Manny Pacquiao: true champion? or just a belt winner?

[Pullcounter]

Shouldn't that should depend on who your fighting?

in general fighting someone bigger than your used to fighting is tougher.

That's not always true. See: Pacquiao-Diaz, Pacquiao-Marquez.

those are of course exceptions to the rule

[Iceta]

There are some fighters that I would've liked to have seen Pacquiao fight like Bradley, Alexander, and Soto. But at least he doesn't scavenge vacant title belts like Cotto does. And if Cotto beats Pacquiao that fact will still remain. Pacquiao has the heart of a tiger and Cotto has the heart of a hienna.

[IMDAZED]

Ewwww, what an offensive, slimy little ****wit you are.

Eww?

Nobody said beating Diaz looks better than beating Guzman and Campbell, but fighting Cotto, De La Hoya, Hatton AND Diaz (who was just a pit-stop) looks better than fighting those guys at 135 you mentioned. That's my opinion and I see nothing wrong with it. Fighters at this stage want only the biggest fights for the biggest money.

He fought David Diaz at 135. What people are trying to say is that if he was going to make a pit stop at 135, Guzman/Campbell would've been a more recognizable name and win. Bringing up what occured at 140 and above is irrelevant, Mr. Eww.

PS: Why are you lying? I said I don't see any SMW or light heavy keeping Calzaghe on the canvas if they knocked him down, and that it'd probably take a decent cruiser or heavy to put him down and keep him down. That's what I said. Not "Only a 200+ lb man could beat the invincible Calzaghe."

The real question is...why are YOU lying? What you said was:

1. "I've always stated that the only way to beat Joe Calzaghe is to KO him."

2. "No one under cruiser can KO Joe Calzaghe"

So what does that mean?

I think I'd watch who you were calling a liar - your post isn't so hard to find. Just stand by it; it's not like we don't know you're a Joe d*ckrider.

[WhoreUs]

You better what *****?

Cotto the WW champion, I said it, now **** off!!!!!!!

wait. what?

pacquiao is not a champion and only a title holder at 122 and 135 for beating another title holder BUT cotto is a CHAMPION for winning a vacant title?

LMFAO

[Pullcounter]

Manny Pac did not defend a MAJOR belt in the super featherweight division. He had more defenses at Super bantam (122) and Feather (126). When he got a MAJOR title at 130, he immediately went 135.

yeah and immeidately won a belt at 135, then immediately moved up to 147 to fight a 154 lber then immediately went to 140 and deposed the linear champ, and immediately is fighting cotto at WW.

so let me ask you this... is cotto a tougher fight than anyone below WW? and does a fight with cotto constitute a bigger challenge than defenses at 130-140?

[Ch@mpBox@PR]

There are some fighters that I would've liked to have seen Pacquiao fight like Bradley, Alexander, and Soto. But at least he doesn't scavenge vacant title belts like Cotto does. And if Cotto beats Pacquiao that fact will still remain.

Vacant or not it means ****. Its the opposition you face for the belt. Lets say Quintana was the WBA champ because in the Julio fight he wont it vacantly when Cotto steam rolled him, what difference whould have made?

[Ch@mpBox@PR]

wait?

pacquiao is not a champion and only a title holder at 122 and 135 for beating another title holder BUT cotto is a CHAMPION for winning a vacant title?

LMFAO

Fools dont understand sarcasm!!!

Cotto is a belt holder too, idiot!!!1

[Alibata]

yeah and immeidately won a belt at 135, then immediately moved up to 147 to fight a 154 lber then immediately went to 140 and deposed the linear champ, and immediately is fighting cotto at WW.

so let me ask you this... is cotto a tougher fight than anyone below WW? and does a fight with cotto constitute a bigger challenge than defenses at 130-140?

Aside from Mosely or Mayweather, I'd say Cotto is the toughest fight for Manny period.

[joartcc5]

So much is made of Manny Pacquiao's rise from a 106 pound fighter to the #1 P4P fighter and current junior wleterweight champion, and rightfully so. Pac has faced good competition consistently and seems to get better each time he gets bigger.

But one question that should be asked is: What does becoming a seven division world champion mean if you weren't defending your title?

Don't get me wrong, at 130 pounds, Manny was a legit champion. He took on the best of the division and defended his title often. But since his move to lightweight, where he won his 5th division crown against a mediocre titlist in David Diaz, it seems defending your crown is not important anymore. It's more about being able to say you're a 7 division champion.

Let's be realistic. Manny is already considered a 6 division champ even though all he did at lightweight was beat probably the worst titlist of the bunch and never defended his title. Now let's say he beats Cotto for his 7th division, what are the chances of him actually defending that title? If you think he's going to fight Floyd next, then maybe he will, but then he's neglecting another belt, the Ring belt at 140. Either way, he'll be a 7 division champion that only really actively defended his title in 3 of those divisions (flyweight, super bantam, and super feather).

Manny Pacquiao is a great fighter and an ATG already. His accomplishments are tremendous even if holes can be poked in his legacy, but one must ask if Pacquiao wins against Cotto, is Manny Pacquiao really a 7 division champion? Or just a 7 division belt grabber? If there's no distinction to you, I guess I'm just old fashioned.

Lineal titles shuts u up like the gayweather coward-lover that u are.

What u have are excuses.

[aether]

pac's performance in the Hatton and Oscar fight i think is making some people discredit his legacy. it is as if he beat them so bad, people refuses to give him the credit he deserves.

unlike most people here, i give pacquiao all the credit in the world for beating that version of Oscar. it was determined that the weight maybe a factor in that fight, but he was still supposed to ko li'l pac.

i think the weight thing is blown way out of proportions. people make it seems like the only reason oscar lost was because he was weight drained, in which i disagree. it was because pacquiao trained his ass off, and his camp came up with a great game plan. de la hoya showing up the way he did just made it easier. he made a "money fight" a "legacy fight".

pac was the favorite over ricky, but he wasn't supposed to ko him in 2 rounds. now, people are saying that hatton was exposed and has always been overrated. i'd rather think pacquiao has beaten a guy who never lost at 140, who was the linear champion, in the way no one expected.

that is why im picking him over cotto. im done doubting the little guy. he always performs in a way more impressive than what is expected of him. if he lost, it won't surprise me at all. it would never take away his previous accomplishments anyways.

all this nitpicking on his legacy is a waste of time. its just an opportunity for some of his critics to discredit pac as a great fighter.