Manny Pacquiao Or Jimmy McLarnin?

[McGrain]

I feel that way also. Secondly, I've never understood the infatuation with the Fidel LaBarbara win, the man was literally green at the time McLarnin beat him. But Jimmy's resume doesn't require any artificial inflation.

[dsmroman]

Close but pac-man.

[TheGreatA]

I feel that way also. Secondly, I've never understood the infatuation with the Fidel LaBarbara win, the man was literally green at the time McLarnin beat him. But Jimmy's resume doesn't require any artificial inflation.

Considering that LaBarba was the Olympic gold medalist and won the flyweight title with only 10 fights of pro experience, and McLarnin being only 16 years old at the time, it should rate as a very good win taking into account the circumstances in my opinion, if not truly great with LaBarba only being a novice in the pros.

[Southpaw Great]

Considering that LaBarba was the Olympic gold medalist and won the flyweight title with only 10 fights of pro experience, and McLarnin being only 16 years old at the time, it should rate as a very good win taking into account the circumstances in my opinion, if not truly great with LaBarba only being a novice in the pros.

Who do you think should be remembered as the greater fighter?

[McGrain]

Considering that LaBarba was the Olympic gold medalist and won the flyweight title with only 10 fights of pro experience, and McLarnin being only 16 years old at the time, it should rate as a very good win taking into account the circumstances in my opinion, if not truly great with LaBarba only being a novice in the pros.

I feel the same way.

But a fighter's win resume as it stands should be made up of fighters who impress by virtue of the fact that they were beaten by the man in question. It's impressive that a young - though vastly more experienced - McClarinin was able to beat a young Fidel over four rounds, but in a wider view it is basically meaningless. Fidel at that point in his career would be beaten by every single flyweight on a good top fourty list and many others beside. If Roman Gonzalez were fighting Fidel LaBarbara over 4 rounds tomorrow i'd bet the farm on Roman. And he's not even a fly.

It's interesting to me because of what each man would go on to achieve but Glick, Miller, Baker, Mendell, Goldstein, Terris, allmore important from the point of view of legacy.

[TheGreatA]

I feel the same way.

But a fighter's win resume as it stands should be made up of fighters who impress by virtue of the fact that they were beaten by the man in question. It's impressive that a young - though vastly more experienced - McClarinin was able to beat a young Fidel over four rounds, but in a wider view it is basically meaningless. Fidel at that point in his career would be beaten by every single flyweight on a good top fourty list and many others beside. If Roman Gonzalez were fighting Fidel LaBarbara over 4 rounds tomorrow i'd bet the farm on Roman. And he's not even a fly.

It's interesting to me because of what each man would go on to achieve but Glick, Miller, Baker, Mendell, Goldstein, Terris, allmore important from the point of view of legacy.

McLarnin certainly had more pro experience, but LaBarba was a quality amateur and being an amateur then wasn't far from being a pro. A 4 round fight actually favoured him. Of course McLarnin also beat him in a 10 round fight.

I'd say that Newsboy Brown is a top 40 flyweight, but he only came up with a draw against that same LaBarba in a 10 round fight. McLarnin beat LaBarba the same year that LaBarba became the flyweight champion by defeating Frankie Genaro. I think it should count as a pretty good win.

It also speaks volumes about McLarnin's ability to compete at such level when he was just 16-17 years old. Pacquiao at that age was getting KO'd by the likes of Rustico Torrecampo.

[McGrain]

McLarnin certainly had more pro experience, but LaBarba was a quality amateur and being an amateur then wasn't far from being a pro.

No, being an amateur then wasn't far from being a pro now. Think of fights like Bummy Davis versus Zivic or the Pep-Saddler series - as impossible today as they were in the amatuers then. The gap between the codes was just as big, possibly bigger - it was just more like what we are acclimatised to now.

Interestingly enough, there is a small sign of this in Fidel's early clash with Nationalista. Boxrec notes that, having never sustained a cut before, Fidel sustained a cut over his eyebrow fighting at quite a modest level.

Also, reports at the time descibe McLarnin as fighting "like a seasoned proffessional" whereas Fidel was, presumably, fighting like an amatuer given how green he was.

I'd say that Newsboy Brown is a top 40 flyweight, but he only came up with a draw against that same LaBarba in a 10 round fight.

Yes, but do you think this result is exactly the same in Fidel's first ten round fight? How do you value the thirty rounds of experience, three fights covering that distance? Surely it's worth gold for such a young fighter? I don't think that Fidel stepped out of the ring with McLarnin a worse fighter, or even one that was no different, experience at that time is beyond value.

McLarnin beat LaBarba the same year that LaBarba became the flyweight champion by defeating Frankie Genaro. I think it should count as a pretty good win.

I'll never be able to see a victory over a 1-0 fighter as anything but that without footage; nor a 2-1-1 fighter.

It also speaks volumes about McLarnin's ability to compete at such level when he was just 16-17 years old. Pacquiao at that age was getting KO'd by the likes of Rustico Torrecampo.

In fairness, McLarnin had been fighting smokers for around two years at this point. A two year pro should always beat a proffessional novice if he is off the McLarnin type class physically, IMO.

[TheGreatA]

I think you're under-estimating LaBarba's abilities at that point. It's a fair point about his (lack of) experience in an era where experience counted but he didn't have much experience when he took the title from Genaro, a 50+ fight pro. At the time he fought McLarnin, despite not having almost any pro experience, he was already talked about as a potential challenger for Pancho Villa. Clearly he was not the type of a fighter who needed a great amount of professional experience in order to be a top fighter. He was not the average 4 fight pro, much like Saensak Muangsurin who won the title at 2-0 or Jeff Fenech who won the title at 6-0.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...+labarba&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...+labarba&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...+labarba&hl=en

LaBarba added more experience before taking on Genaro but I don't think a fighter goes from a total novice to reportedly "the greatest piece of fighting machinery" and "one of the greatest 112 lbers the game has ever known" in a span of six months. LaBarba was an extra-ordinary fighter.

Also the reports stating that McLarnin was fighting "like a seasoned professional" at 16 years of age can only be seen as impressive. The only other fighter who compares to him in that regard was Benitez.

[McGrain]

I think you're under-estimating LaBarba's abilities at that point. It's a fair point about his (lack of) experience in an era where experience counted but he didn't have much experience when he took the title from Genaro, a 50+ fight pro. At the time he fought McLarnin, despite not having almost any pro experience, he was already talked about as a potential challenger for Pancho Villa. Clearly he was not the type of a fighter who needed a great amount of professional experience in order to be a top fighter. He was not the average 4 fight pro, much like Saensak Muangsurin who won the title at 2-0 or Jeff Fenech who won the title at 6-0.

No way is he going to be considered the "average 4 fight pro" - that is a certainty, he showed it, proved it, but the bottom line speaks loudest to me, and the bottom line is as I said, a two year pro with McLarnin's physical abilities should always, always come out on top in a series like this. You've compared him to Benitez, I think that's valid, and it's equally improbably imagining him losing to a 1, or a 5 fight pro. It just wouldn't happen.

Also, Fidel's lightning development likely occured in chunks - that is to say, although the ten-rounder with McLarnin was likely his big "learning" fight, each fight would likely resemble a quantum leap for him. He must have been imporiving with each outing. I'm sure, for example, we agree he couldn't have gone straight form McLarnin II to his title shot without recieving a thrashing; he's moved up several classes in several months.

Given the way McLarnin's own path opened up, it's likely that Fidel beats McLarnin upon their being matched with him within only months of his dominating their series. But not at 1-0, no way.

Fidel was very obviously a sponge, very obviously something special, but it's hard for me to see him as anything but out of his depth in this rare, early instance.

Also the reports stating that McLarnin was fighting "like a seasoned professional" at 16 years of age can only be seen as impressive. The only other fighter who compares to him in that regard was Benitez.

It's impressive, but why would it be otherwise? Boxrec credits him with something like 20 fights before he met Fidel, he likely had many, many more fights than this, given that he was recieving an intensive technical grounding whilst recieving in depth pro experience versus much older men I wouldn't really expect it to be otherwise.

Of course, his longevity is a part of his greatness, and to be fair, I think LaBarbara is as good a touchstone for the beginning of his rise to greatness as any.

[TheGreatA]

Benitez is the only example one can come up with in this case though. How many 16 years olds could defeat the Olympic gold medalist who was on his way to becoming a world champion and according to newspapers one of the best fighters in the sport? I wouldn't say that McLarnin had a large amount of professional experience at that stage either, mostly 4 rounders against no hopers. He may or may not have had more fights that BoxRec displays but they couldn't have been against notable opposition.

It's difficult to say how much LaBarba truly learned from his losses to McLarnin and whether he would have won another rematch without extensive knowledge, but McLarnin's wins did put his name on the "map" as LaBarba was already being considered for a shot at Villa's title. They can't be ignored as McLarnin winning over a novice because LaBarba was far from the average fighter.

It could be compared to derailing Oscar De La Hoya or Evander Holyfield in an early professional bout, but I personally think LaBarba was even more prepared to face top opposition at that relatively early stage of his career. A 10 round draw with Newsboy Brown after 6 fights and a win over Frankie Genaro after 10 fights, those are impressive results.

I should clarify that I do not recognize the wins over LaBarba as among McLarnin's best, but with some research I found myself appreciating them more and more. Only looking at LaBarba's modest record of 1-0 and 2-1-1 can be misleading, in my opinion he was already a force in the division at that stage. LaBarba surely gained some valuable experience in the following 6 months but I wouldn't put it past him to have been competitive against Genaro and Brown at the time he faced McLarnin for the third time.