Jimmy McLarnin, Jose Napoles, Luis Manuel Rodriguez (yeah I listed 3 Cuban fighters that wasn't on purpose though lol), Barney Ross just to name a few and that is before you start getting to more familiar names like Leonard, Whitaker, Tinidad and Oscar but yeah if you only been following boxing for that last 2-3 years...Ignorance is Bliss so yes you will think that Pacquiao and Mayweather are #1 and #2 or which ever order you prefer :no:

Not very high, historically. this............

Not very high, historically. its a moot argument because he hasnt spent much of his career at WW. oscar, clottey, mosley, marquez III. 2 of those were way way way past best. 1 was b grade and 1 actually beat him. hardly impressive. on an all time welter list - he doesnt make top 10, maybe even top 25. on an all time list...he does better because he has better wins at lower weights. but all-time is ferocious competition....fighting twice a year is piss poor when you consider some of the names of previous era's who fought each other several times in their careers and chalked up 100+ career fights. i think our standards of greatness has dropped because we have a limited frame of direct reference

Not very high, historically.