Pacquiao - Measured against all time.

[IronDanHamza]

Idk. There was a lot of debate about JMM and his use of Memo Heredia at the time. Also the changes in his physical appearance.

On the other hand, I'm not clearing Pac (or anyone else for that mater), but the smoke from JMM stank.

There was a lot of debate around Pacquaio who also worked with people involved with PEDs.

What’s the difference?

[Century Tuna]

Top five P4P all-time? That’s laughable. Manny's resume might shine brighter to his fanbase, but let’s not rewrite history here. He cherry-picked opponents past their prime and dodged prime challenges when it mattered.

[JAB5239]

There was a lot of debate around Pacquaio who also worked with people involved with PEDs.

What’s the difference?

I've known many strength and conditioning coaches in my life. I can't say all, but I very good majority have used PED'S at one point or another, if not almost continuously (obvious breaks) during their lives. Point being, any fighter that works with a strength and conditioning coach has more than likely come in contact with some who has juiced. There is no difference in my opinion.

[QueensburyRules]

Looks like he's kicking off a series with Manny bro. I'm not trying to be a **** here, I am honestly asking. I clicked the link to the MAAT series and the only thing I see is Pac.

- - Hence the title...

Manny was the best Ring P4P fighter in history with the most consecutive yearly ratings both in welter and p4p history, the most Ring p4pers fought, beat, and KOed with nobody even close like the rest of the Kentucky Derby horses being a half lap behind the winner.

[IronDanHamza]

I've known many strength and conditioning coaches in my life. I can't say all, but I very good majority have used PED'S at one point or another, if not almost continuously (obvious breaks) during their lives. Point being, any fighter that works with a strength and conditioning coach has more than likely come in contact with some who has juiced. There is no difference in my opinion.

You’re 100% correct.

[djtmal]

Well firstly Hopkins definitely isn't one of the greatest fighters of all time but that's just an opinion.

.

Get off the narcotic maybe your opinion will change

[IronDanHamza]

Get off the narcotic maybe your opinion will change

Oh so you are of the opinion that Bernard Hopkins is one of the greatest fighters of all time, are you?

[HisExcellency]

Because I've literally just explained it to you, for I think the 3rd or 4th time.

It's not difficult to rack up a high KO% against unranked fighters. You can't gauge if someone is a puncher off that. Almost anyone with even slight power can do that.

If you look at someone who is a legitimate KO puncher, like say, Golovkin for example. Or Inoue, or Kovalev, just off the top of my head. What are their KO % vs ranked fighters? 90+%. THAT is a KO artist.

Not someone like Keith Thurman who has a less than 10% KO ratio vs ranked opponents. That, is not a KO artist. It's very simple.

If that were the gauge for what a KO artist then the fightets I've listed, that you keep ignoring, would be KO artists. Such as Andre Berto. Is Berto a KO artist? He has a 75% KO ratio. So, is he? Obviously no, he's not.



What is this fallacy nonsense you are spouting? Who said you need a 100% KO ratio to be a KO artist? Oh yeah, NO ONE. So stop with the bullshit.

Everyone you just named, legitimate KO arists, have very high KO % vs RANKED opponents. Whereas Thurman, who isn't a KO artist, doesn't. You are actually disproving your own point.

Also, maybe you haven't heard of James Tillis and Mitch Green but that just shows your limited knowledge of this sport, if anything.



Ranked fighters are fighters who are ranked in the Top 10 with The Ring ****zine.

Or more recently some like to use the TBRB instead.

Either suffice.

OK now that I understand what you mean by 'ranked fighter's' (Ring top 10), I'll tell you why you're WRONG. Firstly, Thurman stopped 22 of his 29 opponents PRIOR to facing Pacquiao. However, is it safe to assume that a few of those guys would've been ranked fighter's at the time he beat them? I can't be bothered to look it up but I'm sure that at LEAST 1 or 2 were and possibly more (e.g. Julio Diaz was a former world champion who he stopped whereas Soto Karass challenged for the interim belt). Assuming that's true, can we both agree that Thurman had a 100% KO ratio against ranked fighter's at THIS particular point of his career?

Following on from these victories, Thurman then faced Bundu (unranked fighter) who he failed to stop but did drop, Guerrero (ranked fighter) who he also failed to stop but dropped multiple times. He then beat and stopped Collazo (ranked fighter) before squaring off against both Porter & Garcia (ranked fighters) who he failed to put a dent in before finally facing Lopez (ranked fighter) who he yet again dropped but failed to stop outright. Therefore, based on the list of 5 ranked fighter's Thurman faced mentioned above, he stopped one of them outright and dropped 2 of the others MULTIPLE times proving that his power carried through to the highest level as both Guerrero & Collazo were former world champions whereas Lopez was a mandatory title challenger. In fact, the only fighter's he failed to drop were Garcia & Porter but even another top Welterweight (Spence) failed to get them out of there completely.

Therefore, all things considered, Thurman had a 100% KO ratio against ranked fighter's prior to facing Bundu and a 20% KO ratio against ranked fighter's after facing Lopez (who was his most recent opponent before Pacquaio). Therefore, your claim that he only 'had a 10% KO ratio against ranked opposition' is blatantly FALSE plus you can't overlook the fact that he dropped 2 of the remaining 4 ranked opponents multiple times who were both former world champions and world title challenger's plus Spence ALSO failed to dispatch of his best two ranked opponents (Porter & Garcia). Similarly, his KNOCKDOWN ratio was at least 60% against the 5 ranked fighter's listed above (Guerrero, Lopez & Collazo) plus he knocked down (and out) a few ranked fighter's in his first 29 victories too.

Finally (and to end this debate once and for all), can we both agree that Thurman was portrayed by the media and boxing pundits as a power puncher during his prime? If you're going to pretend this wasn't the case then you're simply LYING and using revisionist history plus he even referenced it in his 'One Time' nickname lol!

I won't be responding to your other post because I want to keep this discussion focussed on Thurman's KO ratio only instead of dissecting multiple fighter's.

[djtmal]

Oh so you are of the opinion that Bernard Hopkins is one of the greatest fighters of all time, are you?

He is an all time great.

@ mw he's in my top 5

all time definitely top 30

that would make him one of the greatest fighters of all time wouldn't it

[IronDanHamza]

OK now that I understand what you mean by 'ranked fighter's' (Ring top 10), I'll tell you why you're WRONG. Firstly, Thurman stopped 22 of his 29 opponents PRIOR to facing Pacquiao. However, is it safe to assume that a few of those guys would've been ranked fighter's at the time he beat them? I can't be bothered to look it up but I'm sure that at LEAST 1 or 2 were and possibly more (e.g. Julio Diaz was a former world champion who he stopped whereas Soto Karass challenged for the interim belt). Assuming that's true, can we both agree that Thurman had a 100% KO ratio against ranked fighter's at THIS particular point of his career?

Following on from these victories, Thurman then faced Bundu (unranked fighter) who he failed to stop but did drop, Guerrero (ranked fighter) who he also failed to stop but dropped multiple times. He then beat and stopped Collazo (ranked fighter) before squaring off against both Porter & Garcia (ranked fighters) who he failed to put a dent in before finally facing Lopez (ranked fighter) who he yet again dropped but failed to stop outright. Therefore, based on the list of 5 ranked fighter's Thurman faced mentioned above, he stopped one of them outright and dropped 2 of the others MULTIPLE times proving that his power carried through to the highest level as both Guerrero & Collazo were former world champions whereas Lopez was a mandatory title challenger. In fact, the only fighter's he failed to drop were Garcia & Porter but even another top Welterweight (Spence) failed to get them out of there completely.

Therefore, all things considered, Thurman had a 100% KO ratio against ranked fighter's prior to facing Bundu and a 20% KO ratio against ranked fighter's after facing Lopez (who was his most recent opponent before Pacquaio). Therefore, your claim that he only 'had a 10% KO ratio against ranked opposition' is blatantly FALSE plus you can't overlook the fact that he dropped 2 of the remaining 4 ranked opponents multiple times who were both former world champions and world title challenger's plus Spence ALSO failed to dispatch of his best two ranked opponents (Porter & Garcia). Similarly, his KNOCKDOWN ratio was at least 60% against the 5 ranked fighter's listed above (Guerrero, Lopez & Collazo) plus he knocked down (and out) a few ranked fighter's in his first 29 victories too.

Finally (and to end this debate once and for all), can we both agree that Thurman was portrayed by the media and boxing pundits as a power puncher during his prime? If you're going to pretend this wasn't the case then you're simply LYING and using revisionist history plus he even referenced it in his 'One Time' nickname lol!

I won't be responding to your other post because I want to keep this discussion focussed on Thurman's KO ratio only instead of dissecting multiple fighter's.

You’re all over the place with your ranked fighters. Here’s some advice for you going forward, why don’t you STOP assuming? You’ve done it multiple times and have been totally wrong every time. Let’s just stick to the actual facts.

So I will offer you some clarity;

Collazo, Diaz and Lopez? None of those were ranked.

Actual ranked fighters he fought;

Zaveck - Decision
Guerrero - Decision
Porter - Decision
Garcia - Decision
Pacquaio - Loss
Barrios - Decision

So on second look he actually has a 0% KO ratio vs Ranked opponents What a KO artist. Barely any knockdowns either and not a single one of those fights did he come close to stopping them.

He is NOT a KO artist. That is just simply a fact and I’ve explained that to you now numerous times.

I couldn’t care any less what the “media” said. The same “media” said Adrien Broner at 23 was better than Mayweather at 23. That is a none argument.

The data is what matters.