As a Mayweather fan I have to say it.

Stop trying g to be a salesman nobodies buying your ideas. Pac s got a stronger depth resume and his win over thurman is better than anything Floyd ever done. It's better than any WW boxer in over hundred years has done. That's all the context anyone needs know. lol Well said. BigDunn goes down again.. TIMBER! :Flush:

He didn't even need this win, he's already greater

Pacs always been above Floyd, more people in world think that then think Floyds was ever above Pac. Nobody is doing what Pac is doing at 40 so why isn't Pac no1? His resume was insane before beating Thurman. People want pac to do something impossible to be GOAT You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to hugh grant again.

See what I mean? You never want to talk actual context. Manny has losses and wins over those names. Sorry dude but losses matter on a resume. I gave my opinion but I always go with the actual result, not my opinion of the fight. You attach automatic ATG status for wins yet will not penalize or factor in losses. so if somehow there is a rematch between pac/thurman and keith ends up beating manny, it doesnt count anymore because manny had already beaten thurman right? smh!! so what's the point of even having rematches then???!!! geezus dunn!!

https://www.boxingscene.com/latest-147-conquest-adds-new-layer-pac-mayweather-debate--141138 Rather, when the resumes and their contexts are lined up side by side, Mayweather has more check marks in his column. His armload of titles is a bit less broad than Pacquiao’s, but the sheer dominance of his performances against high-end opposition at similar weights from 130 to 154 pounds trumps the quantitative lighter-weight advantages of his Filipino nemesis. Stop trying g to be a salesman nobodies buying your ideas. Pac s got a stronger depth resume and his win over thurman is better than anything Floyd ever done. It's better than any WW boxer in over hundred years has done. That's all the context anyone needs know.

See what I mean? You never want to talk actual context. Manny has losses and wins over those names. Sorry dude but losses matter on a resume. I gave my opinion but I always go with the actual result, not my opinion of the fight. You attach automatic ATG status for wins yet will not penalize or factor in losses. talk actual context???!! does manny have a win over those 3 names? yes or no??? it dont matter how the fight went, etc. that's just your opinion! at the end of the day when you look at pac's resume, it will show that he has a win over morales, barrera and marquez! geezus! :rofl:!

dunn, please. it dont matter what you think of the fight, that's just your opinion. at the end of the day, does manny have a win over those 3 names??? geezus man! why does it always gotta be like this with you? See what I mean? You never want to talk actual context. Manny has losses and wins over those names. Sorry dude but losses matter on a resume. I gave my opinion but I always go with the actual result, not my opinion of the fight. You attach automatic ATG status for wins yet will not penalize or factor in losses.

Morales, Barrera and JMM. Now are we going to have an honest conversation about those 3 or a slanted one where you pretend you don't know the context of each fight? Barerra-IMO great wins. Now if you are going to use the "BS manny fan" criteria used to evaluate Floyd's resume then I will apply that to Barrera. Morales-He LOST to Morales 1st at 130. Morales could barely make weight so he went to 135 the next fight, got obliterated by Raheem, then came down to 130 to rematch Manny. Manny beat him 2x after that. Morales was 2-7 after he fought Raheem. Manny deserves credit no doubt, but again are we going to be honest about the context or not? JMM-Manny was up 10-6 after round 1. JMM fought back for a draw. Manny should've won if not for a scoring error but JMM won more rounds than Manny in that fight.The 2nd and 3rd JMM fights-I had Manny winning 2nd fight but the media scores were majority JMM winning or a draw. 3rd fight, the media overwhelmingly had JMM winning, he got KO'd in the 4th fight. How do you give him automatic ATG status when in his 1st fights with Morales and JMM he lost to Morales and he was up so much after round 1 of the JMM 1st fight and then lost more rounds than he won? Shouldn't you have to win to be automatic ATG status? dunn, please. it dont matter what you think of the fight, that's just your opinion. at the end of the day, does manny have a win over those 3 names??? geezus man! why does it always gotta be like this with you?

i brought up bradley, broner and lucas for the same reason why i brought up ortiz, maidana, berto!!! them fools are in the same category! so throw in corrales, pac still has the better resume when you look at morales, barrera, marquez. them 3 are automatic ATG status. Morales, Barrera and JMM. Now are we going to have an honest conversation about those 3 or a slanted one where you pretend you don't know the context of each fight? Barerra-IMO great wins. Now if you are going to use the "BS manny fan" criteria used to evaluate Floyd's resume then I will apply that to Barrera. Morales-He LOST to Morales 1st at 130. Morales could barely make weight so he went to 135 the next fight, got obliterated by Raheem, then came down to 130 to rematch Manny. Manny beat him 2x after that. Morales was 2-7 after he fought Raheem. Manny deserves credit no doubt, but again are we going to be honest about the context or not? JMM-Manny was up 10-6 after round 1. JMM fought back for a draw. Manny should've won if not for a scoring error but JMM won more rounds than Manny in that fight.The 2nd and 3rd JMM fights-I had Manny winning 2nd fight but the media scores were majority JMM winning or a draw. 3rd fight, the media overwhelmingly had JMM winning, he got KO'd in the 4th fight. How do you give him automatic ATG status when in his 1st fights with Morales and JMM he lost to Morales and he was up so much after round 1 of the JMM 1st fight and then lost more rounds than he won? Shouldn't you have to win to be automatic ATG status?

So Corrales, who was undefeated and top 5 p4p at the time, isn't worth being mentioned on Floyd's resume but Bradley, Thurman, Matthysse and Broner are for Manny? Ok dude, you just lost any credibility you had. Further, you say Morales, Barrera and JMM kill Floyd's resume yet he lost to Morales and didn't beat him until he dropped down to 130 from 135 (because he was having issues making 130) after being destroyed by Raheem and media had a draw with JMM after being up 10-6 after round 1. How do those kill Floyd's resume? i brought up bradley, broner and lucas for the same reason why i brought up ortiz, maidana, berto!!! them fools are in the same category! so throw in corrales, pac still has the better resume when you look at morales, barrera, marquez. them 3 are automatic ATG status.

Because Pac beat the highlighted quartet 8 times each win is akin to an individual opponent in floyds resume. Those 8 wins deals with clouds entire resume alone. Pac s additional wins over cotto, hatton, dlh, smm and beating them more dominant don't even need to be mentioned neither does thurman win. Pac s too much depth. https://www.boxingscene.com/latest-147-conquest-adds-new-layer-pac-mayweather-debate--141138 Rather, when the resumes and their contexts are lined up side by side, Mayweather has more check marks in his column. His armload of titles is a bit less broad than Pacquiao’s, but the sheer dominance of his performances against high-end opposition at similar weights from 130 to 154 pounds trumps the quantitative lighter-weight advantages of his Filipino nemesis.

Tell me the numerous wars Danny had been into prior to fighting Keith on March 4th, 2017 to be "faded" at the age of 28 (about to turn 29 on March 20th)? i already responded to that in fairly great detail. you can also, you know, use your eyes and tell me that he was the same fighter at 140 lbs and after he made all of his money and got f#cking rich. and i'll tell you with my more informed eyes that you were wrong. how many times have you seen danny fight live?

im going to list all of floyd's opponents that i consider worth naming and i'll do the same for pac. floyd -- castillo, judah, oscar, hatton, marquez, molsey, ortiz, cotto, canelo, maidana, pac, berto manny -- morales, barrera, marquez (this right here alone already kill floyd's resume), oscar, hatton, cotto, margarito, molsey, bradley, floyd, lucas, broner, thurman.? Because Pac beat the highlighted quartet 8 times each win is akin to an individual opponent in floyds resume. Those 8 wins deals with clouds entire resume alone. Pac s additional wins over cotto, hatton, dlh, smm and beating them more dominant don't even need to be mentioned neither does thurman win. Pac s too much depth.

I wasn't insinuating offense bro. I was just confused on why you consider Danny Garcia faded considering he was 28-29 when Thurman fought him with barely any wars. Yeah Porter might be limited but Porter has a great resume himself. With that said, Thurman has a great resume if you contrast it to the current crop of welterweights not mentioned Pacquiao. danny's best work was done at 140 lbs. he's the kind stylist that really gets affected by a bump up in weight. some guys are even helped by it. danny was not. he went to 147 for the money and because it was easier to make the weight. at 140 lbs danny had commanded a lot more respect with the left hand and was a potent counter puncher. at 147 he had to work more, and that was not great for his style. this talk about weight does not even consider that his best night was several years prior to the thurman fight, when he beat an absolutely soaring lucas matthysse! i was at that one. danny's defense and ring generalship was incredibly tight, but he still took some bombs that would have put almost any other 140 lber down. might not be a "war," but it was a hard fight, and it wasn't his only tough test or the only time we saw him get hit, either! danny was not that kind of fighter when he fought thurman. he'd made his money and come up the hard way, and he was being moved and even behaving like a guy who was trying to cash out. arguably lost to harrera, had closer fights than they needed to be with peterson and guerrero, took the salka fight which showed you where his intent was and it was underlined by his dad in interviews.

Again, the last time Floyd was in a fight anyone thought he might lose was against Chico Corrales. He kept it that way. I've got Manny well ahead of him in the ATG rankings. Too far ahead.. Just is.

keith thurman really hasn't done much with his career. wins over a faded danny garcia and a prime but limited shawn porter are his best. both of those fights were close. he was inactive and never really got a head full of steam for me. he lacks identity and a consistency in his style. Tell me the numerous wars Danny had been into prior to fighting Keith on March 4th, 2017 to be "faded" at the age of 28 (about to turn 29 on March 20th)?

im going to list all of floyd's opponents that i consider worth naming and i'll do the same for pac. floyd -- castillo, judah, oscar, hatton, marquez, molsey, ortiz, cotto, canelo, maidana, pac, berto manny -- morales, barrera, marquez (this right here alone already kill floyd's resume), oscar, hatton, cotto, margarito, molsey, bradley, floyd, lucas, broner, thurman. so you see, pretty much fought the same opponents. the only difference is floyd got castillo and judah early where as manny got morales and barrera.. you telling me castillo and judah is ranked higher than morales and barrera? diego coralles is far too big of an omission on floyd's list.

im going to list all of floyd's opponents that i consider worth naming and i'll do the same for pac. floyd -- castillo, judah, oscar, hatton, marquez, molsey, ortiz, cotto, canelo, maidana, pac, berto manny -- morales, barrera, marquez (this right here alone already kill floyd's resume), oscar, hatton, cotto, margarito, molsey, bradley, floyd, lucas, broner, thurman. so you see, pretty much fought the same opponents. the only difference is floyd got castillo and judah early where as manny got morales and barrera.. you telling me castillo and judah is ranked higher than morales and barrera? So Corrales, who was undefeated and top 5 p4p at the time, isn't worth being mentioned on Floyd's resume but Bradley, Thurman, Matthysse and Broner are for Manny? Ok dude, you just lost any credibility you had. Further, you say Morales, Barrera and JMM kill Floyd's resume yet he lost to Morales and didn't beat him until he dropped down to 130 from 135 (because he was having issues making 130) after being destroyed by Raheem and media had a draw with JMM after being up 10-6 after round 1. How do those kill Floyd's resume?

Pacquiao needs to call out Conor McGregor, throw that paddy a bone and KO him just like Floyd did.

How does telling the truth indicate being bothered? I explained why Floyd is ranked ahead in every credible rankings of ATG boxers. These rankings take into account Manny's achievements. No he shouldn't be ranked ahead of Floyd because the talent he fought is no where near the talent level Floyd fought. That is why undefeated Calzaghe is behind Manny. im going to list all of floyd's opponents that i consider worth naming and i'll do the same for pac. floyd -- castillo, judah, oscar, hatton, marquez, molsey, ortiz, cotto, canelo, maidana, pac, berto manny -- morales, barrera, marquez (this right here alone already kill floyd's resume), oscar, hatton, cotto, margarito, molsey, bradley, floyd, lucas, broner, thurman. so you see, pretty much fought the same opponents. the only difference is floyd got castillo and judah early where as manny got morales and barrera.. you telling me castillo and judah is ranked higher than morales and barrera?