i dont get it

[Kendo]

why is ranking pac at P4P #1 a good thing. i mean he has beaten moralas twice and bararra twice. two legends maywheather beat DLH recently. i think pac has the better fights with those 3 wins. but idk just my thoght.

[-EX-]

They were both war veterans when Pacquiao got to them(except maybe Barrera). **** Zahir Raheem beat Morales. Let Pacquiao fight Guzman so I can watch him get his ass kicked or 140 so I can watch him get dismantled by Malignaggi.

[Fox McCloud]

why is ranking pac at P4P #1 a good thing. i mean he has beaten moralas twice and bararra twice. two legends maywheather beat DLH recently. i think pac has the better fights with those 3 wins. but idk just my thoght.

I dont' get which side you are advocating.

The two bolded statements seem completely contradictory.

[RAESAAD]

I'm not a huge fan of P4P rankings. It's hard to say. Anyway Floyd deserves to be rated higher than Pac regardless of who you think #1 is......assuming thats the point the thread starter brings up.....I think.

[THe TRiNiTY]

Floyd, overall has the more impressive career. Floyd is undefeated, has the bigger upside, has more fights left in him, if he chooses, and he also has a lot of padded spots on his record, but also some pretty good names there, too. Pacman has Morales and Barrera.. Two faded war vets. Floyd could match that with.. Say... Gatti and Mitchell, or De La Hoya.. or Zab Judah.. And now Floyd is fighting a fighter in his PRIME. Pacquiao has yet to fight a young, hungry, evenly matched PRIME fighter. Keep in mind, he did get knocked down against Barrera, and looked only OKay in the rematch and lost the first fight with Morales. Not to say that fight is more important, it just goes to show that he may STILL have a lot to learn. He's number 2, on the list, in all honesty.

[RAESAAD]

Floyd, overall has the more impressive career. Floyd is undefeated, has the bigger upside, has more fights left in him, if he chooses, and he also has a lot of padded spots on his record, but also some pretty good names there, too. Pacman has Morales and Barrera.. Two faded war vets. Floyd could match that with.. Say... Gatti and Mitchell, or De La Hoya.. or Zab Judah.. And now Floyd is fighting a fighter in his PRIME. Pacquiao has yet to fight a young, hungry, evenly matched PRIME fighter. Keep in mind, he did get knocked down against Barrera, and looked only OKay in the rematch and lost the first fight with Morales. Not to say that fight is more important, it just goes to show that he may STILL have a lot to learn. He's number 2, on the list, in all honesty.

I see what you're trying to say but come on? U have to be ****ting me.....Morales and Barrera are Legend material......Gatti has a big name but was never nearly the great champions Barrera and Morales were.Mitchell deserves little no mention.

[THe TRiNiTY]

I'm saying, at that point in their careers, they MAY have been closer to that level than one might expect. I dare anyone to take as many shots to the head as those two have, and tell me that they are the same person, let alone, fighter. Just not possible. I also said "or De La Hoya.." I gave plenty of examples. Legends are legends for what they have done, not what they are doing. It's rare a legend is in that category for what he's is doing at that point. It's usually for things in the past. That would be the case for Morales and Barrera. Unless you can truly think of something TRULY legendary that didn't involve Barrera-Morales or Morales-Pacquiao, that happened after they both faught Manny. I can't. They were pretty badly faded. No big deal. TRUE LEGENDS. I'm all for that.

[RAESAAD]

I'm saying, at that point in their careers, they MAY have been closer to that level than one might expect. I dare anyone to take as many shots to the head as those two have, and tell me that they are the same person, let alone, fighter. Just not possible. I also said "or De La Hoya.." I gave plenty of examples. Legends are legends for what they have done, not what they are doing. It's rare a legend is in that category for what he's is doing at that point. It's usually for things in the past. That would be the case for Morales and Barrera. Unless you can truly think of something TRULY legendary that didn't involve Barrera-Morales or Morales-Pacquiao, that happened after they both faught Manny. I can't. They were pretty badly faded. No big deal. TRUE LEGENDS. I'm all for that.

I got your point.....I was just being a prick I suppose.

[Kendo]

I dont' get which side you are advocating.

The two bolded statements seem completely contradictory.

im sorry i ment to put not a good thing thats my fault

[Kendo]

I'm not a huge fan of P4P rankings. It's hard to say. Anyway Floyd deserves to be rated higher than Pac regardless of who you think #1 is......assuming thats the point the thread starter brings up.....I think.

me either i dont like it either i think they are there for ppl to argue over lol. but pac fights wars in the ring lets face it. he goes in hands flying. i dont think he would be back down from anyone in the sport. im not trying to say he should be over maywheather im just saying why is it such a bad thing. i mean i dont think anyone else but pac should be ranked that high. also why isnt hatton ranked there. he is unbeaten aswell. i mean he did beat castillo and colazo i think castillo is shot but colazo is still good. i mean **** he did have the title. not saying i love hatton or anything but he is unbeaten and he is also not scared to get down and fight in the middle of the ring.