which is the more impressive feat:by Pacquiao or Mayweather jr?

if you lose to zahir raheem-and by a wide margin-then you are no longer a world class fighter. Yes, because everything is as black and white as that. Because there are absolutely no other examples of top level fighters being upset - often in a comprehensive and decisive manner - by significantly lesser known underdogs. :rolleyes:

Hoya was at his best against Floyd. 154lbs with a title at the time. Errrr no he was not hahaha

http://www.boxnews.com.ua/photos/1140/Oscar-De-La-Hoya-Mayweather17.jpg Yeah Hoya looked so fat and out of shape against Floyd. Moron. Hoya was at his best against Floyd. 154lbs with a title at the time.

Since Pacfans are out in full force making excuses for Mayweather wins against Corrales (weight drained) and Hatton (couldn't fight at 147 only at 140) lets look at these great Pac wins. Barrera had a surgery to repair blood vessels in his brain, then lost training equipment needed in a fire during training camp. Morales lost to Barrera, beat Pac, got dominated by Raheem, then had to drop weight looking like one of those kids from the "feed the hungry" commercials...only thing he was missing was the flies crawling on his face. Also he was on the downside of his career. Marquez....questionable wins when most people are asked and he put Manny to sleep at 39 years of age

never knew Pac defeated Marquez. may be that was Arum? Realistically you could give the first 2 fights to Pac by a c*nt hair, but the reality is that JMM beat him convincingly in fight 3 and left no doubt in fight 4. There is also the pesky matter of Floyd pitching a shutout against JMM, so bringing that win into the discussion doesn't fly imo.

The Barrera win gives Pac alot of juice in these discussions.

but i do give Floyd 100% credit for that Corrales fight. that will always be his most impressive fight The thing that is impressive about Floyd is that with the exception of the first Castillo fight he has completely dominated top tier opponents. Since Castillo no. 1 none of his opponents have realistically taken more than 4 rds in any fight he has had. Most of the time they are limited to winning 1-3 rounds.

I can't believe there's any debate about this. Pac crushing Barrera is greater than Corrales and Hatton by itself. Add in Marquez and it's a joke to even compare.

1st mab fight is only good one. morales was shot after the first fight which he won.

The JMM "wins" are debatable to even be wins. I'm sure that is what you say every time people bring up that Castillo beat Floyd. I'm sure you say that Floyd is really 43-1 :sad:

Hatton weighed more than Mayweather on fight night, the weight was no advantage. He was struggling to make 140 which is why he tried his hand at 147 previously vs Collazo. The Lazcano (shoelace fight) was after Mayweather at 140. Look at the weigh in pics for the Pacquiao fight Hatton looked half dead. Hatton was a very good fighter that outgrew his division but was too small to compete with the big guys at 147. :pat: That is why after his fights at 147 he went back down to 140! BOTH TIMES!!! How hard is it to comprehend that Hatton was KING at 140 NOT 147? It's not a matter of making weight easier. It's what Hatton can do at 140 that he can't do as easily against the bigger boys at 147.

Barrera was on a tear when Pac beat him...it is up there with the best wins of the 2000s.

Most people don't think Marquez won all 4, I'm willing to bet hardly anyone does, have you seen the unofficial scorecards by observers? His wins can and are counted over Marquez, why can't you deal with that? You aren't fooling anyone by saying *most people believe this* because you got no proof whatsoever! Would you like a link to all of there fights and how external sources scored them? I don't remember tying "I". I said "most" people felt Marquez won all 4 fights and that is the flat out truth. There are more people who say Marquez won all 4 then people who said he didn't is what I am saying. I personally believe he won the 1/3 and obviously the 4th because of the KO. The 2nd fight I gave to Manny even though I can see if others would argue against it.

you sure about the hamed fight? wasn't it 2 1/2 years before manny v MAB? You really dont like pac do you lol. Barrera was in great form going in to the Pac fight after beating Hamed, Morales and Tapia

you sure about the hamed fight? wasn't it 2 1/2 years before manny v MAB? was barrera not #3 p4p? was he not the lineal champ at featherweight? was he not at the BEST point in his career? is he not a definite future HOF'er?

no barrera fought morales for the third time like a year or two after he lost to pac...there is no question that pac fought barrera at the best point in his career. barrera coming off a win against hamed, he beat morales in their rematch, beat tapia, was ranked p4p#3 and was the ring champ at featherweight...on top of all of this pac moved up to 126 for like the second time in his career to fight barrera in houston texas in front of a largely barrera crowd. and i also though pac beat marquez in their first fight by 1 point (marquez won 7 rounds imo, but because of the 3 knockdowns pac wins it by 1 point) and by 1 point in their second...thing is pac was supposed to get the win in their first fight by 1 point but one of the judges scored the first round 10-7 instead of 10-6...and first fight was before pac joined with top rank so there's no "oh he had arum" excuse... you sure about the hamed fight? wasn't it 2 1/2 years before manny v MAB?

Morales and Barrera already had been in 3 wars with each other by the time Manny fought them. no barrera fought morales for the third time like a year or two after he lost to pac...there is no question that pac fought barrera at the best point in his career. barrera coming off a win against hamed, he beat morales in their rematch, beat tapia, was ranked p4p#3 and was the ring champ at featherweight...on top of all of this pac moved up to 126 for like the second time in his career to fight barrera in houston texas in front of a largely barrera crowd. and i also thought pac beat marquez in their first fight by 1 point (marquez won 7 rounds imo, but because of the 3 knockdowns pac wins it by 1 point) and by 1 point in their second...thing is pac was supposed to get the win in their first fight by 1 point but one of the judges scored the first round 10-7 instead of 10-6...and first fight was before pac joined with top rank so there's no "oh he had arum" excuse...

Morales was on the decline and past his best, but his performance in the rematch with Pacquiao was enough to show he was still capable of competing at a world class level. Raheem was a horrible stylistic matchup and one that he never would have been able to overcome at any point in his career. if you lose to zahir raheem-and by a wide margin-then you are no longer a world class fighter.

Morales was on the decline and past his best, but his performance in the rematch with Pacquiao was enough to show he was still capable of competing at a world class level. Raheem was a horrible stylistic matchup and one that he never would have been able to overcome at any point in his career.

So what if they were undefeated lol they are not better wins then Pac's. Morales was not prime but was still good Barrera was prime and so was Jmm. Barrera's resume is better then Corrales and Hatton combined. How can you rate beating Morales that high when he lost to zahir raheem? JMM had some great wins as did Barrera. they also had losses-although losing to junior jones isnt in anyway bad. Name value vs stature at time of fight.