Pacquiao's Rank Among Past Fillipinos

[JAB5239]

Unlike you, I'm going to address each of your points directly and with an answer, unlike your cheap debater's trick of answering a question with another question.



You are correct, it was not a new division in the 1960's. It had been around since the 1920's. However, like a lot of the "junior" division titles, this title had been vacant since the 1930's and wasn't recognized until Harold Gomez won it in 1959.

If you're talking about Harold Gomes (from my home town) you're still wrong my friend. Kid Choclate held this title in the 30's. Point Im making is you tried to pass this off as a new division. It wasn't.

Carlos Ortiz was better than Marco Antonio Barerra or Juan Manuel Marquez? Debatable but unlikely. Yes, all of those weight divisions spread out among several work ranking organizations does water down championship titles. I agree.

Yes, I believe Ortiz was better than both Barrera and Marquez. His resume iscertainly more impressive than Marquez's and probably a hair better than Barrera's. Most consider him one of the 5 or 6 best lightweights in history.

But aside from Diaz, Manny didn't handpick opponents to win titles as he moved up in weight. Barerra was seen as the best featherweight when he beat him and Marquez was seen as the best junior lightweight when he beat him.

I don't disagree with this. But the fact is Manny, like all of todays fighters didn't have to fight a who's who of top fighters to get to those guys. Many (not myself) think he lost to Marquez both times. This isn't his fault, but Im not giving an automatic pass because he had this luxery while other didn't.

Yes, please name other all time greats and the person who had their number. Which fighter had Pacquiao's number? Maybe Marques comes the closest, but Pacquiao still won. That's why I would place him above Villa.

Villa also had over 100 fights by 24 and beat a guy, Jimmy Wilde, who ranks higher all time than anybody Pac has fought. If you really want an answer to this question say the word and I'll put the time in. Right now its a bit late. But on my word, I'll give you the answer in a day or two.

Okay, let me ask you a question. What are all of these "factors" that you would take into account to compare boxers of different eras. Actually I don't think winning a alphabet title is the equivalent of a true world title. Manny has been know here in the Philippines as the "People's Champion" since he beat Barerra which was not for any of the sanctioned world titles. I wish you'd stop putting forward these strawman arguements.

No strawman arguments. Fighters of the past fought under harder circumstanse, more times a year, against the best contenders. They didn't have the luxery of ABC titles or HBO, who would pay to make the most interesting match ups.

If you think Im discrediting Pacquiao, you're wrong. He may very well be the best. In fact I would probably give him the nod. But saying he is head and shoulders above anybody is just flat out wrong. You are underestimating some excellent fighters.

I answered your first point above. You seem to be better at judgemental name calling than providing evidence to back up your arguement. I say Pacquiao is "heads and shoulders" better than any other Asian boxer in history. I asked you this question:



Well? I didn't think so.

I haven't called you any names my man. You're asking me to prove he's not the best, when I think he very well may be. Im asking you to prove he's so much better than the other fighters we've talked about. So far you haven't convinced me.