Is Manny Pacquiao an all-time great?

[Obama]

Translation: You're pursuing a technical degree not an academic degree. In other words you're studying to be a electrician which is on the same level as studying to be a plumber.

Poet

Way to show your ignorance once more. Equating a Bachelors in EE to getting certified as an electrician is unquestionably as ignorant a thing you could have possibly said. Nothing is worth reading from you after that.

How does being a slick fighter automatically make you better than everyone else?

It doesn't, read what I post and not what poet understands of what I post.

[them_apples]

Way to show your ignorance once more. Equating a Bachelors in EE to getting certified as an electrician is unquestionably as ignorant a thing you could have possibly said. Nothing is worth reading from you after that.



It doesn't, read what I post and not what poet understands of what I post.

yea but I've seen you and many other posters using the same Bs. Saying Pacquiao ducks slick fighters, as if this is the ultimate test for him or something.

[StarshipTrooper]

Way to show your ignorance once more. Equating a Bachelors in EE to getting certified as an electrician is unquestionably as ignorant a thing you could have possibly said. Nothing is worth reading from you after that.

Do I need to call you a waahmbulance? EE is a TECHNICAL degree NOT and ACADEMIC degree. If you can't figure out the difference than you're a bigger moron than you've already demonstrated yourself to be.

Poet

[project xxx1]

yep he is an all time great even if he losses to cotto,just for what he has achieved, going up through the weights.there will always be an argument that he beat a washed up oscar and overrated hatton,while diaz was nearly a garunteed win and morales was past his best in their fights.but lets face it for a little guy to even move up and face all them fighters with good kos on their record takes a big heart.i know some people are starting to get annoyed with manny and some of his hardcore fans because they go like hes the best ever and it dont help roach shouting his mouth off all the time and trying to get fighters to drop weight and still challenge for belts,which is a load of bollocks in my opinion,but the man himself is a humble guy and a gentleman,a very likeable person with a fighting style thats keeps you on the edge of your seat,he never bad mouths off anybody and derserves his place among the other all time great boxers

[Stoppage]

The issue is not so much that Pac didn't fight Campbell or Casa in his first LW fight (although Marquez did, and Guzman was scheduled to in their first LW bouts). The issue is that Pac fought David Diaz instead, which was nothing more than cherry picking a soup title. Cherry picking a soup title from a guy who didn't even deserve to wear the title, whilst having NO other intentions of fighting anyone else in the division is unacceptable. Mayweather cannot be accused of this. So you need to clarify exactly what I'm giving Floyd a pass on. It's clearly not the same situation. Not to mention Floyd's first LW title fight was against the #1 LW in the world....close the book on this chapter.

You're basically picking points to try and blast Pacquiao. This can be done to any fighter. For example: you say Mayweather faced the #1 lightweight in the world. Okay. Well how come he didn't face the #1 welterweight in the world?

Who faced better fighters in the SBW division, Pac or Guzman, is not relevant. What's relevant is that Pac wasn't fighting the best of the division, as the best was clearly Guzman. They were both Champions. Guzman was and still is undefeated. Guzman KOed a guy Pac couldn't beat. It's a no brainer that the fight should have been made. And the only thing superior about Pac's SBW resume is the fact that he was more active. Guzman just isn't a very active fighter. Being a highly active is not required for having an elite status, or making you worth fighting.

Ray Robinson didn't fight Charley Burley, who many thought he should have. Does this deny Robinson's claim as an all-time great?

About Hatton, I'm not debating that he was Ring Champion. Clearly he was. I'm telling you the man was past his prime. Floyd ruined him. It's evident in the Lazcano fight. Beating feather fisted Paulie who decided to stop fighting after the first round (which he easily won) is not grounds for proving your still the best of the division. He cherry picked Paulie, who was on a string of ****ty performances, getting at least 2 gift decisions from N'dou and Ngoudjo. You can't compare the Paulie that fought Diaz to the one that fought N'dou, Ngoudjo, and Hatton. At this point Bradley was clearly better than Hatton. There's at least 5 JWWs I pick to beat Hatton now, not including JMM, who's highly interested in fighting him now.

Come'on. Enough of the 'ruined' fighter excuses. Malignaggi was a legit light-welterweight and Hatton dominated him in that fight. You're telling me one loss means a fighter's ruined? I guess Robinson was ruined after LaMotta but somehow kept going. I guess Ali was ruined after Frazier but somehow kept going.

[Obama]

yea but I've seen you and many other posters using the same Bs. Saying Pacquiao ducks slick fighters, as if this is the ultimate test for him or something.

It's not BS, it's just an observation. No one is calling it the be all end all, but it's still relevant. We can't just assume he'd beat all the slick fighters of his day because he'll end up rated higher than them (Mayweather aside). And if he fought them and dropped decisions then yea, I'd say it would adversely affect his all time rating.

Do I need to call you a waahmbulance? EE is a TECHNICAL degree NOT and ACADEMIC degree. If you can't figure out the difference than you're a bigger moron than you've already demonstrated yourself to be.

Poet

You need to study what a Bachelor's degree entails before speaking on this. I bet my BS account that I'm right when I call it an academic degree.

And if you saw a transcript of the courses I've taken, many of which have no direct relationship with engineering, and some not at all (an unfortunate consequence of the bachelor's), even you wouldn't have the audacity to run your mouth.

Just because my field is math and science oriented as opposed to English or History, doesn't make it non-academic. You're confused about what academic actually means.

[Obama]

You're basically picking points to try and blast Pacquiao. This can be done to any fighter. For example: you say Mayweather faced the #1 lightweight in the world. Okay. Well how come he didn't face the #1 welterweight in the world?

No, I'm not. You're missing the point. And Floyd did fight the Ring Champion at 147. The fighter who was champ just didn't happen to be great, not Floyd's fault. It's likewise not Pac's fault that Hatton was past it when he beat him for the Ring title. The quality of these opponents is roughly the same.

Ray Robinson didn't fight Charley Burley, who many thought he should have. Does this deny Robinson's claim as an all-time great?

I didn't say Pac wasn't an ATG at any point in this thread. And Burley is 1 guy Robinson didn't fight, not a complete style range of fighters. Burley was slick, but so was Kid Gavilan.

Come'on. Enough of the 'ruined' fighter excuses. Malignaggi was a legit light-welterweight and Hatton dominated him in that fight. You're telling me one loss means a fighter's ruined? I guess Robinson was ruined after LaMotta but somehow kept going. I guess Ali was ruined after Frazier but somehow kept going.

Sure he was legit, but he wasn't at his best, and Hatton was supposed to beat him. Where Hatton has deteriorated the most is in his ability to take a punch. Paulie was cherry picked because Paulie can't punch.

And the loss itself to Floyd has nothing, or little to do with why Hatton is ruined. Hatton is ruined because he took too much punishment (in and out of the ring) in his career. Floyd just happened to be the guy to finish his chin off for good.

[Stoppage]

Sure he was legit, but he wasn't at his best, and Hatton was supposed to beat him. Where Hatton has deteriorated the most is in his ability to take a punch. Paulie was cherry picked because Paulie can't punch.

And the loss itself to Floyd has nothing, or little to do with why Hatton is ruined. Hatton is ruined because he took too much punishment (in and out of the ring) in his career. Floyd just happened to be the guy to finish his chin off for good.

His lifestyle did have an effect on his career, for sure. But it's not right to say that's why he lost against both.

Hatton was taking some pretty good shots from Mayweather until he got caught with a good punch and went head first into the ring post. After that it was clear the fight was going downhill for him.

And you seem so sure about him being ruined. I hope it's not because of his performance in the Pacquiao fight. Pacquiao landed a power punch that struck Hatton directly on the chin. It was a perfectly landed punch in order to score a knockout. I don't know about you but I don't think many fighters could withstand that punch without being affected.

Let's be real. Pacquiao had the perfect game plan against Hatton. Mayweather had a lot of trouble against Hatton in the early part of their fight. If he was such a slick fighter, how could this happen to him? It's because styles make fights.

[them_apples]

No, I'm not. You're missing the point. And Floyd did fight the Ring Champion at 147. The fighter who was champ just didn't happen to be great, not Floyd's fault. It's likewise not Pac's fault that Hatton was past it when he beat him for the Ring title. The quality of these opponents is roughly the same.



I didn't say Pac wasn't an ATG at any point in this thread. And Burley is 1 guy Robinson didn't fight, not a complete style range of fighters. Burley was slick, but so was Kid Gavilan.



Sure he was legit, but he wasn't at his best, and Hatton was supposed to beat him. Where Hatton has deteriorated the most is in his ability to take a punch. Paulie was cherry picked because Paulie can't punch.

And the loss itself to Floyd has nothing, or little to do with why Hatton is ruined. Hatton is ruined because he took too much punishment (in and out of the ring) in his career. Floyd just happened to be the guy to finish his chin off for good.

Mayweather made Hatton move up in weight anyways, Pacquiao fought him at his best weight. It's funny too because of Pacquiao fought a guy smaller than him the odds would be rediculous in Pacquiaos favor to win.

[Obama]

His lifestyle did have an effect on his career, for sure. But it's not right to say that's why he lost against both.

Hatton was taking some pretty good shots from Mayweather until he got caught with a good punch and went head first into the ring post. After that it was clear the fight was going downhill for him.

And you seem so sure about him being ruined. I hope it's not because of his performance in the Pacquiao fight. Pacquiao landed a power punch that struck Hatton directly on the chin. It was a perfectly landed punch in order to score a knockout. I don't know about you but I don't think many fighters could withstand that punch without being affected.

Let's be real. Pacquiao had the perfect game plan against Hatton. Mayweather had a lot of trouble against Hatton in the early part of their fight. If he was such a slick fighter, how could this happen to him? It's because styles make fights.

Mayweather isn't a big puncher, but Hatton was taking waaaaay too many straight right hands from Floyd. It wore him down and eventually Floyd got him out of there.

I'm not basing it on the Pac fight. Pac can crack, but Hatton's chin was pre-cracked. As I listed before it showed up in the Lazcano fight. Lazcano had no business making Hatton go jello legged. The man basically came out of retirement for that fight and was moving up in weight.

As for Floyd vs Hatton, pressure fighters are known to give slick fighters a good fight while it lasts, and earn a pretty close decision with them provided they don't take too many clean shots during the fight.

Mayweather made Hatton move up in weight anyways, Pacquiao fought him at his best weight. It's funny too because of Pacquiao fought a guy smaller than him the odds would be rediculous in Pacquiaos favor to win.

Mayweather didn't make Hatton move up in weight, Hatton wanted to move up in weight. Mayweather was going to fight Tszyu @ 140 had Hatton not spoiled the party. But then Ricky did, and when Mayweather approached him Ricky's dad said he wasn't ready for the fight yet. So, Floyd moved on rather than lurk around a division not worth fighting in.

And sometimes weight is a problem in a fight, but it was plain as day to see it wasn't a problem in the Floyd vs Hatton fight. The guys were basically the same size. Floyd beat him with skill.